The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Machiavelli]

I don't know what it is. It similarly was tested with TMB and for DNA like at the cottage, and just like at the cottage negative for blood and negative for Kercher respectively. In that case though they didn't try to say ignore those results it's blood and Kercher's. They had a limit on what people would swallow I guess.

I don't know for sure either. But it is possible to make reasonable suppositions.
In fact, there are some (unusual) vegetables juices (like horseradish) that are not impossible a kitchen. And also blood, in fact is not implausible at all in a kitchen. If you are an Italian, you cook live fish, a drop falls on the floor. You cut fresh meat, chicken. Is blood traces implausible? No, it isn't.
I note that some wood varnishes contain metal salts; some rather toxic household product may have contact with a kitchen floor.

At the same time it is important to note a few things.
Blood stains were actually detected inside Sollecito's apartment. Some stains reasonably proven to be blood were found, and it was Knox's blood, and also some luminol traces reasonably attributable to Knox's blood were within the same context (like on the bathroom door handle, IIRC).
Those traces were not pointing to suspicion of murder. But they could reasonably inferred to be blood.

On the other hand, some other stains were found in Meredith's house that were obviously blood, or reasonably blood, and yet they yielded a negative TMB result. An example is the droplet of blood on Knox's pillow, we assume from her wounded ear. Anothr example was the alleged "cat's blood" drops on the stairs to the downstairs apartment. And IIRC, also the last of presumed Rudy's shoeprints did not yield all the blood data - albeit it was obviously blood.
This means, we have multiple instances of false negative TMB tests on blood traces even within the scope of this case. Apparently TMB has a much higher probability of yielding false negative results in general.

Last thing, I remaind again about a central logical factor, that is that TMB and luminol work on the same chemical mechanism, they react to the same kinds compounds. False negatives and false positives are caused by the same substances in both tests - only the concentration may differ.
Only, TMB test - especially because of how it is performed - may be far less sensitive.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's not apparent how M/B could have been any more clear that they were:

No Bill. You are ignoring the parts where B/M make clear that their position is that they agree with some of Nencini's findinds. And you ignore the parts that are inequivocal.
You work on a complete removal of these, which are unequivocal. While instead you read in *other* parts (relying on a bad translation) some purported added logical value about B/M point of view which in reality they don't have.

 

[bagels]

If visible blood yields a negative TMB, it is either definitely 100% not blood, or the technicians are definitely 100% idiots that don't know what they're doing. Neither result speaks well for the PGP in this case.

 

[bagels]

Mach what exactly do you think a wrongful conviction looks like? I mean there's not much more evidence to take away here before Amanda is sitting in prison for 30 years because her clothes tested positive for cotton.

When people are wrongfully convicted, there is at least one significant party that thinks the evidence is substantial enough to justify a conviction, or they wouldn't be convicted in the first place. This TMB negative DNA negative "vaguely compatibly shaped" luminol evidence should at least superficially look to you like the type of bad evidence that would be in a wrongful conviction. Like you should at least be able to acknowledge that it makes sense that we would pick on this.

I honestly can't picture how a Knox PGP could view anyone as wrongfully convicted, except extreme (and exceptionally rare) cases where the police/prosecutor was literally caught directly planting evidence.

Sometimes people get ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, and it gets compounded by zealous police squeezing the evidence into the most incriminating context.

 

[Stacyhs]

What...?!

I'm not the one claiming that a negative TMB test does not indicate the absence of blood. Or do you also subscribe to that idea?

If so, perhaps you and Mach might want to let Stefanoni and the rest of the world's forensic experts know that they've been doing it wrong. Or was Stefanoni incorrect when she said that while TMB can give false positives, a negative result means no blood is present?

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill. You are ignoring the parts where B/M make clear that their position is that they agree with some of Nencini's findinds. And you ignore the parts that are inequivocal.
You work on a complete removal of these, which are unequivocal. While instead you read in *other* parts (relying on a bad translation) some purported added logical value about B/M point of view which in reality they don't have.

The rhetorical game-playing is intense. Your dismissal of a word's meaning because you call it "jargon" is laughable. I'm being called a moron for engaging you in it!! (Can't win!!!)

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know for sure either. But it is possible to make reasonable suppositions.
In fact, there are some (unusual) vegetables juices (like horseradish) that are not impossible a kitchen. And also blood, in fact is not implausible at all in a kitchen. If you are an Italian, you cook live fish, a drop falls on the floor. You cut fresh meat, chicken. Is blood traces implausible? No, it isn't.
I note that some wood varnishes contain metal salts; some rather toxic household product may have contact with a kitchen floor.

At the same time it is important to note a few things. Blood stains were actually detected inside Sollecito's apartment. Some stains reasonably proven to be blood were found, and it was Knox's blood, and also some luminol traces reasonably attributable to Knox's blood were within the same context (like on the bathroom door handle, IIRC). Those traces were not pointing to suspicion of murder. But they could reasonably inferred to be blood.

On the other hand, some other stains were found in Meredith's house that were obviously blood, or reasonably blood, and yet they yielded a negative TMB result. An example is the droplet of blood on Knox's pillow, we assume from her wounded ear. Anothr example was the alleged "cat's blood" drops on the stairs to the downstairs apartment. And IIRC, also the last of presumed Rudy's shoeprints did not yield all the blood data - albeit it was obviously blood. This means, we have multiple instances of false negative TMB tests on blood traces even within the scope of this case. Apparently TMB has a much higher probability of yielding false negative results in general.

Last thing, I remaind again about a central logical factor, that is that TMB and luminol work on the same chemical mechanism, they react to the same kinds compounds. False negatives and false positives are caused by the same substances in both tests - only the concentration may differ.
Only, TMB test - especially because of how it is performed - may be far less sensitive.

First highlight:

1) You claim blood stains were found in Sollecito's apartment but have provided no rep. numbers for them. Please do so. Several suspected blood stains were found but that is not the same thing. Also, cite the evidence that these were proved to be blood but tested negative with TMB.

2) Please cite the evidence that any blood in Sollecito's apartment was identified as Amanda's.

3) "Reasonably proven to be blood"? How so? A sample either is scientifically proved to be blood or it isn't.

4) Knox's blood was not identified on the bathroom door handle. The only blood identified as hers was on the faucet. All other blood was identified as Kercher's.


Second highlighted quote:

1) The alleged drop of blood on Knox's pillowcase (rep 172) was negative for blood and DNA. It was never identified as blood. You are making the assumption that it was blood when no evidence supports that.

2) What evidence do you have that the cat's blood downstairs tested negative with TMB?

Detectives also established, with the help of their forensic colleagues, that the bloodstains on the staircase outside the cottage and in the semi-basement flat had been left by a black cat the students owned who had injured an ear.

Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case (Kindle Locations 1732-1734).


3) The last of Guede's shoeprints may not have yielded "all the blood data" but what evidence do you have that it tested negative for blood with TMB?

4) You can only "reasonably infer" something is blood up to the point it is tested. Once it is tested, and that result is negative, you can no longer infer it is. Unless of course, one simply refuses to accept what does not confirm one's bias.

You have provided no evidence that any of these were "false negatives". Nor have you provided evidence that any of your alleged stains that were "obviously" or "reasonably blood" were, in fact, blood. You haven't even given reference numbers to identify them.

 

[Numbers]

There is another (artificial) controversy relating to the Italian words “ipotesi”, “ipotizzato”, “ipotizzata”. Here's some information, with excerpts from the Marasca CSC panel MR in Italian and as translated by IIP Italian-speaking volunteers, and also with translations of the specific words from neutral sources.

9.2. I termini dell'oggettiva contraddittorietà possono, come di seguito,
puntualizzarsi per ciascun ricorrente, in una sinottica prospettazione di elementi favorevoli all'ipotesi della colpevolezza e di elementi di segno contrario, così come, ovviamente, risultano dal testo della sentenza impugnata e delle precedenti pronunce.

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling and of the previous ones.

Comments:

Italian “sinottica” was translated to “synoptic” by the volunteer translators and Google Translate agrees with this translation. The English word “synoptic” in this context means 1. “affording a general view of a whole” {that is, summarizing} or 2. “manifesting or characterized by comprehensiveness or breadth of view”. Source: Merriam Webster (online)

Italian “all'ipotesi” was translated as “the hypothesis” by the volunteer translators. Google Translate offers these translations, which agree in meaning exactly or approximately with the one chosen by the volunteers (“assumption” of course differing from “hypothesis”): hypothesis, the hypothesis, the assumption, to the hypothesis, assumption. Collins Reverso includes those suggestions and adds that it could mean: to the idea, to the speculation, to the possibility; each of those are essentially in agreement with “the hypothesis”. The additional uses shown by Collins indicates that the Italian “all'ipotesi” is not specialized jargon.

9.3. All'esame degli anzidetti profili giova, di certo, tener conto che, pacifica la commissione dell'omicidio in via della Pergola, l'ipotizzata presenza nell'abitazione degli odierni ricorrenti, non può, di per sé, essere ritenuta elemento dimostrativo di colpevolezza. Nell'approccio valutativo al problematico compendio probatorio, come offerto dal giudice del rinvio, non può non tenersi conto delle categorie giuridiche della mera connivenza non punibile e del concorso di persone nel reato commesso da altri e del discrimen tra le stesse, come scolpito da indiscusso insegnamento giurisprudenziale di legittimità.
….

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred on via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt. In the assessment of the problematic body of evidence, as described by the judge of the second appeal, one cannot but bear in mind the judicial concepts of merely not punishable connivance and of participation in a crime committed by others and of the distinction between them, as established by the indisputable teachings of the jurisprudence of legitimacy.
….

Comments:

Italian “l'ipotizzata” was translated by the volunteers as “alleged”. In this context, “alleged” means “asserted but not proven” usually in a legal situation; the more general synonyms of “alleged” are “hypothesized” or “supposed”. Indeed, Google Translate gives “the hypothesized” as the translation of “l'ipotizzata”, while Collins Reverso gives “hypothesized”, “assumed”, and “supposed”, with general examples rather than only legal ones.

As for the word “ipotizzato”, Collins Reverson gives translations of “assumed”, “hypothesized”, “suggested”, “envisaged”, and “speculated”, all with general rather than only legal examples. Google Translate gives “supposed” and “hypothesized”.

Collins Reverso shows the verb form for “ipotizzato” and “ipotizzata” as “ipotizzare”. Google Translate shows this as the verb form for “ipotizzato” but does not display the verb form for “ipotizzata”. The Italian “ipotizzato” and “ipotizzata” are gender forms of the same past participle.

Here's two examples from Collins Reverso:

Variazione ipotizzata del tasso di interesse (%). Translates to: Assumed interest rate (in %).

Ho ipotizzato che sarei stato il prossimo. Translates to: I assumed I would be next.

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill. You are ignoring the parts where B/M make clear that their position is that they agree with some of Nencini's findinds. And you ignore the parts that are inequivocal.
You work on a complete removal of these, which are unequivocal. While instead you read in *other* parts (relying on a bad translation) some purported added logical value about B/M point of view which in reality they don't have.

You've fallen into the trap. It's bad enough that you've tried to remove "hypothetical" from Marasca-Bruno's word-set, a desperate attempt to make a point through rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

But the trap you're now snared in, is that Marasca-Bruno cover-off the possibility that those things might be true. That's the whole point of the "even if" clauses. Even if those things are true - which you claim, but let's assume you're right for a moment - the trap you miss is that this STILL does not convict them of the crimes they'd been charged with.

Read that last sentence again to see if you get it this time. Your claim that those things took place does not matter. My claim that those things did not take place does not matter. The point is neither of those "states" should have been used to convict AK/RS of the crimes they were charged with.

I could say right now, "Golly gee, Machiavelli, you're right, M/B DID say those things as their own beliefs." That does not change the outcomes M/B wrote about one whit.

And the final nail in your rhetorical coffin is this:

In other words, the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations.
Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant.​

All of this cycles back to a question Stacyhs has asked time and time again.

Forget judicial truths. What is the evidence which proves what you say M/B found as factual (and which I say they considered only hypothetically)?

What's the evidence?

 

[Machiavelli]

There appears to be some (artificial) controversy about the English translation of "conclamato".

Here is some information from neutral sources:

Translations of “conclamato” in English:

full-blown [that is, fully developed]

full-blown ==> reflects the medical jargon

established [that is, placed beyond doubt, proven]

documented [recorded so as to provide evidence, certainty, or proof]

overt [that is, open to view; manifest; obvious]

Source: Collins Reverso

All the above meanings entail - as you see - the same semantic core. That is something that is not possibly to put in doubt.

Just as I explained in a previous post.

However, bear in mind that when one translates something, they need to understand something about the language. And when one uses a dictionary, should use a real dictionary, and also know how to use it. And last, language is not just made of words, it's made of text: so always refer to text examples.

So if you Google translate something you may find "translations" like that:

acclaimed [that is, publicly acknowledged as excellent]

But that is not a translation, and here Google - which is not smart about texts - mistakes an adjective for a part of a verb (conclamare).

But the adjective conclamato cannot be confused with the participle of the verb conclamare, by someone who understands a text, and who can read a real dictionary.

You make this confusion instead.

So at this point all your reasoning departs from the text and goes off the rails.

But we have to go back to the point of the text.

The word conclamato does not mean "acknowledged".
The adjective conclamato only refers to something absolute, that cannot have a different point of view.

And the adjective conclamato is not the participle of conclamare, and therefore, it is not the particole of "to acclaim" or "to acknowledge".


Why not?
Besides the fact that -as I explained - the meaning "acclaim/proclaim" is not contemporary Italian, but literary and ancient and it is anyway only referred to a particular type of proclaiming, that is solemnly recognize something true that can be verified as manifest by everyone - besides these semantic imprint, the problem with the pro-Knox translation "acknowledge/acclaim" (translations of conclamare) is that, it is also impossibile, due to the grammar structure in which the word is located.

What do I mean in detail?
A real dictionary might give you some clue. This is the entry conclamare in a real Italian dictionary (Sabatini-Coletti 2006, full paper edition):

View attachment 36854

You may notice that the entry has some specifications about the grammar structures in which the verb can be used. It's the list of short hypenate words in square brackets [sogg-v-arg] or [sogg-v-arg+compl.pred]. So, in particular, what you find out is that this uncommon verb may be used only in some limited structures, which require some elements.
The structure in fact requires the expression of a verbal tense ["-v-"] and also a complemento di argomento [arg]. And in our case, since we must have two elements in the phrase in order to construe the meaning that you suggest - besides the object we also must have a predicate - we also need a further complement (as shown in the second structure scheme).

My educated guess about the reason why the structure required for this verb is so rigid, is to avoid that the participle of the verb conclamare may get confused with the adjective conclamato.
The adjective conclamato in fact has such an absolute and unequivocal meaning and it is so ingrained in the language, that a potential confusion with an old uncommon verb would not be acceptable.
Thus, the uncommon verb conclamare may be theoretically used only within structures where the verbal tense is fully expressed together with its subject and with its complemento di argomento. Therefore a participle like conclamato must always appear as part of a verb, and within that structure.

But, in the text by Bruno/Marasca, there isn't any verbal tense.

The pro-Knox "translation" presents a translation with an absolute participle, "acclaimed", "proclaimed" or "acknowledged", where the participle is not part of any verbal tense, it's a predicate instead, and that's unacceptable. There isn't anything like that in any text.

But that's not all. In the Bruno/Marasca text there is also no complemento di argomento. When you use the verb conclamare you need to proclaim an object; you need to proclaim something, an object, and there is no object in this phrase. The word "dato" here is the subject of the phrase.
In fact, given the antiquate semantics of the verb conclamare, when there is a predicate the object shall be a person (you can proclaim a saint, a poet, a scientist or a person an emperor or pope with conclamare; but not a concept or an inanimate thing)

And finally, there is also no subject as it would be required by the rule - there is obviously a subject in the phrase that is dato, but in the required structure, as explained by the dictionary, the subject must be the person who proclaims, or in alternative the phrase must have a passive structure.


It is clear that this structure is not in B/M text.
Our text is not using the verb conclamare. In our text conclamato cannot be translated as "acknowledged", nor "proclaimed" nor "acclaimed".
And also, not even "documented". The word conclamato here is a descriptive quality reported in the present tense and expresses something that stands out as obvious.


A side note. I shall also point out that many Italian dictionaries don't have the verb conclamare. The Sabatini-Coletti 2016 (online version on Il corriere site) does not have it. The Garzanti has it, but notes it as (lett) = only for literary use.
In general, a point of all translation is that we should look at the actual text, and the exact word that we have in the text is conclamato - not conclamare - so every research about a correct translation should be about where this particular is found, what are the phrases and structures where you can actually find it.

 

[bagels]

Mach you still haven't answered the simple question, how Knox could hear Meredith scream and be innocent of murder?

 

[Machiavelli]

You've fallen into the trap. It's bad enough that you've tried to remove "hypothetical" from Marasca-Bruno's word-set, a desperate attempt to make a point through rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

But the trap you're now snared in, is that Marasca-Bruno cover-off the possibility that those things might be true. That's the whole point of the "even if" clauses. Even if those things are true - which you claim, but let's assume you're right for a moment - the trap you miss is that this STILL does not convict them of the crimes they'd been charged with.

(....)

No no, Bill. Marasca/Bruno say they [themselves, the subject being judges who are writing] agree with what Nencini concluded.
They mention explicitly a point of view external to the text, their point of view. And they do that unequivocally and explicitly at least twice. They declare explicitly their approval to certain conclusions, they say that they can see there is a further confirmation - from their point of view - that certain things are true for sure (like the fact that Guede did not kill alone).

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach you still haven't answered the simple question, how Knox could hear Meredith scream and be innocent of murder?

I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Knox could be there and be innocent of the murder.
B/M say that, albeit it's proven that she was there, it is not sure beyond reasonable doubt that she had an "active participation to the killing action".
The conclusion of B/M is manifestly unreasonable and illogical.
And therefore, overtly political.

 

[Bill Williams]

You've fallen into the trap. It's bad enough that you've tried to remove "hypothetical" from Marasca-Bruno's word-set, a desperate attempt to make a point through rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

But the trap you're now snared in, is that Marasca-Bruno cover-off the possibility that those things might be true. That's the whole point of the "even if" clauses. Even if those things are true - which you claim, but let's assume you're right for a moment - the trap you miss is that this STILL does not convict them of the crimes they'd been charged with.

No no, Bill. Marasca/Bruno say they [themselves, the subject being judges who are writing] agree with what Nencini concluded.
They mention explicitly a point of view external to the text, their point of view. And they do that unequivocally and explicitly at least twice. They declare explicitly their approval to certain conclusions, they say that they can see there is a further confirmation - from their point of view - that certain things are true for sure (like the fact that Guede did not kill alone).

You've missed it. Not sure what else I can say except to request that you read it again. The point isn't what you state as true. The point isn't what I state as hypothetical.....

Both claims point to the same outcome..... Even if those things are true - which you claim, but let's assume you're right for a moment - the trap you miss is that this STILL does not convict them of the crimes they'd been charged with.

I'm not sure what to say if you don't get it this time.....

 

[bagels]

I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Knox could be there and be innocent of the murder.
B/M say that, albeit it's proven that she was there, it is not sure beyond reasonable doubt that she had an "active participation to the killing action".
The conclusion of B/M is manifestly unreasonable and illogical.
And therefore, overtly political.

That is my conclusion as well.

It seems the problem is political in which direction? Your claim is they secretly believed her guilty of murder but were forced to find her innocent. My claim is, perhaps they were correcting what they saw as a genuine injustice, but were politically constrained by the workings of the higher court, especially those set into motion by Chieffi.

If your view is correct, M&B's report seems to be telegraphing their secret view to the select few PGP that still care for no real reason "we had to let her go but wink wink here's the secret code that you guys were right all along"

That seems not only improbable to me, but pointless.

Whereas my view the whacky contradictions might be required for legal/procedural reasons.

Either way we have here an ambiguous mess. When is Italy going to reform their judicial system?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't think it's reasonable to believe that Knox could be there and be innocent of the murder.
B/M say that, albeit it's proven that she was there, it is not sure beyond reasonable doubt that she had an "active participation to the killing action".
The conclusion of B/M is manifestly unreasonable and illogical.
And therefore, overtly political.

And hence, the conspiracy theory involving Masons, the Mafia, US media interests, where Hellmann and de Nunzio will soon be in prison.

How's all that working out?

 

[Stacyhs]

If M/B truly believed AK and RS were guilty, they had another choice: confirm Nencini and make the majority of Italians and, if we look at what happened to Hellmann, the Italian judiciary happy. Trouble is, they didn't. Why? I suspect it's due to the fact that the evidence of their guilt was simply not there. Oh...wait. That's what M/B did find.

 

[Machiavelli]

Comments:

Italian “l'ipotizzata” was translated by the volunteers as “alleged”. In this context, “alleged” means “asserted but not proven” usually in a legal situation; the more general synonyms of “alleged” are “hypothesized” or “supposed”. Indeed, Google Translate gives “the hypothesized” as the translation of “l'ipotizzata”, while Collins Reverso gives “hypothesized”, “assumed”, and “supposed”, with general examples rather than only legal ones.

As for the word “ipotizzato”, Collins Reverson gives translations of “assumed”, “hypothesized”, “suggested”, “envisaged”, and “speculated”, all with general rather than only legal examples. Google Translate gives “supposed” and “hypothesized”.

Collins Reverso shows the verb form for “ipotizzato” and “ipotizzata” as “ipotizzare”. Google Translate shows this as the verb form for “ipotizzato” but does not display the verb form for “ipotizzata”. The Italian “ipotizzato” and “ipotizzata” are gender forms of the same past participle.

Here's two examples from Collins Reverso:

Variazione ipotizzata del tasso di interesse (%). Translates to: Assumed interest rate (in %).

Ho ipotizzato che sarei stato il prossimo. Translates to: I assumed I would be next.

The second example "Ho ipotizzato che sarei stato il prossimo" this is not the adjective, but part of a verb. This may occur in common speech, but it's not our text case.

In the first example - thecnical speech, finance - we have the word used our text, used in a way closer to how is used in the legal speech.
But I point out that its use is technical and neutral. It is so neutral that in fact you can find the adjective ipotizzato referred to a crime in the same paragraph that states the defendant is guilty. You might even have it in the same short phrase, "the defendant is guilty of the alleged charge".

 

[bagels]

If M/B truly believed AK and RS were guilty, they had another choice: confirm Nencini and make the majority of Italians and, if we look at what happened to Hellmann, the Italian judiciary happy. Trouble is, they didn't. Why? I suspect it's due to the fact that the evidence of their guilt was simply not there. Oh...wait. That's what M/B did find.

You would have to believe the US State Department was threatening to strong arm Italy over Italy having the nerve to convict a Ted Bundy. While I do believe the leaks that said the State Department was never going to extradite, the idea that they would outright force Italy against their will to issue a certain domestic verdict is pretty bold. But even if they did, that's an uncomfortable thought for the PGP, because it implies the upper apparatus of the US government viewed Knox as special, important, and possibly even innocent. Which conflicts with their own view of her as a worthless killer nobody but 10 groupies care about.

Generally I think most PGP view M&B as being bought out by the mafia, because I guess the mafia wasn't clear enough the first time around with Hellmann. But then the M&B motivation report has their little bit of defiance against the mob. You may have bullied a verdict, but you can't bully our ambiguous insinuations five people will read! Very daring of them.

Raffaele must be a real Don. The things the PGP have to believe. So exhausting.

 

[Vixen]

And hence, the conspiracy theory involving Masons, the Mafia, US media interests, where Hellmann and de Nunzio will soon be in prison.

How's all that working out?

I've never known anyone be so evasive.