Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
:jaw-dropp

Machiavelli - the very definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt", includes this:

If the case can equally be explained with a guilt-narrative, as well as an innocence-narrative, the court is required to choose the innocence-narrative.

Of all the troubling things you've said............
Click to expand...

The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Resasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.
 
Kaosium said:
Doug, do remember that Italian judge who retired shortly after the acquittal and listed the video of the bra clasp as one of the most embarrassing things he'd seen and indicative of the need for reform in the Italian judiciary or somesuch? I can't recall the name, but I do think it came out shortly after the acquittal in October, 2011.
Click to expand...

Is this what you were thinking of? A pretty damning assessment, from someone who should know.

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/e-giudice-si-tolse-toga-non-sopportavo-pi-l-idiozia-troppi.html


Note: this is courtesy of Flipp from IA Forum.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Was his name Mori?
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks CJ! That was his name, Edward Mori, and the article was published shortly before the acquittal, though I don't think I saw it until slightly afterward. Here's a link to the article in Italian, I couldn't get google to translate the entire page, here's a bit on the collection of the bra clasp:

Edward Mori 9/18/2011 Il Giornale.it said:
However, it was enough to see the film in which one of the investigators waved triumphantly bra poor victim to understand that the crime scene had intervened the infamous team destruction tests . A demonstration of the precautions used , the policeman was wearing latex gloves . I stood stunned seeing the scene on the news .

The gloves are used to not contaminate the environment with the operator DNA , but not to manipulate a possible test, because after two seconds that are used are already polluted . We must instead collect each specimen with a sterile forceps and disposable . The gloves do nothing but carry DNA in the environment by first finding manipulated to subsequent findings
Click to expand...
 
Machiavelli said:
The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Resasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.
Click to expand...
Does it, by Jove? There is an obvious problem with that. Amanda's appeal takes the point that she has been convicted, in part, for not coming up with explanations for things the court could not itself explain. The example I read yesterday, from a translated summary of her latest appeal, was: why would the perp(s) have stolen the victim's phones and tossed them unless they were concerned that their unanswered sound behind her door might alert her roommates to her presence there? Nencini criticises the defence for not coming up with an explanation of something it is not for them to explain.

The more I delve into these cases the more I like the English approach: reasonable doubt means a doubt that is reasonable. The defence does not have to explain anything if the case is garbage to begin with.
 
Machiavelli said:
The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Resasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.
Click to expand...

Yet, somehow the series of totally ridiculous, improbable, and impossible scenarios that the pro-guilt folk have come up with are acceptable? You can't even come up with a narrative or a timeline that fits with the evidence the prosecution presented in court!
 
Dougm said:
Yet, somehow the series of totally ridiculous, improbable, and impossible scenarios that the pro-guilt folk have come up with are acceptable? You can't even come up with a narrative or a timeline that fits with the evidence the prosecution presented in court!
Click to expand...

MAch has Amanda and Raf stabbing Meredith and immediately running out of the room, just because, and then sliding around on towels in the hallway, then cleaning up their own prints and DNA while leaving behind Guede's, god knows what else.

However improbable or impossible, matters not to Mach. Amanda and Raf are guilty, that is the fixed variable in Mach's solar system, around which all facets of evidence must naturally revolve.
 
anglolawyer said:
Does it, by Jove? There is an obvious problem with that. Amanda's appeal takes the point that she has been convicted, in part, for not coming up with explanations for things the court could not itself explain. The example I read yesterday, from a translated summary of her latest appeal, was: why would the perp(s) have stolen the victim's phones and tossed them unless they were concerned that their unanswered sound behind her door might alert her roommates to her presence there? Nencini criticises the defence for not coming up with an explanation of something it is not for them to explain.
(...)
Click to expand...

Anglo, Nencini does not criticize the defence, Nencini finds the defendants guilty. And this, not because of something the defence failed to do, not because were unable to offer reasonable explanations, but right because the court itself was unable to see reasonable alternative explanations.
 
Dougm and anglolawyer beat me to it.

I still hold that Machiavelli has just redefined justice, so that "reasonable doubt" is no longer a defence.

Like Stefanoni who gets to amend the Italian Constitution on discovery, by attaching conditions to the release of evidence (critical for a full defence to be made)......

...... now reasonable doubt (Machiavelli-style) means that the defence must respond to the prosecution's claim: "this could have happened this way," with evidence that it did not. All the prosecution needs do is allege, and the defence must demonstrate.

Every once in a while Machiavelli shows us how this case is the definition of a wrongful conviction.
 
Machiavelli said:
Anglo, Nencini does not criticize the defence, Nencini finds the defendants guilty. And this, not because of something the defence failed to do, not because were unable to offer reasonable explanations, but right because the court itself was unable to see reasonable alternative explanations.
Click to expand...

SO it is the court which is at fault, then. What is the reasonable alternate explanation for Nencini claiming, without a stick of evidence, that Meredith's boyfriend was one of the contributors of DNA-material to the bra-clasp?

Let's not get into the other two.... what evidence did Nencini use? Nencini only asserted it, and the reasonable alternative explanation is as every expert in the world (apart from Stefanoni) says - contamination.

Oh wait. This is not science, this is a trial. Yes, you said that.
 
carbonjam72 said:
MAch has Amanda and Raf stabbing Meredith and immediately running out of the room, just because, and then sliding around on towels in the hallway, then cleaning up their own prints and DNA while leaving behind Guede's, god knows what else.

However improbable or impossible, matters not to Mach. Amanda and Raf are guilty, that is the fixed variable in Mach's solar system, around which all facets of evidence must naturally revolve.
Click to expand...

A murder that happened is something real, and something real is not "improbable or impossible".

Msssive evidence from multiple sources of multiple kinds against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is also real, so not something "improbable or impossible".
 
Machiavelli said:
The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Resasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.
Click to expand...

DougM used the words "equally well" not "weaker or improbable".
 
Bill Williams said:
Dougm and anglolawyer beat me to it.

I still hold that Machiavelli has just redefined justice, so that "reasonable doubt" is no longer a defence.

(...)
Click to expand...

Reasonable doubt is a possible line of defence (albeit to any rational person it is not the same thing as believing innocence).

But reasonable doubt does not consist in just stating that each piece of evidence may have an improbable innocent explanation.
 
toto said:
DougM used the words "equally well" not "weaker or improbable".
Click to expand...

It's obvious I don't see any pro-Knox scenario that works "equally well", neither I see explanations for pieces of evidence that work "equally well".
 
Machiavelli said:
A murder that happened is something real, and something real is not "improbable or impossible".

Msssive evidence from multiple sources of multiple kinds against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is also real, so not something "improbable or impossible".
Click to expand...

Again, I will respectfully request.

Please provide one piece of evidence that cannot be explained if Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. That cannot be placed into a "reasonable" scenario of what could have happened if they are innocent.

If that doesn't work for you, please provide a story, a theory, or some scenario of what happened that both fits the evidence presented at the trials, and is more reasonable than the alternative scenario of what happened if they are innocent.
 
Machiavelli said:
Anglo, Nencini does not criticize the defence, Nencini finds the defendants guilty. And this, not because of something the defence failed to do, not because were unable to offer reasonable explanations, but right because the court itself was unable to see reasonable alternative explanations.
Click to expand...

Outside the Italian judicial system, for example at ECHR, this inability to see reasonable alternatives is called "arbitrary" and "unreasoned" judgment.
 
Machiavelli said:
Reasonable doubt is a possible line of defence (albeit to any rational person it is not the same thing as believing innocence).

But reasonable doubt does not consist in just stating that each piece of evidence may have an improbable innocent explanation.
Click to expand...

Dougm used the term "equally well. " Not improbable.
 
Dougm said:
Again, I will respectfully request.

Please provide one piece of evidence that cannot be explained if Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. That cannot be placed into a "reasonable" scenario of what could have happened if they are innocent.
(...)
Click to expand...

I've been picking up them for years, and I watched the Knox fans going wild on them on this forum.
Pick up what you want. Take the bathmat print. It's very visible, and very connected to other elements. Does it fit "equally well" to Guede's foot? We know it doesn't.
Many series from my latest posts (talking about Guede-alone-scenario, pillowcase etc.) were instances of how the pro-Knox explanations don't work equally well.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom