Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Nencini states Knox plunged the knife.
Machiavelli states that the judge assembles all expert witness testimony to declare the facts, and that no individual expert can be relied on.
The judge is the best qualified, so Machiavelli runs with the horses and hunts with the hounds, when removing Knox from the room. (As Mignini does too from time to time).
It is all a gross afront to everyone's intelligence.

I don't "remove" anyone; but neitner I need to "place" someone somewhere.

But Knox's guilt - as well as the evidence of it - does not depend on her being present in the room.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well the photo you showed clearly shows the blood on the handle, but of a smaller knife than the one from Sollecito's flat.

This seems a bit circular. It looks like you are willing to maintain that the knife was smaller, because the picture "clearly shows" the handle (the size of the knife depends on your theory that the mark was caused by the handle). And, well, you argue that you think the print was caused by the handle, based on the assumption that the knife was clearly small.

In fact you cannot support an argument that way; what you are saying, is just that you consider those assumptions as self-evident, and you are not going to question the theory.

But I think it's been tow times you failed to reply about Stefanoni: what do you have to say about your claims and about Stefanoni's statements at p. 16 of her 2008 testimony?

 

[Machiavelli]

Actually one cannot 'know' in a scientific sense that there was sexual violence - whatever that is. (...)

In a strictly scientific sense - meaning if you analyze scientific evidence alone - you cannot. It's correct. But it's the point. If you assess the information from scientific evidence within a wider context, you may be able to come to a conclusion.

 

[Numbers]

Maybe you should add that you are unable to disprove it.

This is another logical fallacy.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, especially since the relation between the claim and reality is (to be polite) dubious.

Here's an analogy to the arbitrariness of the claim:

I claim some random star, X, has a planet with life on it. I say that since the star is approximately like the earth's sun, it is compatible. Then I say, since it is compatible, it is proved.
You challenge me that my "proof" is defective - the evidence is not sufficient.
My rejoinder -
"Maybe you should add that you are unable to disprove it".

The statement in italics does not support "proof" or provide any convincing evidence.

To provide convincing evidence for my statement, I must provide supporting details that empirically demonstrate sufficient similarities in accordance with known scientific principles.

In my analogy, for example, I must show with credible evidence that there is indeed at least one planet of about the right size and the right distance from the star to support liquid water and life as we know it. At that point, with current technology, I could progress no farther in my argument. I would only have shown a possible compatibility. Issues such as atmospheric composition and actual presence of water could not be demonstrated.

So, to get back on topic, your original "compatibility" makes no empirical sense and the burden is entirely on you to show evidence.

ETA: Your superposition of the outline of a large knife on the stain simply does not account for the features of the stain.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry I missed this.

I do wonder if the defence were initially some what apathetic with regards to the forensic testing. This was just a routine procedure and they just stood around and were not sufficiently challenging. I suspect it was business as usual.clearly they did not choose to video the procedures or make challenges at the time. I think that with modern complex tests this is hard to do. I think in the Italian system they should agree a program of work. Clearly their right to demand tests is limited as we know some tests were not done despite defence requests, because e.g. the putative semen stain was not found by the prosecution.

I suspect it was only when a the work was reviewed by non-Italian forensic specialists that concerns were raised and this then had to be re-introduced.

Mach does have a point that if the defence failed to make a challenge at the appropriate time then they cannot forever be going back to established 'facts' in the case. This is not unique to Italy, if your lawyers fail to raise a point then it can be difficult to use this as grounds for appeal in the US system.

I understand there is a whole chapter of understanding the innocentisti have before them on this point.

You put yourself a correct question asking whether the defence was passive, "apathetic" because it was just routine procedure.
I feel allowed to suggest your interpretation is naive; and in fact, what appears to me is rather the contrary: the defence has shown through other actions that they were perfectly aware about what they were doing - or not doing, in this case - and their choices of when being active or passive were dictated by strategies. The defence experts were not idle and passive because it was routine procedure, but I tend to believe, rather the opposite: because it was not routine, it was a very sensitive topic. They could understand the points of evidence they'd better keep away from and those they should look closely into; they understood when they would better take a step forward, and when it would have been better take a step back.

The defence was prompt to visit the laboratory to access the pillowcase, analyze it to collect evidence about print analysis: they requested to analyze it under crimescope light and did so together with the presence of forensics and defence experts. That was during the early investigation phase. Vinci noted the putative semen stain at the presence of Stefanoni, who even pointed it out to him. At the same time, the defence carefully avoided to request the semen stain to be tested for DNA. The only defence expert who was sent to visit the laboratories to request access evidence was print analyst Vinci, they did not send there DNA experts Potenza or Pascali.

When Potenza was present at the knife DNA test, he simply did not ask about electronic files, not about other DNA documentation at all. He never came back again to request further docuemntation.
He simply had no wish to have further information. He just did not wish this evidence to be further documented.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

In a strictly scientific sense - meaning if you analyze scientific evidence alone - you cannot. It's correct. But it's the point. If you assess the information from scientific evidence within a wider context, you may be able to come to a conclusion.

-

What do you mean by "wider context"?

For example,"wider context" as in a wider context of evidence, as in all the other evidence besides the "scientific evidence"?

Just curious,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

Big Mach Versus Nencini?

I don't "remove" anyone; but neitner I need to "place" someone somewhere.

But Knox's guilt - as well as the evidence of it - does not depend on her being present in the room.

Does this mean that you would agree there is reasonable doubt that Amanda (and Raf) were in the room when Meredith was killed by Rudy Guede?

Does this mean you agree that Nencini was wrong to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Amanda struck the fatal blow?

Not that its merely possible that Amanda struck the fatal blow, but that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did?

I grant you that in theory, someone could be outside the room while Meredith was killed, and still be guilty of murder as an accomplice. But in reality, there is no evidence that Amanda and Raf were in the cottage that night, or ever left Raf's apartment as they have consistently maintained. (Obviously I am excluding the confused statements extracted under duress by the police, which in any event were ruled inadmissible in the criminal charges).

 

[Machiavelli]

This is another logical fallacy.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, especially since the relation between the claim and reality is (to be polite) dubious.

Here's an analogy to the arbitrariness of the claim:

I claim some random star, X, has a planet with life on it. I say that since the star is approximately like the earth's sun, it is compatible. Then I say, since it is compatible, it is proved.
You challenge me that my "proof" is defective - the evidence is not sufficient.
My rejoinder -
"Maybe you should add that you are unable to disprove it".

The statement in italics does not support "proof" or provide any convincing evidence.

(...)

The picture is itself evidence explaining why I believe the kitchen knife may have left the imprint, and thus, why there is no need to assume that the handle was covered in blood.

Nobody is required to "believe" things based on a picture, but I note as a matter of facts that nobody presented arguments to disprove it.

 

[Machiavelli]

-

What do you mean by "wider context"?


-

I mean any other information that contributes to the case evidence, besides the conclusions that are found to be scientifically certain through their own established scientific disciplines.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does this mean that you would agree there is reasonable doubt that Amanda (and Raf) were in the room when Meredith was killed by Rudy Guede?

Does this mean you agree that Nencini was wrong to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Amanda struck the fatal blow?

Not that its merely possible that Amanda struck the fatal blow, but that it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did?

(...)

I have already expressed my conclusions about this. I do not apply your reasoning at all, and I interpret any legal decision through legal principles (not trough Bill Williams' standards). Nencini was absolutely correct in his convicting decision, but his task is to establish whether it was beyond reasonable doubt that Knox is guilty, not whethr it was beyond reasonable doubt that she was inside the murder room plunging a knife in Meredith's neck.

Only her guilt needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The physical dynamics don't need to be determined with absolute certainty.

I do think that Knox was the one who stroke the fatal blow, because of her connection with the murder weapon and because Sollecito used to carry his own knife, so that he wouldn't need to use the kitchen knife. Therefore it is a straightorward conclusion. But I don't even ask myself whether this detail is certain beyond reasonable doubt, because evidence of guilt does not derive from evidence of this detail.

 

[Machiavelli]

To stage this you must know that no one returned to the down stairs flat, while you were out of the house after the murder, would you not agree? How could Amanda know this? After all, she was very removed from knowing who might come and go that night, and the last thing she wants is someone from downstairs investigating loud noises early morning upstairs..

A peculiarity of Amanda Knox as a suspect, was that she knew exactly that all other house lodgers were out that night except Meredith and her. Meredith was the only person - besides her - who would be sleeping at the cottege that night, and both Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox knew that

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I understand there is a whole chapter of understanding the innocentisti have before them on this point.

You put yourself a correct question asking whether the defence was passive, "apathetic" because it was just routine procedure.
I feel allowed to suggest your interpretation is naive; and in fact, what appears to me is rather the contrary: the defence has shown through other actions that they were perfectly aware about what they were doing - or not doing, in this case - and their choices of when being active or passive were dictated by strategies. The defence experts were not idle and passive because it was routine procedure, but I tend to believe, rather the opposite: because it was not routine, it was very sensitive topic. They undersdood the points of evidence when they would better take a step forward, and when it would have been better take a step back.

The defence was prompt to visit the laboratory to access the pillowcase, analyze it to collect evidence about print analysis: they requested to analyzed it under crimescope light and at the presence of forensics and defence experts. That was during the early investigation phase. Vinci noted the putative semen stain at the presence of Stefanoni, who pointed out to him. At the same time, the defence carefully avoided to request the semen stain to be tested for DNA. The only defence expert who was sent to visit the laboratories to request access evidence was print analyst Vinci, they did not send there DNA experts Potenza or Pascali.

When Potenza was present at the knife DNA test, he simply did not ask about electronic files, not about other DNA documentation at all. He never came back again to request further docuemntation.
He simply had no wish to have further information. He just did not wish this evidence to be further documented.

-

Thanks Mach, your legal strategy explanation makes sense as it applies to the semen stain,

I don't know about you, but it seems to me they (Raffaele and Amanda's lawyers) were afraid to test the semen stain because they were afraid of what they'd find, which tells me they themselves weren't sure if Raffaele and/ or Amanda were innocent or not. But, that's just a feeling I have.

Since I'm not their lawyer, and in reality, I don't care if they are innocent or guilty (except if their innocent, this has been hell on Earth for them, and that I do care about) and i'm not afraid to find out the truth, which means I would like to have the stain tested, along with the knife opened up, see the electronic data for the DNA test, QC logs from Steffi's lab, more evidence showing the staging is real, find out what happened to the pot plants from the apartment below, and of course listen to (or watch) the missing interrogation tapes.

There's more, but I can't think of them right now.

I'm not afraid of the truth, because the real truth is what I'm trying to find, not some confirmation of my bias.

If I had been in charge of that crime scene, it would have taken me weeks (if not months) to process it correctly, but that's me,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I mean any other information that contributes to the case evidence, besides the conclusions that are found to be scientifically certain through their own established scientific disciplines.

-

I understand. Thanx Mach,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you not understand how making such absolute statements makes you look like an idiot. If you said "Most common" that would be different.

In that cottage, all break-ins we have record about were from the balcony.

In general statistics, almost all burglaries are from ground floor doors/windows or from balconies (or equivalent surfaces). I mean it's a figure above 99%.

And there is also another statistical rule: burglars always chose the easiest way in (less dangerous/visible or easiest to break through). Take it as a rule.

 

[Machiavelli]

-


Thanks Mach, your legal strategy explanation makes sense as it applies to the semen stain,

I don't know about you, but it seems to me they (Raffaele and Amanda's lawyers) were afraid to test the semen stain because they were afraid of what they'd find, which tells me they themselves weren't sure if Raffaele and/ or Amanda were innocent or not. But, that's just a feeling I have.
(...)
-

Well it's more than a feeling: it's basically what he says in his book. Raffaele writes they - he and his defence team - refrained from requesting to test the semen stain for years, because of fear about the possible outcome.

Obviously he tries to explain that through fear about a forensics' conspiracy, reportedly shared by his attorneys. (but do you believe it?)

 

[JREF2010]

Do you not understand how making such absolute statements makes you look like an idiot. If you said "Most common" that would be different.

You have to remember the expert police team couldn't count circles on a tennis shoe and the computer experts destroyed several critical hardrives in this case.

So what kind of information would anyone accept without skepticism from these bumbling of the crime scene evidence?

and the bra clasp destroyed by incompetence or intentional corruption, but either way its destroyed....etc,...etc...

a sexual murder scene with a sperm spot near the victims legs and the forensic team doesn't test it (or at least didn't release the results)

etc..etc...

so now if this same team of "bumbling-experts" say we have proof!!! what does that mean to you?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I have already expressed my conclusions about this. I do not apply your reasoning at all, and I interpret any legal decision through legal principles (not trough Bill Williams' standards). Nencini was absolutely correct in his convicting decision, but his task is to establish whether it was beyond reasonable doubt that Knox is guilty, not whethr it was beyond reasonable doubt that she was inside the murder room plunging a knife in Meredith's neck.

Only her guilt needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The physical dynamics don't need to be determined with absolute certainty.

I do think that Knox was the one who stroke the fatal blow, because of her connection with the murder weapon and because Sollecito used to carry his own knife, so that he wouldn't need to use the kitchen knife. Therefore it is a straightorward conclusion. But I don't even ask myself whether this detail is certain beyond reasonable doubt, because evidence of guilt does not derive from evidence of this detail.

-

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

What you are arguing is that even if Amanda simply knew that Meredith was dead (was there at the time, watching or participating, or just found the body later), and never reported it, she is still guilty of murder by Italian law.

OK, I can understand that logic. I don't agree with charging someone with murder for that, but that's just me.

Personally. I have oiften entertained the thought that Amanda might have gone back to the cottage later that night and found Meredith's door closed and heard strange scary sounds from it, but never said anything about it.

Anyone who has lived in a key accessed apartment building knows there are ways to get in and out without a key and it's even easier if there are call buttons outside the front entrance.

Pretend she has to go use the bathroom and once out of Raffaele's sight, run over real quick, leaving a small rock where the door hinges (so it doesn't close fully), and be back in about five to ten minutes, but that's just my opinion,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

In that cottage, all break-ins we have record about were from the balcony.
In general statistics, almost all burglaries are from ground floor doors/windows or from balconies (or equivalent surfaces). I mean it's a figure above 99%.

And there is also another statistical rule: burglars always chose the easiest way in (less dangerous/visible or easiest to break through). Take it as a rule.

Alright then. . . Present the record of multiple break ins through the balcony

 

[Numbers]

The picture is itself evidence explaining why I believe the kitchen knife may have left the imprint, and thus, why there is no need to assume that the handle was covered in blood.

Nobody is required to "believe" things based on a picture, but I note as a matter of facts that nobody presented arguments to disprove it.

I will attempt to explain how an image is produced by an object coated with a visible liquid. I don't expect you to understand, but there may be some person reading this who may want additional information.

I will start with the concept of letterpress printing. This is the process where individual raised letters, or blocks of raised letters, are placed on a platen, inked, and a sheet of blank paper placed in contact with the inked letter assembly. A second, flat platen is then pressed against the back side of the paper that is resting on the inked platen (which has the raised letters). The images of the raised letters are transferred to the paper.

{This, of course, was the invention attributed to Gutenberg. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterpress_printing}

Now consider a knife that has blood on it - and the knife must be soaked in blood because it has seconds ago been used to cut or stab someone's throat, and has severed one or more large blood vessels. There was a spurting of blood when this happened, because blood circulates in the body under pressure somewhat greater than atmospheric pressure.

The knife then comes into contact with a flat sheet on a bed. Just as in a letterpress printing machine, there is a transfer of the liquid - blood - on the points of contact from the knife to the sheet. Transfer from any recess on the knife not contacting the sheet is unlikely. And transfer from the air around the knife to the sheet is impossible.

Therefore, the image of a solidly-filled in part adjacent to the back of the blade must be the handle of the knife. The curved image is the curved cutting edge of the knife. There is some indication that the knife was wobbled (moved slightly) on the bed sheet.

The flat blade of a large knife would not reasonably create the image of the handle on the sheet.

The knife which made the image in blood on the sheet is thus considerably shorter than the large kitchen knife suggested by Machiavelli, and the depth (curved edge to straight edge) is also much less.

 

[Desert Fox]

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

What you are arguing is that even if Amanda simply knew that Meredith was dead (was there at the timewatching or participating or just found the body later), and never reported it, she is still guilty of murder by Italian law.

OK, I can understand that logic. I don't agree with charging someone with murder for that, but that's just me.

Personally. I have oiften entertained the thought that Amanda might have gone back to the cottage later that night and found Meredith's door closed and heard strange scary sounds from it, but never said anything about it.

Anyone who has lived in a key accessed apartment building knows there are ways to get in and out without a key and it's even easier if there are call buttons outside the front entrance.

Pretend she has to go use the bathroom and once out of Raffaele's sight, run over real quick, leaving a small rock where the door hinges (so it doesn't close fully), and be back in about five to ten minutes, but that's just my opinion,

I think that Machiavellian is stringing you a line of garbage to be honest. I do not see a legal system working. You can already see by Number's posts that the Italian judiciary does not follow Italian law as is.

I also think that you should not follow him down such flights of fancy.