It is understandable, William Parcher. I think that this is a very good reflection of what real investigations and real world issues are actually like for those who are involved with them. As I know from my own work, there are no certainties most of the time.
Here it should be simple to know what the facts are, at least about the washing machine: so one would think. But what actually happens? Things are said; picked up and reported correctly or incorrectly; not picked up and not reported; people talk and memory becomes distorted; they are sure for the purposes of conversation: not sure for the purposes of giving evidence on oath. All sorts of sources of confusion.
My own understanding of the washing machine, for what it is worth, is this.
In October Knox said (on MySpace, I think) that they had got a new washing machine and that it was not working. She said Laura (one of the housemates) was dating a handyman and he was going to fix it. She did not mention it again until after the murder.
The police and/or Romanelli testified that the power light was on at 1:00 pm on Nov 2nd. Knox said that Kercher had put it on the previous evening, So the implication was Kercher had put it on and it had run, but she had not emptied it nor switched it off.
In court Romanelli said that the machine was "umido". There is dispute about what this means in the various reports: some say it means damp/wet: some say it means warm/damp/wet. I do not speak Italian and I do not know what it means.
There seems to be no doubt that Kercher's clothes were in the machine. There is doubt about whether these were clothes she had been wearing at her friend's house on the afternoon of Nov 1st or other clothes. There is doubt about whether some of Knox's clothes were mixed in (though there is no doubt the majority were Kercher's).
Knox said she never used the machine. She said she preferred to go to the laundrette. I believe she also said the machine was unreliable, which is why her October MySpace is important because there was no reason to suppose it did not work properly. Few people go to the launderette if there is a working machine in the house because frankly it is a pain: but of course some may.
The clothes did not show any blood or other useful forensic traces, so far as I am aware.
What we all have to accept is that some of this confusion for us is not confusion for the court: we do not have the transcripts of the testimony, we only have reports of what was said. But they heard the evidence and they had the opportunity to ask questions.
For example: we do not know if the clothes were the same as Kercher wore because the trousers she wore and which were in the machine have been variously described as her "torn jeans" and as her "boyfriend's jeans". But is this the same pair or a different pair? Since this might be quite important it is possible the question was asked and answered in court but did not make it to any of the reports we rely on. Journalists, no matter how conscientious, cannot give us this kind of detail: one focuses on one bit of the story and another on something else. If it is established these are one and the same pair then from the point of view of a report of the day's proceedings it might not occur to the journalist to make that plain: after all in a day's testimony they can only give what seems to them to be important. And that will also differ from one journalist to another
Similarly, Romanelli said "umido": the journalists I rely on are english speaking. Translation is very difficult to do well. I have a friend who is fluent in three languages and his english is better than mine, though not his native tongue: but he finds translation hard because there is no one-one correspondence. So humid in english is not the same as umido in Italian and I do not know whether it necessarily carries the idea of warmth. Some reporters translate it that way and some don't. But the jury and judge are Italian and so is Romanelli.They will know what the word carries in that language better than any translator no matter how good, and no matter how conscientious a journalist is, who is not a native speaker. It may be there was no discussion to clarify the word because Italians do not need to have that discussion.
Earlier in this thread some emphasised that we have to be aware that those who are in court are better placed to judge than we are: and this was criticised as over-reliance on authority or some such concept: but it isn't. It is a realistic appreciation of the limits of what we can know and what the judge and jury can know.
We can compare reports and we can glean a lot and so we should: but that gap will always remain.
The starting point for this thread was that there was a miscarriage of justice because there was no evidence on which to convict. I have done as much research as I reasonably can in the short time I have been involved in it. You can do that too.
For myself I am satisfied that there is enough evidence of various kinds to support this conviction: I did not start there but that is the conclusion I have reached. I think Knox and Sollecito would have been convicted in any court in the world: inquisitorial or adversarial: Italian or American or Scottish. You may differ: you may feel that every tiny detail must be beyond question and if it is not the case must fail: but in my limited experience with courts that is just never true. It is the whole body of the evidence that is judged: and any doubt must be "reasonable doubt": not fanciful or possible but "reasonable"
You may not think that has been met: the defence will of course try to persuade the appeal court it has not. And the prosecution will naturally oppose that.
At present I can see nothing which can overturn this conviction. Those who do not agree are relying on arcane arguments about DNA; but those who have been part of the case as it was heard are already aware of those issues. The challenge we have seen so far is theoretical, because those making it have not seen the evidence: some are perhaps pure scientists who are acting out of concern for misuse of their profession: some are business people with scientific qualifications, but a product or service to sell: some are perhaps crusaders with a bee in their bonnets. But the fact remains that so far they have not raised anything which has not already been considered in court.
Perhaps they will come up with something. That is for the appeal.
Here it should be simple to know what the facts are, at least about the washing machine: so one would think. But what actually happens? Things are said; picked up and reported correctly or incorrectly; not picked up and not reported; people talk and memory becomes distorted; they are sure for the purposes of conversation: not sure for the purposes of giving evidence on oath. All sorts of sources of confusion.
My own understanding of the washing machine, for what it is worth, is this.
In October Knox said (on MySpace, I think) that they had got a new washing machine and that it was not working. She said Laura (one of the housemates) was dating a handyman and he was going to fix it. She did not mention it again until after the murder.
The police and/or Romanelli testified that the power light was on at 1:00 pm on Nov 2nd. Knox said that Kercher had put it on the previous evening, So the implication was Kercher had put it on and it had run, but she had not emptied it nor switched it off.
In court Romanelli said that the machine was "umido". There is dispute about what this means in the various reports: some say it means damp/wet: some say it means warm/damp/wet. I do not speak Italian and I do not know what it means.
There seems to be no doubt that Kercher's clothes were in the machine. There is doubt about whether these were clothes she had been wearing at her friend's house on the afternoon of Nov 1st or other clothes. There is doubt about whether some of Knox's clothes were mixed in (though there is no doubt the majority were Kercher's).
Knox said she never used the machine. She said she preferred to go to the laundrette. I believe she also said the machine was unreliable, which is why her October MySpace is important because there was no reason to suppose it did not work properly. Few people go to the launderette if there is a working machine in the house because frankly it is a pain: but of course some may.
The clothes did not show any blood or other useful forensic traces, so far as I am aware.
What we all have to accept is that some of this confusion for us is not confusion for the court: we do not have the transcripts of the testimony, we only have reports of what was said. But they heard the evidence and they had the opportunity to ask questions.
For example: we do not know if the clothes were the same as Kercher wore because the trousers she wore and which were in the machine have been variously described as her "torn jeans" and as her "boyfriend's jeans". But is this the same pair or a different pair? Since this might be quite important it is possible the question was asked and answered in court but did not make it to any of the reports we rely on. Journalists, no matter how conscientious, cannot give us this kind of detail: one focuses on one bit of the story and another on something else. If it is established these are one and the same pair then from the point of view of a report of the day's proceedings it might not occur to the journalist to make that plain: after all in a day's testimony they can only give what seems to them to be important. And that will also differ from one journalist to another
Similarly, Romanelli said "umido": the journalists I rely on are english speaking. Translation is very difficult to do well. I have a friend who is fluent in three languages and his english is better than mine, though not his native tongue: but he finds translation hard because there is no one-one correspondence. So humid in english is not the same as umido in Italian and I do not know whether it necessarily carries the idea of warmth. Some reporters translate it that way and some don't. But the jury and judge are Italian and so is Romanelli.They will know what the word carries in that language better than any translator no matter how good, and no matter how conscientious a journalist is, who is not a native speaker. It may be there was no discussion to clarify the word because Italians do not need to have that discussion.
Earlier in this thread some emphasised that we have to be aware that those who are in court are better placed to judge than we are: and this was criticised as over-reliance on authority or some such concept: but it isn't. It is a realistic appreciation of the limits of what we can know and what the judge and jury can know.
We can compare reports and we can glean a lot and so we should: but that gap will always remain.
The starting point for this thread was that there was a miscarriage of justice because there was no evidence on which to convict. I have done as much research as I reasonably can in the short time I have been involved in it. You can do that too.
For myself I am satisfied that there is enough evidence of various kinds to support this conviction: I did not start there but that is the conclusion I have reached. I think Knox and Sollecito would have been convicted in any court in the world: inquisitorial or adversarial: Italian or American or Scottish. You may differ: you may feel that every tiny detail must be beyond question and if it is not the case must fail: but in my limited experience with courts that is just never true. It is the whole body of the evidence that is judged: and any doubt must be "reasonable doubt": not fanciful or possible but "reasonable"
You may not think that has been met: the defence will of course try to persuade the appeal court it has not. And the prosecution will naturally oppose that.
At present I can see nothing which can overturn this conviction. Those who do not agree are relying on arcane arguments about DNA; but those who have been part of the case as it was heard are already aware of those issues. The challenge we have seen so far is theoretical, because those making it have not seen the evidence: some are perhaps pure scientists who are acting out of concern for misuse of their profession: some are business people with scientific qualifications, but a product or service to sell: some are perhaps crusaders with a bee in their bonnets. But the fact remains that so far they have not raised anything which has not already been considered in court.
Perhaps they will come up with something. That is for the appeal.
Last edited:
