Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

In essence what Nencini is saying is; The defence in requesting acoustic studies are questioning the veracity of the witness i.e. are implying that the witness is lying. Since the defence have no grounds for thinking the witness would lie there is no reason to question the veracity of the witness therefore there are no grounds to do the acoustic analysis.

In fact the defence are doing no such thing they are challenging the interpretation of the prosecution. The witness could be absolutely accurate in terms of what she heard and when. It is the prosecution who attribute the scream heard to MK, concluding that she was alive at this time, therefore the time of death must be later than the time of the scream; a vital issue. The defence were challenging this interpretation by the prosecution and hence this evidence of time of death. Nencini was clearly wrong to deny the defence request, on the grounds he gave, this would appear to be grounds for appeal, or for an application to ECHR in due course.

But the court also implies something that was said explicitly by the prosecution at the Florence trial: it is unrealistic that an audiometric test could rule out the prosecution interpretation, for that appears to be scientifically impossible even prima facie based on common sense.

 

[MDDVS]

But the court also implies something that was said explicitly by the prosecution at the Florence trial: it is unrealistic that an audiometric test could rule out the prosecution interpretation, for that appears to be scientifically impossible even prima facie based on common sense.

No, it depends on the result of the tests.

 

[anglolawyer]

................. or ...........................

Some of the reasons for the verdict are known only to Machiavelli. When, for instance, Machiavelli provides what he claims is visual proof of the equivalence of the kitchen-knife with the bedsheet stain, is he simply passing on something known, and referred to at trial, by Prosecutor Crini in the fall of 2013: but which plays no part in Judge Nencini's motivations report?

I suppose Machiavelli can take the rhetorical escape route of saying that Nencini cannot cite ALL the evidence against Knox and Sollecito..... except to say, that it seems fairly huge to me that if, indeed, it is provable that the bedsheet stain is the proof that the kitchen knife was involved in the crime ....

.... then it is mysterious as to why Nencini would make no reference to it.

Or worse, allow an unknown internet poster to reveal visual proof of something the prosecutor referred to at trial, rather than include it in his own report.

The other possibility is that Machiavelli is fabricating evidence - not telling us how this evidence was arrived at - namely, the method used to photoshop it.

Then again, no one seems to mind that on another matter that the EDF's were never released either.

He can and must cite all the findings and those findings must be rooted in the evidence somewhere, otherwise the verdict is not fully reasoned and is bad. He has 400 *********** pages at his disposal! Compare Nordheimer, compare the appeal court in Gilroy (topical thread) compare any common law judgment. 20 pages will usually do it. I could deliver a guilter judgment in this case in 20 pages that would not infringe any rule other than that it would be perverse and unreasonable. It would still be comprehensively perverse and unreasonable. It would not feature the lamp, though, since it was not proved in evidence.

 

[MDDVS]

This is, of course if we forget that there is no evidence of all connecting the "scream" with Meredith.

 

[Antony]

I think you have changed topic. You made a factually false allegation and now you are skimming on that.

Now, you throw your opinion in about who is good or bad at doing things, based on your feeling of the screenplay.
Now, actually, while I do think there is something kind of funny sometimes in the style of some officers and forensics, I also know that you cannot tell about their competence from that. I have seen most brilliant professionals looking awkward and or like idiots, and I learned how to have an attitude of respect. But anyway, all this has little relevance to the guilt or innocence of the accused: the accused are those under trial.

This is a very common theme in guilterland: the police are "not on trial", so that means that nothing they do is to be criticised. The accused are the ones who have to prove everything; "presumption of innocence" means nothing - it's the accusers who enjoy presumption of good faith.

That isn't how it's supposed to work, Mach. The claims made by the police are very much on trial. Unless they can be shown to be honest, then the prosecution has no merit.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) The police tampered with the murder scene several times as is documented in their own footage.

It's foolish to assume that a police officer would make the nonsensical action of bringing the lamp there, and do that without proving it.

2) No connection has been established between the lamp and the murder.

Not established, rather suggested. But the connection is obvious to anyone with eyes.

3) The lamp is no evidence of involvement of the accused (anybody could have placed the lamp there).

Not anybody; just Meredith or Amanda Knox.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a very common theme in guilterland: the police are "not on trial", so that means that nothing they do is to be criticised. The accused are the ones who have to prove everything; "presumption of innocence" means nothing - it's the accusers who enjoy presumption of good faith.

That isn't how it's supposed to work, Mach. The claims made by the police are very much on trial. Unless they can be shown to be honest, then the prosecution has no merit.

You are wrong. The witnesses are exactly presumed to be in goof faith, unless there is precise and serious evidence of the contrary.
Presumption of evidence does not mean what innocentisti suggest. It does not mean to interpret pieces of circumstantial evidence along with a theory of innocence.
It is supposed to work exactly the way it worked and exactly how I am describing it.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it depends on the result of the tests.

It doesn't. Unless they can prove that Nara Capezzali was completely deaf in 2007.
Something which is obviously impossible and against the manifest evidence.

 

[MDDVS]

It's foolish to assume that a police officer would make the nonsensical action of bringing the lamp there, and do that without proving it.

I'm not ssuming anything. I'm just making the observation that there is footage showing scientific police doing other nonsensical actions in this case.

Not established, rather suggested. But the connection is obvious to anyone with eyes.

No, it isn't. It's only obvious if you assume your conlcusion. What is the connection with the murder supposed to be? The weapon was a knife not a lamp.

Not anybody; just Meredith or Amanda Knox.

Or Rafaelle? Or Guede? Or the postal police? Or any other of the roomates? Amanda is probably the least logical person to have done it, guilty or not.

 

[Planigale]

But the court also implies something that was said explicitly by the prosecution at the Florence trial: it is unrealistic that an audiometric test could rule out the prosecution interpretation, for that appears to be scientifically impossible even prima facie based on common sense.

Mach I do not understand what you mean. It may be a translation issue. Audiometry means testing hearing, which might be relevant, but is not what i thought was meant which was an acoustic study. Acoustics is the science of sound. It would be equivalent to a witness saying they were sitting somewhere and saw something happening at a certain place (e.g. I was standing at the top of the Eifel tower in Paris and saw someone shot in Trafalgar square London, and then scientifically demonstrating that no matter how good a telescope you had London is over the horizon and not visible. So an acoustic study could demonstrate that no matter how good someones hearing was the sound of a scream (a sound of this range of frequencies and this amplitude) made in the flat could not be propagated to that place where a scream was heard, therefore the screen heard could not have been that of MK. This is eminently testable by experiment.

 

[MDDVS]

It doesn't. Unless they can prove that Nara Capezzali was completely deaf in 2007.
Something which is obviously impossible and against the manifest evidence.

So, if I say your name out loud now and you don't hear it it means you must be deaf?

 

[Machiavelli]

So police officers are deemed to be incapable of tampering? Irrelevant. I want evidence the lamp was there. That's all.


It is not obvious. You just haven't thought about it. The camera can prove no more than the photographer and all he can prove is that the lamp was there when he took the picture. This is really very simple. You have assumed the lamp was there and your assumption has remained unchallenged so long you can no longer question it. You, together with Nencini (and others) are so conclusion-led in your thinking you can no longer examine your premises.

Not only is there no evidence the lamp was there we even have a curious, lying postal cop as a prime candidate for the person who put it there.

Why wasn't it tested? You forgot to address that.

I never heard this defensive theory presented by the defence. Had they presented I and had they requested to test the lamp, I could say it would be possible to consider it. But such theory doesn't exist in the trial, not even to assess its consistency. The only reasonable assumption is that the lamp was there, nothing else makes sense under a legal or logical point if view, and a scenario of Battistelli carrying the lamp is not just unsupported and unclaimed, but also manifestly idiotic.

The photo shows the wire was plugged an has been pulled by the complete opening of the door.

 

[MDDVS]

Mach I do not understand what you mean. It may be a translation issue. Audiometry means testing hearing, which might be relevant, but is not what i thought was meant which was an acoustic study. Acoustics is the science of sound. It would be equivalent to a witness saying they were sitting somewhere and saw something happening at a certain place (e.g. I was standing at the top of the Eifel tower in Paris and saw someone shot in Trafalgar square London, and then scientifically demonstrating that no matter how good a telescope you had London is over the horizon and not visible. So an acoustic study could demonstrate that no matter how good someones hearing was the sound of a scream (a sound of this range of frequencies and this amplitude) made in the flat could not be propagated to that place where a scream was heard, therefore the screen heard could not have been that of MK. This is eminently testable by experiment.

Yes, I had this same impression. I mean, I doubt they could force test on the witness audition.

 

[Machiavelli]

So, if I say your name out loud now and you don't hear it it means you must be deaf?

Certainly you won't prove anything through an audiometric test. An audiometric test can only establish if someone can hear or is deaf. Nothing else about external circumstances.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is a very common theme in guilterland: the police are "not on trial", so that means that nothing they do is to be criticised. The accused are the ones who have to prove everything; "presumption of innocence" means nothing - it's the accusers who enjoy presumption of good faith.

That isn't how it's supposed to work, Mach. The claims made by the police are very much on trial. Unless they can be shown to be honest, then the prosecution has no merit.

You are wrong. The witnesses are exactly presumed to be in goof faith, unless there is precise and serious evidence of the contrary.
Presumption of evidence does not mean what innocentisti suggest. It does not mean to interpret pieces of circumstantial evidence along with a theory of innocence.
It is supposed to work exactly the way it worked and exactly how I am describing it.

You then agree with Anthony, just not the conclusion. Your statement, "The witnesses are exactly presumed to be in goof (sic) faith, unless there is precise and serious evidence of the contrary," is exactly what is wrong.

These witnesses do not need to bring evidence, they only need to bring statements which the court will assume is true, without evidence.

Strangely, even pointing that out brings the demand, "well, then it is up to you to prove their statements are false."

This is exactly what is meant by the reversal of the burden of proof.

Your response to Anthony, Machiavelli, is that we are starting to agree on things, and the disagreement comes only when deciding if this is the way it should be.

Thanks for this, Anthony and Machiavelli.

 

[MDDVS]

I never heard this defensive theory presented by the defence. Had they presented I and had they requested to test the lamp, I could say it would be possible to consider it. But such theory doesn't exist in the trial, not even to assess its consistency. The only reasonable assumption is that the lamp was there, nothing else makes sense under a legal or logical point if view, and a scenario of Battistelli carrying the lamp is not just unsupported and unclaimed, but also manifestly idiotic.

The photo shows the wire was plugged an has been pulled by the complete opening of the door.

How is the lamp related with the murder?

 

[anglolawyer]

It's foolish to assume that a police officer would make the nonsensical action of bringing the lamp there, and do that without proving it.

This is a distortion of the process. Requiring proof the lamp was already there entails no implied assertion that the police brought it in which the defence must then prove. That's just a reversal of the burden. It's exactly the same specious reasoning that ends up with the defence having to prove contamination. You say the lamp was there: prove it. The photograph is not enough.

Not established, rather suggested. But the connection is obvious to anyone with eyes.

No it isn't.

Not anybody; just Meredith or Amanda Knox.

Or Battistelli (or the other postie).

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, I had this same impression. I mean, I doubt they could force test on the witness audition.

As far as I know the defend at the Massei trial only requested an audiometric test.
Drawing conclusions from an acoustic study would be impossible imho (too many unknown data).

 

[MDDVS]

Certainly you won't prove anything through an audiometric test. An audiometric test can only establish if someone can hear or is deaf. Nothing else about external circumstances.

See posts #3352 and #3353

 

[Bill Williams]

He can and must cite all the findings and those findings must be rooted in the evidence somewhere, otherwise the verdict is not fully reasoned and is bad. He has 400 *********** pages at his disposal! Compare Nordheimer, compare the appeal court in Gilroy (topical thread) compare any common law judgment. 20 pages will usually do it. I could deliver a guilter judgment in this case in 20 pages that would not infringe any rule other than that it would be perverse and unreasonable. It would still be comprehensively perverse and unreasonable. It would not feature the lamp, though, since it was not proved in evidence.

The only question remaining, then, is why is Machiavelli (and others) arguing it now!

Aren't they supposed to have won on all the stuff which was cited by either Massei, Nencini or the findings of fact as found by Cassazione?