Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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).

And yet drawing conclusions about what a deaf woman heard is possible?

Sometimes you crack me up, Machiavelli.

 

[MDDVS]

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).

No, it's quite easy. Just put a sound source in Meredith's room, put a detector on Nara's room. Close windows and see how loud you have to play a sound until it is detectable by a human ear. You do that as a function of frequence as well.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.
.

But the defence does have to prove, if not that contamination occurred, at least that contamination - but meaning a specific contamination, not just any contamination - was a likely event, not just possible in rerun natura.

Unusual explanations, specific events and uncommon scenarios must be proven. This also goes for defensive arguments.

 

[MDDVS]

There are of course a few complications but if the test showed that even an healthy adult wouldn't be able to hear the sound duting the night that would be relevant to the credibility of Nara's testimony. Note that, as we speak, I can't hear the slightest sound from the aooartments on the other side of the street and I'm not an old lady.

 

[MDDVS]

But the defence does have to prove, if not that contamination occurred, at least that contamination - but meaning a specific contamination, not just any contamination - was a likely event, not just possible in rerun natura.

Unusual explanations, specific events and uncommon scenarios must be proven. This also goes for defensive arguments.

Contamination is a very likely event. It's the same process that creates "signal" DNA

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it's quite easy. Just put a sound source in Meredith's room, put a detector on Nara's room. Close windows and see how loud you have to play a sound until it is detectable by a human ear. You do that as a function of frequence as well.

It's not that easy. You don't even know about all windows, neither you always have the same weather and wind conditions or noise disturb. And you won't reach any certain conclusion about what a human person would hear.
But anyway that's not what the defence requested. They only requested an audiometric test.

 

[Machiavelli]

Contamination is a very likely event. It's the same process that creates "signal" DNA

Specific contamination. It means from Sollecito's DNA or from Meredith's DNA: By a specific profile on a specific item or finding.

 

[Bill Williams]

I was discussing the issue of the break-in through Filomena's window with someone who has seen the Channel 5 documentary - showing how easy it is to get in through that window.....

And in response to the whole thing about which is the easiest route, which is the easiest or most logical entry point, he said:

"Why is it that a stupid burglar is not allowed to choose a stupid route into a building? Why does anyone with half-a-brain assume that looking at the break-in 'logically' has anything to do with ANY burglary."

I was stumped for an answer. Maybe Machiavelli can help!

 

[Machiavelli]

No, it's quite easy. Just put a sound source in Meredith's room, put a detector on Nara's room. Close windows and see how loud you have to play a sound until it is detectable by a human ear. You do that as a function of frequence as well.

Nara Capezzali was obviously not deaf.

 

[Machiavelli]

I was discussing the issue of the break-in through Filomena's window with someone who has seen the Channel 5 documentary - showing how easy it is to get in through that window.....

And in response to the whole thing about which is the easiest route, which is the easiest or most logical entry point, he said:

"Why is it that a stupid burglar is not allowed to choose a stupid route into a building? Why does anyone with half-a-brain assume that looking at the break-in 'logically' has anything to do with ANY burglary."

I was stumped for an answer. Maybe Machiavelli can help!

Maybe because statistics show that burglars choose the easiest way in?

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

What a mélange of guilter crap. I see the universe in a grain of sand. The lamp is the whole case in microcosm. Let's look at each of your points:

• You did not hear the defensive theory because the defence does not have to explain away non-existent evidence.
• It was for the prosecution to test the lamp if it was considered to be of 'undoubted significance' (Nencini). You are suggesting that in a case in which the prosecution was intensely interested in finding forensic evidence of their presence in the room they nevertheless did not bother to consider this item of 'undoubted significance'? Are you expecting to be taken seriously?
• It makes sense that Battistelli in the 15 minutes or so he had before the real cops showed up wanted to view the scene in the darkened room in a way that interfered least. We know from Altieri (who had no reason to lie) that Battisteli (1) lifted the quilt to look at the victim and (2) lied about doing so. We therefore have a curious liar with the means and opportunity. That seems manifestly not idiotic at all.

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

How exactly does it show this? To me, it just shows an unplugged lamp lying on its side. Was the lamp damaged by having the door smashed against it? No. Is it likely the stagers plugged the lamp in, stretched the wire across the doorway, stepped across the wire but forgot the lamp they were stepping over when locking the door and throwing away the keys (Mignini's theory) leaving this incriminating item behind? Is it likely, if they did, that Amanda would not come up with something better than professed incomprehension? What was the lamp for again? To spotlight their DNA and prints wasn't it? Meredith had a working lamp, so they could use that.

The manifest idiocy is all on your side and that's being charitable. You have taken sides with liars and incompetents and the lamp proves it by itself.

 

[MDDVS]

It's not that easy. You don't even know about all windows, neither you always have the same weather and wind conditions. And you won't reach any certain conclusion about what a human person would hear.
But anyway that's not what the defence requested. They only requested an audiometric test.

The windows were closed, it was November during the night. You don't need to be very precise you only need to establish a lower bound.

Can such a request be made by the defence? Does a judge have the power to enofrce that test on a witness?

 

[Bill Williams]

But the defence does have to prove, if not that contamination occurred, at least that contamination - but meaning a specific contamination, not just any contamination - was a likely event, not just possible in rerun natura.

Unusual explanations, specific events and uncommon scenarios must be proven. This also goes for defensive arguments.

You are now at odds with just about every police service, other than Stefanoni's.

It is up to their service, and the prosecution, to prove that contamination is unlikely - not just to SAY that contamination is unlikely, and be automatically believed by the court. Usually this is done by conformity to protocols accepted within that discipline. They need to demonstrate they followed protocols, not jus SAY they did. (It is not up to the court to simply say, as did Massei, that contamination was unlikely, because, "Stefanoni told me so.")

You see, this feeds back to the problem with your statement that in the absence of bringing any proof with them, prosecution witnesses are assumed to be giving valid evidence, simply on their say-so.

We've highlighted a real difference between you and the rest of the world.

 

[Numbers]

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.

This statement is blatantly false. There are degrees of hearing loss.

An audiometric test of the witness combined with an acoustic study of her flat might have been very revealing. IIRC, there was a TV network (CBS?) that did an acoustic test in a neighboring flat and concluded that exterior sounds equivalent to screams were not easily heard. Perhaps someone has a citation with details handy.

Audiometric tests are non-invasive and painless.

Question to anglolawyer and others: Would an audiometric test requested for a witness in the UK or other countries be granted by a court, if the hearing of that witness was critical to verification of his/her testimony in a criminal trial? I presume the witness could refuse?

 

[anglolawyer]

But the defence does have to prove, if not that contamination occurred, at least that contamination - but meaning a specific contamination, not just any contamination - was a likely event, not just possible in rerun natura.

Unusual explanations, specific events and uncommon scenarios must be proven. This also goes for defensive arguments.

No they don't. Not until presented with scientifically valid evidence. That has yet to happen. The DNA evidence must get off the ground. It doesn't do so in this case.

 

[MDDVS]

Maybe because statistics show that burglars choose the easiest way in?

Maybe, but that's no real help if there's no single easiest way in.

Also, there many burglars who chose to climb as high as a 3rd and 4 th floor or more. Nencini himself recognizes that this climb is Rudy's habitual MO. But bizarrely uses this as evidence that he actually didn't do it

 

[anglolawyer]

This statement is blatantly false. There are degrees of hearing loss.

An audiometric test of the witness combined with an acoustic study of her flat might have been very revealing. IIRC, there was a TV network (CBS?) that did an acoustic test in a neighboring flat and concluded that exterior sounds equivalent to screams were not easily heard. Perhaps someone has a citation with details handy.

Audiometric tests are non-invasive and painless.

Question to anglolawyer and others: Would an audiometric test requested for a witness in the UK or other countries be granted by a court, if the hearing of that witness was critical to verification of his/her testimony in a criminal trial? I presume the witness could refuse?

Different system. The court doesn't control the evidence the parties choose to bring and has no investigative role of its own. In England and Wales, the defence would apply for funds to carry out its own test and to the judge only for any necessary order giving access to the various facilities required, like Nara's home.

 

[Bill Williams]

How exactly does it show this? To me, it just shows an unplugged lamp lying on its side. Was the lamp damaged by having the door smashed against it? No. Is it likely the stagers plugged the lamp in, stretched the wire across the doorway, stepped across the wire but forgot the lamp they were stepping over when locking the door and throwing away the keys (Mignini's theory) leaving this incriminating item behind? Is it likely, if they did, that Amanda would not come up with something better than professed incomprehension? What was the lamp for again? To spotlight their DNA and prints wasn't it? Meredith had a working lamp, so they could use that.

The manifest idiocy is all on your side and that's being charitable. You have taken sides with liars and incompetents and the lamp proves it by itself.

That's the whole issue in a nutshell. In the guilter world, and in the world inhabited by Nencini who sees significance in the lamp's-position, just what was it used for?

Machiavelli, can you tell us what it was for? Why would Knox and/or Sollecito bring that lamp into that room, at a time which is sinister?

Failing answer to that, your case has just fallen apart - esp. since as a.l. showed upthread, Battistelli lied about checking to see if Meredith was still alive.

 

[Numbers]

This statement is blatantly false. There are degrees of hearing loss.

An audiometric test of the witness combined with an acoustic study of her flat might have been very revealing. IIRC, there was a TV network (CBS?) that did an acoustic test in a neighboring flat and concluded that exterior sounds equivalent to screams were not easily heard. Perhaps someone has a citation with details handy.

Audiometric tests are non-invasive and painless.

Question to anglolawyer and others: Would an audiometric test requested for a witness in the UK or other countries be granted by a court, if the hearing of that witness was critical to verification of his/her testimony in a criminal trial? I presume the witness could refuse?

Here's information from the MMK site. This write-up treats "audiometric" as "acoustic" meaning a test on the sound environment in the flat, not a hearing test. {Emphasis added.}

Nara mixed up her nights on the stand (just like ”super-witness” Antonio Curatolo, a homeless heroin dealer) and said she heard the scream on Halloween, the night before the murder. A scream that traveled from the victim’s bedroom at the back of the cottage through thick stone walls, across a busy highway and through double-glazed windows into Nara’s flat. A scream she remembers only because she woke up after taking a laxative. This “blood-curdling scream” wasn’t remarkable enough in Nara’s noisy neighborhood to make the 68-year-old widow call the police, check her watch, wake up her sleeping daughter or tell the police about on November 2 after being told a girl had been murdered in the cottage she overlooked. Indeed, Nara waited 24 days to come forward because she thought the scream might have been a joke or the result of a traffic accident. Not only did Nara claim to have heard the scream through double-glazed windows but also people running and even leaves rustling. Nara changed the time she went to bed compared to her original police statement, issued a statement to Porta Porta before the trial and added a new detail about having a camomile tea. Nara said she was told about Meredith Kercher’s murder before the body had even been discovered and said she saw posters with Lumumba and Guede’s name on them before they’d been arrested and their names in the media.

A defense request for an expert audiometric test to establish if it was possible to hear a scream from Nara’s apartment was denied by Judge Massei.[1]

In April 2011, Giangavino Sulas, reported in Oggi Magazine that Nara suffered from deafness and from physical and mental problems and was undergoing recovery in a psychiatric ward. [2]

 

[Bill Williams]

I was discussing the issue of the break-in through Filomena's window with someone who has seen the Channel 5 documentary - showing how easy it is to get in through that window.....

And in response to the whole thing about which is the easiest route, which is the easiest or most logical entry point, he said:

"Why is it that a stupid burglar is not allowed to choose a stupid route into a building? Why does anyone with half-a-brain assume that looking at the break-in 'logically' has anything to do with ANY burglary."

I was stumped for an answer. Maybe Machiavelli can help!

Maybe because statistics show that burglars choose the easiest way in?

What statistics? Is this supposed to be one of those things we have to believe from you, simply on your say-so?

Sounds like the way this whole thing has been adjudicated! Regardless of whether or not Stefanaoni, for instance, demonstrates that her lab is not the dirtiest, most contaminated lab in Europe.... we're supposed to believe her, like Massei did, simply on her say so?

And it's now up to us to prove her lab is a hive of contamination?