Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Mary_H]

And the most astonishing quote in the whole thing....

.....through which examination is to be ascertained where the relative ambiguity of each piece of evidence can be resolved, as in the overall assessment each clue is added to and integrated with others. The outcome of this assessment will be crucial not only to osmotically demonstrate the presence of the two defendants in the locus delicti commissi, but possibly to delineate the subjective position of the co-conspirators of Guede, in the face of the range of hypothetical situations.....

They have told the new appeal court to find the two defendants guilty and just explain it better. I don't see how you can interpret this any other way.

That is what it looks like and what is probably their intent, but there is a remote possibility they are asking for a final, unambiguous determination and clarification of whether the defendants were or were not there.

As anglolawyer says, "It is not the least troubling aspect of the 'motivation' that it appears to be essentially untranslatable."

 

[Mary_H]

I think this sums that part of it up...

In addition, the contested decision ictu oculi presents a fragmented and atomistic evaluation of the evidence, items considered one by one and with their demonstrative potential then discarded, without a broader and more complete evaluation, to operate on full beam, so that the fragmentation of the individual elements has chipped away at the valency and the thickness, such that there inevitably follows a disjointed scrutiny of their necessary synthesis, ignoring the value that the pieces of the mosaic take when evaluated synergistically.

Simples.

Allow me to interpret: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

ETA: They really are asking for a gestalt view of the case. They really seem to believe that all the little bits of fake evidence do add up to a big picture of guilt. It's astonishing. I wonder if it occurred to them to look at the mosaic that results from synergistically evaluating the individual, non-evidentiary elements of the defendants' lives.

 

[RoseMontague]

Allow me to interpret: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

It is certainly a large pile.

 

[Mary_H]

It is certainly a large pile.

That's what happens when people are not operating on full beam.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

And the most astonishing quote in the whole thing....



They have told the new appeal court to find the two defendants guilty and just explain it better. I don't see how you can interpret this any other way.

Do you think so?

There is an obvious criticism that Hellmann's court verdict breached court procedure and their penal codes, if as many posters assert here that the next court follows the correct procedure and penal codes there is no reason why that verdict should be different, isn’t that the collective belief amongst Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters here?

 

[Antony]

Do you think so?

There is an obvious criticism that Hellmann's court verdict breached court procedure and their penal codes, if as many posters assert here that the next court follows the correct procedure and penal codes there is no reason why that verdict should be different, isn’t that the collective belief amongst Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters here?

Where is the part of the ISC report that states that Hellman breached procedure or legal codes?

I really would like to know. I haven't had a chance to look through it in English translation, but none of the reports I've seen give any clue about criticism of Hellman on procedural grounds.

 

[Mary_H]

Do you think so?

There is an obvious criticism that Hellmann's court verdict breached court procedure and their penal codes, if as many posters assert here that the next court follows the correct procedure and penal codes there is no reason why that verdict should be different, isn’t that the collective belief amongst Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters here?

You're saying they are willing to settle for the same result as long as everything is "done right" this time? That doesn't sound like the Italian "end-justifies-the-means" kind of thinking we've all come to know and love. If they care about codes and procedures, they should start with the night of the interrogations.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Where is the part of the ISC report that states that Hellman breached procedure or legal codes?

I really would like to know. I haven't had a chance to look through it in English translation, but none of the reports I've seen give any clue about criticism of Hellman on procedural grounds.

I was responding to Rose’s post and quote within it, I do not have citation nor have I read the Supreme Court motivations.

 

[Machiavelli]

What does brought entirely mean? Could you give examples of evidence that is not complete?

For example Luciano Aviello's testimony; if you call a witness, and then you allow him to answer some relevant questions, but prevent him to answer on others, the piece of evidence is incomplete. Or if you enter a photography but no testimony to answer on it, and no explanation or cross/questioning about who when where and how took the photography, then the evidence is incomplete.
Or if you enter DNA results or opinions about DNA results, but not a cross questionig about the results or about the opinion, this is still incomplete (for example experts who criticize Stefanoni's reslut, but they don't undergo a cross questioning about their own opinion, information and work on the case: their opinion has no value on principle because it's incomplete information).

Was there any evidence you can example that wasn't discussed thoroughly?

Of course, there was Aviello's testimony, and there was the DNA sample found by Vecchiotti which was not tested. These are example of incomplete examination of the evidence.
There was also evidence that was thoriughly examined in the Massei trial, but then it was not reported completely in the Hellmann's trial (such as Quintavalle's testimony).

Why?

Because incompleteness is usally the most basic ploy to obtain a twisting and falsification of the evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

That must apply to entering DNA results without EDFs.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - be a good chap and answer a question for me.

If the Florence court genuinely determines that AK and RS are innocent, does the ISC ruling of March 26, 2013, leave them free so to do?

(I do not know why I ask Machiavelli straightforward questions. His answer to my question about why Knox's clothes were neither gathered nor tested by PLE was, "when did you stop beating your wife." He said about that, too, that one had to look at the total of everything before an answer could be attempted. I do believe he called me an idiot for asking a simple question.... why did the PLE not gather the clothes Knox said she wore, even if she'd been lying about wearing those clothes?

I feel a similar evasion coming up.... about the theoretical possibility of the Florence court finding AK and RS innocent. Will the 26 Mar ISC ruling make that impossible?

Here goes nothing.)

I'll answer to your comment about "straightforward" questions: those of yours that you call "straightforward" questions are, in fact, assertions with a question attached.
You think they are just questions. But they are not. I want you to deal with discussing your assertions, before formulizing the question.

Your question about clothes actually contained at least two explicit assertions: first, you expliticly stated that testing the clothes would have denied or confirmed Knox's story. Then, when you repeated your question for the second time, while you refused to discuss it, your assertion became implicit. The second main assertion, was stating the clothes were never "tested".
Actually there are several further implicit statements or refusal to deal with the evidence, embedded in your questions; for example, you didn't talke about what and which clothing items you are speaking about, how they looked like, who examined them (had they any stains, etc?).

Now, the above question about the SC, actually doesnt have an answer ecause it's too vague (and what does "genuinely" mean to you?).
The answer I can see is: it is perfectly possible for a Florentine court to determine that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty (we say 'not guilty', not 'innocent', especially if there is reasonable doubt).
But in order to do so, they should find some other reasons; they cannot do this by using the Hellmann-Zanetti reasons (which are the innocentisti arguments).

Imho, I think it is unrealistic to expect them to find other legitimate reasons.

 

[Mary_H]

For example Luciano Aviello's testimony; if you call a witness, and then you allow him to answer some relevant questions, but prevent him to answer on others, the piece of evidence is incomplete. Or if you enter a photography but no testimony to answer on it, and no explanation or cross/questioning about who when where and how took the photography, then the evidence is incomplete.
Or if you enter DNA results or opinions about DNA results, but not a cross questionig about the results or about the opinion, this is still incomplete (for example experts who criticize Stefanoni's reslut, but they don't undergo a cross questioning about their own opinion, information and work on the case: their opinion has no value on principle because it's incomplete information).

Of course, there was Aviello's testimony, and there was the DNA sample found by Vecchiotti which was not tested. These are example of incomplete examination of the evidence.
There was also evidence that was thoriughly examined in the Massei trial, but then it was not reported completely in the Hellmann's trial (such as Quintavalle's testimony).

Because incompleteness is usally the most basic ploy to obtain a twisting and falsification of the evidence.

I agree. That's why nobody wanted to know what happened after the murder -- how the clean-up was performed, how everyone went home afterward, what they did with their bloody clothes, and so on. That's why nobody asked Raffaele any questions at all, and nobody asked Amanda at trial whether she had committed the murder or how it was done.

 

[Machiavelli]

That must apply to entering DNA results without EDFs.

No, it doesn't. The piece of information must be relevant to the discussion and the parties are suposed to argue its relevance.
Actually, as I told you, there was never a formal request to obtain EDF from DNA tests. The defence and the judge appointed experts simply obtained all what they asked.
The truth is the defence regarded the EDF as irrelevant and only raised them as a pretext years later in an attempt to dismiss previous findings, but only once and then they dropped the point (they never requested them not even at the SC).
The defence themselves, at the preliminary hearing, they impliticly admitted they were irrelevant. Their late use is a pretext. They are important only as a propaganda ploy, especially by the innocentisti on the internet.

 

[Machiavelli]

I agree. That's why nobody wanted to know what happened after the murder -- how the clean-up was performed, how everyone went home afterward, what they did with their bloody clothes, and so on. That's why nobody asked Raffaele any questions at all, and nobody asked Amanda at trial whether she had committed the murder or how it was done.

Nobody asked? What are you talking about? Raffaele Sollecito invoked his right not to speak on December 5. 2007. He had requested to be interrogated by the PM; but then he changed idea and he invoked his right not to speak.
He never requested to be heard again.

And do you complain about qustion that were not asked to Knox? But that's a crazy claim; the defence could put her all the qustion they wanted. She could make all statements she wanted.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'll answer to your comment about "straightforward" questions: those of yours that you call "straightforward" questions are, in fact, assertions with a question attached.
You think they are just questions. But they are not. I want you to deal with discussing your assertions, before formulizing the question.

Your question about clothes actually contained at least two explicit assertions: first, you expliticly stated that testing the clothes would have denied or confirmed Knox's story. Then, when you repeated your question for the second time, while you refused to discuss it, your assertion became implicit. The second main assertion, was stating the clothes were never "tested".
Actually there are several further implicit statements or refusal to deal with the evidence, embedded in your questions; for example, you didn't talke about what and which clothing items you are speaking about, how they looked like, who examined them (had they any stains, etc?).

Now, the above question about the SC, actually doesnt have an answer ecause it's too vague (and what does "genuinely" mean to you?).
The answer I can see is: it is perfectly possible for a Florentine court to determine that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty (we say 'not guilty', not 'innocent', especially if there is reasonable doubt).
But in order to do so, they should find some other reasons; they cannot do this by using the Hellmann-Zanetti reasons (which are the innocentisti arguments).

Imho, I think it is unrealistic to expect them to find other legitimate reasons.

I'm sitting here stunned. Why? Because I think you may have just answered my questions!

If this is your line of reasoning, and (far, far more importantly) if this is the line of reasoning reflected in the current ISC reasoning, I can see how Italy is going off the rails. Perhaps not going off the rails in total in its justice system but certainly in this case.

Take the clothes issue first, Machiavelli. One would think that the clothes would simply be collected and and analysed and a report written about what they forensically contributed to the crime, if anything. What you're saying is that the investigators have to stand around staring at the clothes until they come up with all sorts of other things...

for example, you didn't talke about what and which clothing items you are speaking about, how they looked like, who examined them (had they any stains, etc?).

I'm speaking about the clothes Knox said she wore the night of the murder, those clothes were found on the bed. Please note, it's not at issue yet whether she's being truthful or not. It's called investigating her story. Italian justice, through the PLE seemed hellbent in imposing a story upon the evidence, rather than let the evidence speak.

What they looked like was exactly as found on the bed. "Who" examinded them would have been first visually the police (Napoleoni) and then the Scientific Police (Stefananoni). Of course, we'd have the right to examine her EDFs....

But thanks for answering. You've been a good chap.

 

[RoseMontague]

For example Luciano Aviello's testimony; if you call a witness, and then you allow him to answer some relevant questions, but prevent him to answer on others, the piece of evidence is incomplete.

Because incompleteness is usally the most basic ploy to obtain a twisting and falsification of the evidence.

Just substitute Rudy for Luciano.

 

[Bill Williams]

I was responding to Rose’s post and quote within it, I do not have citation nor have I read the Supreme Court motivations.

I would heartily recommend you read it. Consider the meaning of "Osmotic" as you read it. Also consider where in this whole process the collection of "facts" that the ISC rules on comes from, facts like the motive being a "sex-game gone wrong".

Don't ask yourself why on earth the ISC is even considering the facts.... they are supposed to be ruling on issues of law and procedure.

The question: did Massei rule the sex-game gone wrong as factual? If not, why is the ISC reversing a finding of fact?

I appreciate that not everyone is into thing like this: fair enough. I just want to know if it makes you angry that the ISC seems to be saying that Meredith herself was (at least at the start) participating in a sex game? Me, I find that suggestion offensive. (Not to mention without ANY proof, much less ANY evidence to suggest she'd entered into such a thing.)

 

[Grinder]

I wish I could be so confident that with time there will be fewer and fewer wrongful convictions. The judicial system is made up of people and every part of it can and does get corrupted. And while DNA has been used to correct some wrongful convictions, it clearly can and has been misused. DNA can be so damning in a jury's mind it is important that scientific and collection protocols be performed as well as thorough documentation.

As I posited up-thread DNA is great for past convictions before the technology was usable or fully usable but in current cases it seems more of a weapon for the prosecution. This is particularly true in cases where the victim and suspect lived together or had frequent contact.

I would like to see independent blind analysis of DNA be a normal part of the system when the prosecution and defense disagree about the DNA work, whether that be collection, transportation or the actual testing.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, it doesn't. The piece of information must be relevant to the discussion and the parties are suposed to argue its relevance.
Actually, as I told you, there was never a formal request to obtain EDF from DNA tests. The defence and the judge appointed experts simply obtained all what they asked.
The truth is the defence regarded the EDF as irrelevant and only raised them as a pretext years later in an attempt to dismiss previous findings, but only once and then they dropped the point (they never requested them not even at the SC).
The defence themselves, at the preliminary hearing, they impliticly admitted they were irrelevant. Their late use is a pretext. They are important only as a propaganda ploy, especially by the innocentisti on the internet.

I suppose there is something in this in that the DNA evidence was dismantled without the EDFs. Still, it would be interesting to see the full picture. I can think of no legitimate reason to make this a line in the sand between the two sides. None of the following seem to be an adequate reason for suppressing the material, which should be released as a matter of course anyway:

1 the court file is already big enough (Comodi)
2 the defence already has what it needs (Comodi and Stefanoni)
3 the defence has not asked for the EDFs (Mach)
4 the defence has asked but only as a delaying tactic (Mach)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

half-a-clue onward

It is certainly a large pile.

To paraphrase Mario Spezi, half-a-clue plus half-a-clue does not equal a whole clue. Thanks to the ISC this case now seems like the charge of the dunce brigade.