Machiavelli said:
LashL said:
This was in response to me expressing the view that there was no compelling evidence in support of a finding that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were guilty of murdering Ms. Kercher. Your response seems to be nothing more than the expression of a fervent belief without pointing out or pointing to any compelling evidence in support of that belief.
It's correct: my post was a response to others who were blaming me of having second reasons, being rationalizing, prejudicial, close to Mignini, victim of misinformation, or motivated by personal dislikes and irrational grounds.
Okay, thank you for acknowledging that this was nothing more than the expression of your fervent belief, lacking evidentiary support.
Machiavelli said:
LashL said:
In addition, it is not particularly helpful or useful to say that you believe that they are "implicated" in the murder without setting out what you believe their roles to have been.
This is a very serious point, this one really exists as a problem in the accusation theory. This will play an essential part in the reasons for their acquittal.
I can’t define their exact physical roles; only consider a group of alternative variants/scenarios. However, the lack of definition of their precise roles, in my opinion is not sufficient for opting for a reasonable doubt on their guilt, on the existing set of evidence.
Well, it's not only that you cannot define "their exact physical roles", is it? It's that you cannot seem to explain what you mean when you claim that they are "implicated" in the events, and that you cannot set out a rational theory of the events that includes their "implication" beyond a fervent belief without any evidentiary support. It really is not good enough for those accusing them of murder to say, "I believe that they are guilty and I don't know what they're guilty of or what they did or didn't do, or what participation they may have had or not had, but they're still guilty because I believe that to be true." If the prosecution cannot set out specific facts and evidence to support a finding of guilt within the framework of a reasonable and plausible narrative, that ought to trigger a "reasonable doubt" reflex for you.
Machiavelli said:
This would not be the first case in which a defendant is sentenced while their precise role is not entirely defined.
Sure, I can agree with that, although that's a bit of a strawman you've erected there with your choice of wording that is solely of your own construction and not something that I asked. That aside, in this case, I cannot see any compelling evidence of either involvement or guilt whatsoever on the part of Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito, never mind any "precise" role, but it seems to me to be entirely inappropriate to sentence them to 25-26 years in prison for murder without ascertaining - and without proving beyond reasonable doubt - what roles they are supposed to have played in the events, at least in some kind of reasonable and plausible narrative that accounts for all of the known evidence. If you were accused in the manner that they have been, would you be content with receiving a 25-26 year sentence without anyone being able to articulate any compelling evidence of you being "implicated" in the events and without anyone being able to produce any compelling evidence of you being "implicated" in the events?
Machiavelli said:
I don’t mean to bring an argumentum ad populum as evidence of their guilt.
However it is certainly worth to consider the public disapproval for the verdict and an interesting aspect to question, as this suggests that there might be a perception of facts behind it.
No, I'm afraid not. You initially introduced an argument ad populum fallacy in an attempt to support your position, as in: other people agree with me, therefore, this supports my position that they are guilty. This is nothing
but an argumentum ad populum, which is, by definition, a logical fallacy and which you've just repeated above despite your disclaimer in the first sentence. Saying that a group of people "disapproved" of the verdict does not in any way make the verdict less sound in law or in fact and does not at all "suggest that there might be a perception of facts behind it". You've just compounded your earlier use of the fallacy by doing it again.
Machiavelli said:
1. I can see physical evidence of staging of the break in (complex point, requires an elaboration)
Then, by all means, please elaborate. I don't see any compelling evidence whatsoever that the break in was staged.
Machiavelli said:
2. Multiple attackers Autopsy report and analysis of murder scene implies more than one attacker (another complex point; I wrote on PMF recently about this one)
I'm not a fan of PMF (no offence intended, but it seems to me to be little more than an echo-chamber; plus, the black screen with white text is painful to my eyes) so please elaborate here if you have any evidence in support of this. As an aside, over the course of my years working in the justice system, I have seen tens of thousands of crime scene photos personally, and I have seen far worse and far more injuries inflicted by a single attacker than those enumerated in this case, so I am not convinced at all by these vague assertions. As a second aside, multiple attackers does not mean that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were the ones there with Rudy Guede. So, please address that as well when you elaborate on this point.
Machiavelli said:
3. Series of lies told by Amanda Knox before her last interrogation (between nov 2. and 4.): Knox’s account of facts is riddled with lies and inconsistencies, it is entirely fictional and unacceptable (this is another complex point to unfold)
Please elaborate on what these "lies" are to which you allude. I have heard it said many times that she lied, but I have seen no tapes or transcripts of the interrogations to support that accusation. What, specifically, did she say during her interrogations on November 2, 3, and 4 that differed from what she said during her interrogations on November 5 and 6?
Machiavelli said:
4. Amanda’s false confession in a spontaneous statement and her hand written note; her subsequent refusal to correct it and failure to give a consistent version and to explain the reasons for the false confession. Her inconsistence in describing circumstances of how her false confession occurred. Anna Donnino’s witness report.
Well, (1) let's not pretend that Ms. Knox's false accusation was made "spontaneously" as it clearly was not; (2) let's not pretend that she did not retract it within hours; (3) let's not pretend that she did not explain the reasons for the false accusation; and (4) let's not pretend that Anna Donnino was an unbiased and neutral participant in Ms. Knox's unlawful interrogation of November 5 and 6.
Machiavelli said:
5. Raffaele Sollecito’s changing of alibi and his various lies and his final failure to provide a version of fact. In addition to this, another series of proven lies by Amanda Knox on their alibi.
What is this changing of alibi of Mr. Sollecito to which you refer, and what are "his various lies" to which you refer? And what is this "another series of proven lies" by Ms. Knox to which you refer? See, the problem as I see it, Machiavelli, is that it appears that you're just repeating guilter talking points without any substance, and I'm seeking substance. I would really appreciate it if you could add some meat to your assertions. Or, as Kim Mitchell might say, I'm seeing a lot of feathers but not much chicken.
Machiavelli said:
6. Antonio Curatolo and Quintavalle as eye witness as further corroboration of their lying.
I do not see how the evidence of either of these two individuals can be viewed as "corroboration" of "lies" by Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito when the evidence of these two individuals has been thoroughly discredited.
Machiavelli said:
7. Nara Capezzali and Antonella Monacchia’s credible witness reports, about a time of death and dynamic compatible with their guilt.
No, the evidence of these witnesses neither establishes a time of death, nor corroborates the bizarre theory that the time of death was some time after 11:30 p.m. Not at all. And what do you mean by "dynamic compatible with their guilt"? Please be specific, as this is not a legal term with which I am familiar and you haven't set out any details whatsoever that would help a reader to understand what you mean.
Machiavelli said:
8. A series of luminol footprints with very peculiar features, showing they performed an operation of cleaning the scene; this area of evidence is based on the distribution and features of the footprints, and on the lack of alternative explanations related to normal activities (complex evidence, requires long elaboration)
No, the luminol evidence does not show a cleaning operation (and even if it did, it would not indicate the identities of those who carried out a clean up). I've read all of the luminol evidence and it is simply insufficient by any stretch of the imagination to implicate Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito in the murder of Ms. Kercher in any way. I note that this is the third time in a single post that you've indicated that "complex" and "long elaborations" are required for you to say what you mean, and that suggests to me that you may really need to take a step back and re-evaluate your position. If you cannot explain your position quickly and succinctly (or at all, in at least these three instances in a single post so far) that should, perhaps, give you pause as to the unsustainability of your position, if you cannot even articulate it.
Machiavelli said:
9. Bloody footprint on the bathmat only compatible with Sollecito and not with Rudy Guede (requires a visual elaboration)
Except that is just as compatible with Rude Guede as it is with Mr. Sollecito, and in neither case would this evidence be sufficient to convict either of them, as it's too vague and too imprecise to definitively identify someone or to definitively exclude these two. Surely, you are not suggesting that a vague partial footprint on a malleable bathmat is forensically sound evidence sufficient to identify anyone, let alone Mr. Sollecito. And I note that this is the fourth instance in a single post that you say you need to elaborate, but you haven't done so.
Machiavelli said:
also contains the logical implication given by the lack of explanation for the isolation of the print, the absence of a trail of footprints or other footprints (further evidence of cleanup) and lack of plausible explanation for it if attributed to Rudy Guede; moreover, its analogy relation with the luminol footprints, and the its obvious being out of place opposed to the movements showed by Rudy’s shoeprints (person wearing shoes, walking out in a straight dierection).
I'm sorry, but none of that made any sense to me at all. Please re-state if you can.
Machiavelli said:
10. Amanda Knox’s blood in the small bathroom, and the claim it was not there the night before, without any plausible/likely alternative explanation.
It was her own bathroom. It's not at all surprising, and not at all indicative of participation in a brutal murder, that a drop of her blood might be found in her own bathroom (none of it mixed with Ms. Kercher's blood, by the way, contrary to that ever-popular talking point amongst guilters) and it's incorrect to say that there was no explanation for it; there was specific mention of her multiple ear-piercings, remember? (I do not like multiple ear-piercings myself, but as I understand it, Ms. Knox had recently added multiple ear-piercings to emulate one of her Italian room-mates - it's not at all unusual for such piercings to bleed a bit). And saying that the "bathroom was clean" the day before does not mean that a tiny drop of blood on a faucet wasn't there. To me, it seems silly me to suggest otherwise. I could honestly say right now that all of the bathrooms in my house are clean, but that doesn't mean that a forensic team wouldn't find a drop of my blood in any of them if they were to pay a visit.
Machiavelli said:
11. evidence of cleanup on the bathroom floor and on the bathroom door, determined by the spattered bathmat (with stains on the edge and incomplete footprint) on top of a clean floor, and track L9 showing a cleaning of the bathroom door
None of those are "evidence of cleanup" on the bathroom floor and the bathroom door. Please provide details that you say form evidence of cleanup. Once you've done that, please explain how that would identify the individuals who carried out this alleged clean up.
Machiavelli said:
12. double-DNA luminol stains in Filomena’s room (analogical relation with point 8)
As I'm sure you know, people deposit DNA in their own homes, and they cannot be dated as to the time of deposit. So, please explain how the existence of DNA of room-mates = evidence of participation in a murder. If you live with others, I am quite certain that a forensic team could find "double-DNA luminol stains" in several rooms in your house as well. That would not in any way implicate you in a murder.
Machiavelli said:
13. Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp, unaffected in my opinion by the arguments in Vecchiotti’s report
This looks like you're just handwaving away independent expert analysis and evidence in order to maintain your view, despite the evidence.
The independent experts clearly, unequivocally, and thoroughly discredited the DNA evidence on the bra as probable contamination due to the poor practices of the forensics team, failure to follow proper procedures, improper collection, improper storage, improper analysis, improper interpretation, etc. Plus, if you want to go that route, what do you make of all of the additional profiles found there? If Mr. Sollecito's putative profile is on the bra and that makes him guilty in your view, don't you have to extend your scenario to include a multitude of other people as also participating in the murder beyond Rudy Guede, Ms. Knox, and Mr. Sollecito, in order to be consistent?
Machiavelli said:
14. Meredith and Knox’s DNA on the knife; also in this case Vecchiotti’s arguments are totallu unconvincing
Again, this just looks like you're handwaving away independent expert evidence in favour of maintaining a position for which you have been unable to provide any compelling evidence. What reason and what expertise do you have to dispute the evidence of the independent experts? I seem to recall that back when the independent experts were appointed by the court, you expressed the view that they were excellent choices and you thought that they would affirm Stefanoni's results. But now that their independent review has found Stefanoni's work to be seriously flawed, you think that the independent experts are (a) unqualified and (b) corrupt?
Machiavelli said:
In all this system of evidence, one important point has to be made.
There is an aspect playing a further role which his a logical evidence, what is called argumentum a contrariis; which is the argument that consists in the weakness or lack of alternative explanations. The systematic weakness of alternative explanations or the complete lack thereof creates a proof itself, it plays a role in determining the weight of each area of evidence.
This sounds like turning the burden of proof on its head.
Machiavelli said:
If you have to assume the defendants are innocent, you have to take in account the lack of an alternative “innocent” substance and explanation for the luminol footprints (that includes a scenario for how the footprints were produced); a lack of plausible explanation for the bloody bathmat print: you should assume that Rudy Guede had his shoed on but despite this he got a foot soaked with blood; that takes off his shoe(s) and gets a foot soaked with blood but despite this does not leave trails of footprints anywhere on the floor; that his foot gets so soaked to splash half the bathmat with droplets and stain also on edges, but no drop falls on the floor; then you have to assume that the analogy between the isolated bloody footprint and the isolated luminol footprints on the floor is a coincidence; then you have to assume that Amanda left blood drops in the bathroom but managed to not know it and not notice it, and moreover that she remembers wrongly as she says the bloodstain on the faucet was not there the night before (the lack of any likely explanation for Knox’s blood drops in the bathroom); then you have a lack of likely explanation for Guede’s DNA in the bathroom; the lack of explanation for the cleaning of the floor as implied by track L9 and bathmat stains; and you have a systematic weakness of alternatives to explain the points that shoe the staging (such as no soil/grass traces in the room, no activity of searching for values) and so on…..
Yes, this is indeed turning the burden of proof on its head. This is expecting - if not demanding - that the accused "prove" some other scenario or some other explanation for things that, if they are innocent, as is presumed, they would have absolutely no way of "proving" or even providing an alternative explanation for. This is nonsensical, really, and completely unjust and wrongheaded in any system that purports to adhere to the presumption of innocence as one of the elements of fundamental justice.
Machiavelli said:
Finally, I just note that “compelling evidence” sounds to me a redundant term, it’s strange for me the adding of adjectives after the word “evidence”. First, before putting adjectives, you have to acknowledge there is evidence. If there is evidence, the assessment on its quality, on if and how compelling it is, comes after.
You seem to be over-reaching here (not to mention mixing up "before" and "after" but that's neither here nor there). By compelling evidence, I mean evidence that points towards guilt, rather than simply being evidence that something exists. For instance, your own DNA being present in your own bathroom may be "evidence" that you used the bathroom but it is not evidence of guilt in a brutal murder, therefore, it is not compelling in any way. Similarly, an admission that you smoke pot may be "evidence" that you smoke pot, but it's not evidence of guilt in a brutal murder, therefore, it is not compelling in any way. Similarly, a false accusation against another person may be "evidence" that you lied, and it may be "evidence" that the police coerced you into making a false statement for their own purposes, but it's not evidence of guilt in a brutal murder, particularly when those in control of the "evidence" have not produced it by way of audio or video tape, therefore, it is not compelling in any way. Similarly, admissions that one smokes pot, drinks alcohol, and has sex may be "evidence" that one is a normal, 20-something year old student, but it's not evidence of guilt in a brutal murder, so it's not compelling in any way. Similarly... well, you get the idea. There is nothing in the "evidence" presented against Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito that is compelling evidence of their guilt or even involvement in Ms. Kercher's brutal murder.
I'll get to the rest of your post later (tomorrow or Sunday, perhaps, if time permits) as this is getting lengthy and since I find your posts a bit difficult to decipher sometimes, I have to spend more time on them than I otherwise would, and it's Friday night here at present...
