Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mr Fied]

Moreover, a "piece of evidence" is not an object, but a reasoning. Evidence is not something physical, it's something logical, it's a piece of reasoning. Not a finding itself, but an inference that links a finding to other findings. It's developed from factual findings, but does not equate to any specific finding.

I would disagree.

A piece of evidence must be something physical or else it is just an opinion or hearsay.

If a person cannot be proven to be at a crime scene by physical evidence then I would say it would be very difficult to prove BARD that they were present.

There cannot be factual findings without physical evidence, only opinions.

The logical piece of reasoning would come from adding up all the physical evidence and deciding if that physical evidence logically implicated the accused.

 

[Strozzi]

Machiavelli, once the police and prosecutor realized that Raffaele's large knife could not have made the smaller stab wounds due to the difference in blade length and width and they therefore concluded that there must have been a second knife involved, did they go back and collect more (smaller) knives from the cottage kitchen or from Raffaele's flat for testing? If they did that, what were the results of those tests? If they did not, why not?

As for your earlier comment that the police did not regard knives from the cottage as of primary evidentiary value because Kercher's DNA could naturally be on them, they still could have tested them for traces of her blood. If they had found a knife from the cottage's kitchen that had Kercher's blood on it (especially in the junction of the blade and handle) and if that knife blade was of the correct length and width to fit the dimensions of the two stab wounds, that would have been important for the police to know, wouldn't it?

The police did test Lumumba's knifes and the results were negative for Kercher's DNA, right? From both his home and bar?

 

[acbytesla]

You misrepresent or misunderstand it systematically, anyway. And this seem to me a constant problem of the Knox supporters. They seem in general to refuse the concept of circumstantial evidence, and fail to understand it. They don't understand how a series of elements each one itself not certain as for its cause and not conclusive, can lead to certainty beyond reasonable doubt. They draw any kind of misrepresentation about this logics process, and about the content of each piece of evidence.

On this you are right. We do have a fundamental different understanding of circumstantial evidence. It is clear that you combine pieces of evidence that in of themselves are not credible and in your osmotic approach combine them and declare that in the whole they are compelling.

This baffles me. Nothing could make the testimonies of Nara, Curatolo or Quintavalle reliable. The same goes for the positive Luminol/negative TMB tests.

I don't put a bunch of horse turds together and make a meal out of them and say "yummy". It will always be feces to me.

I have no problem applying an osmotic approach to "credible" evidence.

But in truth, you never use the same osmotic approach to the exculpatory evidene, only to the evidence that helps your case. You ignore the digestion evidence, the non-existent ties from Rudy to Amanda/Raffaele, the absurd idea that Raffaele's cooking knife was the murder weapon or Rudy's statements where he admits being there during the murder but says Amanda was the there. Or Rudy always saying that Meredith was killed around 9:30.

 

[zotz]

A trial is not a skeptics forum.
Pieces of circumstantial evidence don't have arbitrary proof thresholds. Their value depends on the logical alternatives.
Moreover, a "piece of evidence" is not an object, but a reasoning. Evidence is not something physical, it's something logical, it's a piece of reasoning. Not a finding itself, but an inference that links a finding to other findings. It's developed from factual findings, but does not equate to any specific finding.

What is "logical" is so purely subjective as to be meaningless when separated from the context in which the evidence occurred. The police were certain that "Ci vediamo piu tardi" was proof of an appointment on the night of Nov. 1. It was exactly what they were expecting to find. Confirmation bias occurs when you take a piece of evidence out of context and use it as proof of what you already know is the truth. The danger of confirmation bias is that the investigator will often ignore or dismiss the exculpatory evidence that puts the evidence in its proper context. In this case the police ignored the "buona serata" part that proved that Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night.

There are dozens of examples of "evidence" like that in this case. Sometimes guilters will take half a sentence that Amanda spoke and ignore the other half.
They are certain that the glass was on top of the clothes in Filomena's room but then they can't show us a single photo of glass on top of the clothes. And the main evidence for that statement comes from the person that admits to disturbing the crime scene.

These are all half truths that add up to nothing. That is the lesson that the Italian police and courts have learned in this case. And thanks to the better half of the Italian judges and legal experts, the lesson has been learned which is a victory for the Italian legal system. Italy has progressed and should be congratulated because change is not easy and is often painful.

 

[Bill Williams]

"The burden of proof is on those who assert that something exists" - Machiavelli

There is categorical proof that Stefanoni suppressed DNA profiles.

There is zero. That's the point. An absolute zero.
It's an invention and a vicious lie.

Well, then, Machiavelli, why did the ISC in March 2015 acquit the pair? Whereas in the past you accused various Italian judges of criminality, you do not do so now. That then leaves your assertions, "There is zero." "It's an invention and a vicious lie." as nothing more than your opinions.

I will give you that, of all the guilters, you are the less mindless. You actually DO give it a go. Yet you, now, only go part way.

Please explain why the Marasca/Bruno court acquitted. Although it is readily searchable here on ISF, can you explain again why you believe that Hellmann, Zanetti, and De Nunzio are criminals.

I anticipate won't be successful if you try to lecture me about Italian Jurisprudence. About logic neither.
You misrepresent or misunderstand it systematically, anyway. And this seem to me a constant problem of the Knox supporters. They seem in general to refuse the concept of circumstantial evidence, and fail to understand it. They don't understand how a series of elements each one itself not certain as for its cause and not conclusive, can lead to certainty beyond reasonable doubt. They draw any kind of misrepresentation about this logics process, and about the content of each piece of evidence.

At the very least, there IS evidence that what you say is at least "out there" in the Italian process.

AFAIUI the highlighted part is not your invention, but the core of the reasoning of the Chieffi court in 2013.

Let me suggest something. The three items remanded to the Nencini court from the Chieffi court were, perhaps, the tipping point - even for the Chieffi court. The untested nature of 36I, the testimony of the jailhouse snitch, and the sex-game gone wrong theory. Who knows, those three items could have been, for Chieffi, the intangible on which this whole case turned.

So consider this - all that the Marasca/Bruno court has to say is - Nencini came to the wrong verdict, because all three of those things went the defence's way. That includes the "sex-game gone wrong" which neither Crini nor Nencini even gave the light of day.

So, even with the very slim standard of proof described as this osmosis of weak circumstantial evidence; the final analysis of it does not pass the smell test. For Nencini to convict, he has to reopen all sort of items of which evidence was not even presented in his court. Indeed, most of this ends up in the judges motivations report, stuff not even brought up in his trial, meaning that the defence simply had no opportunity to make full answer.

You seem to approve of this kind of trial by ambush. However, even conceding rhetorically for a second that the standard if proof is as low as you would suggest - trial by osmosis of otherwise extremely weak circumstantial imaginings - which I concede has some judicial traction in your country......

..... except I don't think you should be bragging about it.

This trial by osmosis of weak circumstantial evidence is dangerous. It's akin to you believing that Stefanoni said,"yes" to releasing the raw data files, and then you say that their release is fraught with concern IF they get into the hands of the defence. Or that they should only be released, "with caution."

You cannot have both those things. It makes it seem like you believe that Stefanoni was willing to release then, but eventually declined because the defence would not accept her "cautions". It may work that way in Italy (which I don't believe it does), but those sorts of things are the hallmark of wrongful convictions worldwide.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is trickier. It sounds part-way reasonable, but when it is dishonestly applied it justifies all of the arbitrariness in the Perugia judicial process. One unsound "finding" is used to bolster another, until "findings" are made that don't have any connection with concrete facts. For example, people go on talking about the "staged break-in", the "call made after the police arrived", the "multiple killers" and endless other discredited factoids.

This is the basis for so many of bogus reasons given by Mach and others for sustaining their ugly views.

Do not forget the argument that Amanda kept changing her story

 

[Numbers]

....
Pieces of circumstantial evidence don't have arbitrary proof thresholds. Their value depends on the logical alternatives.
Moreover, a "piece of evidence" is not an object, but a reasoning. Evidence is not something physical, it's something logical, it's a piece of reasoning. Not a finding itself, but an inference that links a finding to other findings. It's developed from factual findings, but does not equate to any specific finding.

The statements in the quoted post are the opinions of Machiavelli, and are totally contrary to Italian procedural law. Machiavelli claims to be presenting Italian law, but that is not at all true.

For example, Italian procedural law, CPP Article 192, Evaluation of evidence, states:

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.

2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent.

3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offense or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.

4. The provisions of para. 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Note: Paragraphs 3 and 4 above would apply to statements by Rudy Guede.

Also consider CPP Article 191, Unlawfully gathered evidence:

1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.

2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Comments based on the above CPP Articles:
1. "Evidence" as a term or concept used in Italian courts - when they indeed follow Italian law - is essentially the same as that used in the courts of the US and other democratic states.

Evidence is defined as direct evidence, that is, the testimony of a person based on what that person has seen or heard during an event (and not as hearsay from another source) or as circumstantial evidence, which includes all objects or demonstrable facts admissible because they have been legally obtained, have probative value (are "serious"), have reliability including adherence to appropriate forensic science standards and precision - not mere compatibility (are "precise"), and are not contradictory (are "consistent").

Evidence is not a reasoning, inference, hypothesis, or theory. A "reasoning" or "grounds of the judgment" is a finding, conclusion, or judgment and the explanation for the motivation of the finding, conclusion, or judgment, and is, by Italian law, to be based on evidence, and developed by the process of reasoning. Inference is a reasoning process to derive a finding, conclusion, or judgment from evidence.

2. A "finding" is, for the US, a determination of "fact" - a conclusion based on fact - from other facts by a judge or jury. The "finding" based on facts is to be distinguished from a "conclusion of law" which is the opinion or interpretation of a judge of what the law is based solely on consideration of existing laws.

 

[Welshman]

Look you, boyo, yakkyda; the prosecution did not call V&C incompetent buffoons as court protocol does not encourage pyrotechnics, but mutual respect. It is for the judge/s to determine the witness' credibility. O do do do do.

Like Machiavelli Vixen has failed to answer my questions. I do not expect the prosecution to call C&V incompetent buffons. I was referring to how Machiavelli has constantly described them due to their supposed incompetence and lack of expertise. It is stupid to say only judges decide if witnesses are credible. If expert witnesses are called, the defence/prosecution has a right to question their expertise. For instance, if someone testified on behalf of the prosecution in a case that he was an expert on ballistics when in reality he was not, it would be reasonable for the defence to question the witness on his lack of expertise and raise this is as an issue. Machaivelli has been constantly banging on about the incompetence and lack of expertise of C&V. I find it odd the prosecution never exploited this. I find it odd that despite being supposedly being the keystone cops of DNA science neither Machiavelli or the prosecution have been able to rebutt their report.

By the way the phrases look you and boyo are never actually used in Wales. Yakkyda should be iechyd da. Vixen could have least made an effort to spell the phrase correctly.

 

[bagels]

Pieces of circumstantial evidence don't have arbitrary proof thresholds. Their value depends on the logical alternatives.

I agree. Meredith was obviously killed by the burglar who left bloody imprints of his body all around and inside her body after breaking into the cottage in nearly identical fashion to a previous break-in he committed and using the exact same type of weapon he was wielding while committing a previous crime.

She obviously was not killed by an American girl teaming up with an Italian student she just met and could barely speak with, who happened to run into a burglar they never communicated with, rushing over to kill her roommate in her own home for no reason, 20 minutes after being seen cozying up in the boyfriends apartment across town, while leaving behind no physical evidence except that which pointed to the burglar, which just happened to salvage the theory of legal officials that was created while essentially beating a statement out of a clueless girl in the middle of the night based on themselves being too fat to imagine someone climbing into a window, even though the actual culprit did a similar climb two weeks prior.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree. Meredith was obviously killed by the burglar who left bloody imprints of his body all around and inside her body after breaking into the cottage in nearly identical fashion to a previous break-in he committed and using the exact same type of weapon he was wielding while committing a previous crime.

She obviously was not killed by an American girl teaming up with an Italian student she just met and could barely speak with, who happened to run into a burglar they never communicated with, rushing over to kill her roommate in her own home for no reason, 20 minutes after being seen cozying up in the boyfriends apartment across town, while leaving behind no physical evidence except that which pointed to the burglar, which just happened to salvage the theory of legal officials that was created while essentially beating a statement out of a clueless girl in the middle of the night based on themselves being too fat to imagine someone climbing into a window, even though the actual culprit did a similar climb two weeks prior.

translation = "It's just a black guy. We can make up any ********".

 

[Matthew Best]

translation = "It's just a black guy. We can make up any ********".

Translation - I got nothin', maybe I could play the race card?

 

[Machiavelli]

The statements in the quoted post are the opinions of Machiavelli, and are totally contrary to Italian procedural law. Machiavelli claims to be presenting Italian law, but that is not at all true.

For example, Italian procedural law, CPP Article 192, Evaluation of evidence, states:

1. The judge shall evaluate evidence specifying the results reached and the criteria adopted in the grounds of the judgment.

2. The existence of a fact cannot be inferred from circumstantial evidence unless such evidence is serious, precise and consistent

.

Exactly what was in this case.

3. The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offense or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.

Almost, but not entirely correct. Little merits with the case anyway.

4. The provisions of para. 3 shall apply also to the statements made by a person accused of an offence that is joined to the one being prosecuted, in the case referred to in Article 371, paragraph 2, letter b).

Note: Paragraphs 3 and 4 above would apply to statements by Rudy Guede.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about (we were talking about raw data and testimonies by Stefanoni, Gubbiotti and Finzi). I fail to imagine how you think this was refuting the points I was making.

Also consider CPP Article 191, Unlawfully gathered evidence:

1. Evidence gathered in violation of the prohibitions set by law shall not be used.

Prohibitions "set by the law" is a concept that doesn't relate with what we are talking about.

2. The exclusion of evidence may be declared also ex officio at any stage and instance of the proceedings.

Which has nothing to to also, insofar as judges explicitly declined request to declare exclusion of evidence we were talking about.

Comments based on the above CPP Articles:

1. "Evidence" as a term or concept used in Italian courts - when they indeed follow Italian law - is essentially the same as that used in the courts of the US and other democratic states.

Evidence is a logical concept within Italian jurisprudence, not a phisical concept, whatever you like it or not, believe it or not.
Whatever you think it matches the use made in other jurisdictions sometimes, or not.

Evidence is defined as direct evidence, that is, the testimony of a person based on what that person has seen or heard during an event (and not as hearsay from another source) or as circumstantial evidence, which includes all objects or demonstrable facts admissible because they have been legally obtained, have probative value (are "serious"), have reliability including adherence to appropriate forensic science standards and precision - not mere compatibility (are "precise"), and are not contradictory (are "consistent").

False. Evidence is evidence. Not "direct evidence".

p.s. The word "evidence" doesn't exist in Italian law. We have two distinct words, "indizio" and "prova".

Evidence is not a reasoning, inference, hypothesis, or theory. A "reasoning" or "grounds of the judgment" is a finding, conclusion, or judgment and the explanation for the motivation of the finding, conclusion, or judgment, and is, by Italian law, to be based on evidence, and developed by the process of reasoning. Inference is a reasoning process to derive a finding, conclusion, or judgment from evidence.

Evidence is not a theory. It is an inference.
It is a pice of logical reasoning.

2. A "finding" is, for the US, a determination of "fact" - a conclusion based on fact - from other facts by a judge or jury. The "finding" based on facts is to be distinguished from a "conclusion of law" which is the opinion or interpretation of a judge of what the law is based solely on consideration of existing laws.

A finding, as for Italian law, is not a "conclusion based on fact". We don't use the word "finding" btw, we use words like "elemento" or "risultanza", which are distinct from the word "conclusion".

Art. 192 and jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence does not say evidence may consist in conjecture, bubjective judgement or speculation in lieu of fact. There must be an objective fact, that needs to be found as certain, as merely an objective piece of reality, as a basis of any inference. The objective fact (the "finding") needs to be ascertained itself as a true fact independently from any inference. However, an objective finding itself is only the basis for the building of the piece of circumstantial evidence, it does not constitute "evidence" itself, and not necessarily can be used as part of a proof.
A piece of circumstantial evidence is a piece of comprehensive reasoning made by using such element within an inference (albeit in common speaking we can identify such reasoning about the finding with the finding itself). When considered alone, in isolation from other elements, one may not know if a finding is a piece of evidence or not. This in fact depends on its capability of being part of a "system" together with other findings. It's the existence of such a system that forms the proof, not the objective elements taken alone.
Multiple contradictory inferences may often be drawn from a single element itself, the element thus might be imperfect or ambiguous as for its "meaning" and the conclusion that you can draw from it, without this preventing it from becoming evidence. Pieces of circumstantial evidence in Italian law are called "indicators".

 

[acbytesla]

translation = "It's just a black guy. We can make up any ********".

What did we make up? Rudy WAS THERE! He admits being there. His fingerprints and bloody shoe prints are there. He IS a burglar. He DID flee the country, His DNA found on Metedith's purse and in her vagina. Rudy says Meredith was killed only minutes after Amanda and Raffaele were seen at Raffaele's apartment. And there isn't a single, call, email or text between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele EVER!

 

[zotz]

translation = "It's just a black guy. We can make up any ********".

It was the Italian police that hit and kicked Patrick and called him "dirty black". Then they kept him in jail weeks after they knew that he was innocent and then they refused to allow him to reopen his bar for months for reasons of pure spite because he filed a lawsuit against the Italian authorities and did the Daily Mail article. Then, it was the Italian police and prosecutors that arrested, tried, and convicted the "black guy". Then Mignini turned around and called him "poor Rudy" and pressured him into fingering Knox which Rudy resisted doing for three months after being arrested.

Aren't you ashamed of all this Italian racism?

 

[Bill Williams]

translation = "It's just a black guy. We can make up any ********".

Translation - I got nothin', maybe I could play the race card?

LOL! I was about to observe the same thing. It's as if Machiavelli was reading off of a script which said, "When backed into a corner, play the race card!"

This is a variation of the "poor Rudy" meme that Mignini tried to play at trial, as if he was saying, "Forget the evidence, or lack of same: think of poor Rudy being saddled with this all by himself."

It's truly bizarre the things people like Machiavelli can just chuck into a thread, expecting it to be believed because...... well, just because.

It would be great if Machiavelli refrained from this, and presented evidence. When presented with evidence that Ms. Stefanoni misrepresented evidence, and perhaps even fabricated evidence, all he will say is, "That's a lie! That's delusional!" as if that settles it.

Machiavelli's cue card says: "Point weak. Play race card."

 

[Machiavelli]

It was the Italian police that hit and kicked Patrick and called him "dirty black". Then they kept him in jail weeks after they knew that he was innocent and then they refused to allow him to reopen his bar for months for reasons of pure spite because he filed a lawsuit against the Italian authorities and did the Daily Mail article. Then, it was the Italian police and prosecutors that arrested, tried, and convicted the "black guy". Then Mignini turned around and called him "poor Rudy" and pressured him into fingering Knox which Rudy resisted doing for three months after being arrested.

Aren't you ashamed of all this Italian racism?

I feel embarassment for you because of your lies.

 

[MichaelB]

Statement of Mohamed Barrow aka 'Momi'

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Barrow-Statement-11-Dec-2007.pdf

 

[Machiavelli]

What did we make up? Rudy WAS THERE! He admits being there. His fingerprints and bloody shoe prints are there. He IS a burglar. He DID flee the country, His DNA found on Metedith's purse and in her vagina. Rudy says Meredith was killed only minutes after Amanda and Raffaele were seen at Raffaele's apartment. And there isn't a single, call, email or text between Rudy and Amanda or Raffaele EVER!

Denial, acbytesla. Denial.

Sometimes when I talk with Israelis about the Israel-Palestinian issue, someone presents the topical concepts of "narrative", for example "it was the Arab states attacked Israel in 1948", as a justification and explanation of things like ethnic cleansing of palestinians. Without getting into details of a very complex chain of historic events, you cen see how calling for "elements" like that in your discussion is a type of rhetoric, that aims - through slogans - to present a false narrative essentially based on denial. For example it is true that Arab States attacked Israel in 1948. But Arab states attacked Israel on May 15. 1948. Israeli paramilitaries perpetrated massacres before, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, on April 9.
April 9. is before may 15.

The method is very simple: if you omit pieces from reality, while you cherry pick up some pieces, and you build a rhetorical artifact that has the shape of another story. You cherry pick some facts, adjust them with scissors cutting away wings and details, you keep some elements that are easy to shout or say quicly as slogans, you stick them together, and so you create a false narrative.

This is how false narratives are are built. This is how a propaganda made of lies works. The single pieces taken alone do not look like 100% false, they retain some element of truth, they retain "some" truth within them, they are only reduced or warped and cut with scissors; but the whole operation is based on denial. It's the denial of the texture of reality, and the re-creation of another fictional narrative built by sticking together these pieces. This often looks like a slogan, a rhetoric chant.

However, when I see posters attempting to present such obviously manufactured "narratives", I tend to not waste my time opening discussions about details in the narratives themselves. Instead I may address the disingenuous intent beyond such rhetoric, the poster's motivations. I believe such openly dishonest presentations of stories, and even the choice of prejudicial terms epmloyed ("obviously", "burglar", "students" etc.) should be immediately addressed as for what is beyond them, a background motivation, and the motivation for such violent rhetoric in my opinion is a feeling of vested interest, or utter racism.

 

[acbytesla]

I feel embarassment for you because of your lies.

You should be embarrassed because it is the btruth!

 

[Kauffer]

Denial, acbytesla. Denial.

Sometimes when I talk with Israelis about the Israel-Palestinian issue, someone presents the topical concepts of "narrative", for example "it was the Arab states attacked Israel in 1948", as a justification and explanation of things like ethnic cleansing of palestinians. Without getting into details of a very complex chain of historic events, you cen see how calling for "elements" like that in your discussion is a type of rhetoric, that aims - through slogans - to present a false narrative essentially based on denial. For example it is true that Arab States attacked Israel in 1948. But Arab states attacked Israel on May 15. 1948. Israeli paramilitaries perpetrated massacres before, such as the Deir Yassin massacre, on April 9.
April 9. is before may 15.

The method is very simple: if you omit pieces from reality, while you cherry pick up some pieces, and you build a rhetorical artifact that has the shape of another story. You cherry pick some facts, adjust them with scissors cutting away wings and details, you keep some elements that are easy to shout or say quicly as slogans, you stick them together, and so you create a false narrative.

This is how false narratives are are built. This is how a propaganda made of lies works. The single pieces taken alone do not look like 100% false, they retain some element of truth, they retain "some" truth within them, they are only reduced or warped and cut with scissors; but the whole operation is based on denial. It's the denial of the texture of reality, and the re-creation of another fictional narrative built by sticking together these pieces. This often looks like a slogan, a rhetoric chant.

So the omission of the EDFs from consideration is a problem for you then after all, as is the testing of the presumed semen stain, as are the reference samples of the other flat mates and friends, as is the CCTV footage from the relevant cameras in Perugia etc etc.