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

[Chris_Halkides]

Window functions and Fourier transforms

I once likened the process of converting an EDF into a egram to doing a Fourier transform of a free induction decay to a frequency spectrum in nuclear magnetic spectroscopy. The data are easier to interpret in the latter form, but certain processing parameters have been irrevocably applied. The choice of those parameters should be in the hands of the experts doing the review, not the prosecution's experts.

Maybe some pictures would help. The free induction decay is a set of data in the time domain (like a musical note or chord being struck and dying away), and the Fourier transform converts the data into the frequency domain (like musical tones). Notice how the spectrum changes when one applies different window functions: exponential, Gaussian, shifted Gaussian, sine, and shifted sine. Different kinds processing improves different qualities of the spectrum, such as signal to noise, resolution between peaks, or reduction of artifacts. However, if someone handed you a paper copy of a frequency spectrum, you would have an extremely difficult time to go backwards to the original free induction decay and then process the data set differently. This is only offered as an analogy with respect to EDFs and egrams.

 

[anglolawyer]

Maybe some pictures would help. The free induction decay is a set of data in the time domain (like the recording of a musical note chord being struck and dying away), and the Fourier transform converts the data into the frequency domain (like musical tones). Notice how the spectrum changes when one applies different window functions: exponential, Gaussian, shifted Gaussian, sine, and shifted sine. Different kinds processing improves different qualities of the spectrum, such as signal to noise, resolution between peaks, or reduction of artifacts. However, if someone handed you a paper copy of a frequency spectrum, you would have an extremely difficult time to go backwards to the original free induction decay and then process the data set differently. This is only offered as an analogy with respect to EDFs and egrams.

I have grounds for believing the significance of these EDFs was not grasped by the defence lawyers for some appreciable time. I derive that from submissions Bongiorno made at one of the hearings in September 2009. Maybe Charlie can set me straight about that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

repeated requests for the EDFs were made

I don't consider Charlie's post nonsense at all. If he says he has a letter in which V requested the EDF's then I believe him. I think they are important and not "nonsense". I would think that if this data were made available to C&V then that data would also be available to the defense team.

Indeed. I have emails from Dan Krane and Jason Gilder in which they discuss their requests (note plural) for the EDFs, made through the defense. The defense lawyers were turned down. My conversations with them were in 2010, and the conversations were based on the open letter written in November of 2009 (Hampikian and Krane were among the authors or co-signers), which also discussed the withholding of these important files. I brought this issue to the attention of JREFF commenters in 2010, some of whom said that the prosecution was not obligated to turn over files to these experts, who were third parties, unaffiliated with the defense. In 2013 commenters elsewhere were still making this claim, despite ample evidence to the contrary. I am no longer surprised.

 

[platonov]

I don't consider Charlie's post nonsense at all. If he says he has a letter in which V requested the EDF's then I believe him. I think they are important and not "nonsense". I would think that if this data were made available to C&V then that data would also be available to the defense team.

The nonsense I am seeing is your accusations of racism and now an accusation of a conspiracy between the defense team and C&V.

I see you are not following your own advice to ignore me (it)

Let’s hope CW’s Jedi powers of not typing anything also fail him (again) and he clears this matter up.

I wasn’t positing a conspiracy between the defence and C&V, although some journos are.

But wouldn’t it be a scoop for JREF if such a conspiracy was to be revealed on this very thread

 

[RoseMontague]

I see you are not following your own advice to ignore me (it)

I appreciate the reminder. Thanks.

 

[Bill Williams]

I see you are not following your own advice to ignore me (it)

Let’s hope CW’s Jedi powers of not typing anything also fail him (again) and he clears this matter up.

I wasn’t positing a conspiracy between the defence and C&V, although some journos are.

But wouldn’t it be a scoop for JREF if such a conspiracy was to be revealed on this very thread

Too late. Barbie Nadeau has revealed the conspiracy. It's been confirmed by Machiavelli! Hey, I'm convinced!

 

[Machiavelli]

It was the prosecution that introduced Guede's letter (or at least a letter that is claimed that he "wrote") in which he implies guilt on the part of AK and RS.

Guede's letter itself was a letter he wrote about Alessi's allegations of 'confidences' and confessions by Guede. It was introduced only as a counter-evidence on the principle of completeness because the Sollecito defence introduced the Alessi evidence, and the letter is an element about it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Instead, I am impressed by the absence of your arguments.
(By the way, event the referent is absent in your post; the topic is unknown).

Never mind nobody is able to quote Massei's alleged "factual finding"; nonetheless, a little mob of converts believes there is a factual finding.
Never mind nobody is able to explain the absence of an instance to obtain EDF data from the laboratory, the proof in trial transcripts with Bongiorno's admission they were not requested for two years (2007-2009), the proof in Vecchiotti and Conti's declarations that all data they requested was given and the laboratory never withhold anything, never mind nobody is able to quote a defence complaint to the SC about such missing data, nor a request from the reasons for appeal, nor a witten brief or oral request to Hellmann.
All this doesn't matter to the believers who decided that Stefanoni withhold data.

Any factual basis of an argument is missing.
The argument is missing.
The referent is missing.
Never mind. Your idea is made of proclaims and beliefs. This is your intellectual ethics.

Mach

Please either provide a cite to support your claim that Conti and Vechiotti declared that the laboratory never withheld anything or abandon it.

The highlighted part is where Machiavelli retreats intellectually.

He is supplied with copious quotes from Judge Massei's report (page 421 an others) and then simply denies that Judge Massei says what he says.

But my all time favourite retreat that Machiavelli makes, regards the exposure of the cottage balcony to the street. At stake is which route would a burglar take to enter the cottage, if they did not have access to a key. (That Machiavelli so quickly abandons the, "Knox let Guede in with her key," theory, says it all about Machiavelli's intellectual escape routes.... I guess that's what happens when Machiavelli really has no comprehensive theory of this crime. He feels a need to argue against-the-evidence about the two available routes into the cottage.)

Rose Montague has posted a picture showing clearly how the cottage balcony is fully exposed to the street as it curves around.... complete with a road street lamp which fully illuminates the balcony.

What is Machiavelli's response (speaking of a lack of evidence on his part!)? "No it isn't! You don't really believe that do you!?"

No matter that the climb into Filomena's room window is mainly in the dark, with complete-dark stealth from the street afforded behind the retaining wall below Filomena's window, at the lower parking lot.

Reading Machiavelli's responses to the obvious here reveals the style of intellectual escape route he tests out here.

Claim: "the balcony is fully illuminated."
Mach: "No it isn't."

Claim: "Massei saw no psychopathology in either of the two students."
Mach: "He never said any such declaration."

Claim: The PLE did not collect the clothes Knox had been wearing the night of the murder."
Mach: "When did you stop beating your wife."​

Wow, I'm convinced. It is wonderful seeing a fairly ineffective rhetorical escape artist work. Why would Machiavelli purposely embarrass himself like this? The point is that Machiavelli complains about the lack of arguments. So far with the balcony, psychopathology and the clothes, Mach presents no arguments at all either. Apparently he has no rhetorical escape route on most matters.

I think it would really help his case if he attempted first a comprehensive theory of this crime.

 

[RoseMontague]

Guede's letter itself was a letter he wrote about Alessi's allegations of 'confidences' and confessions by Guede. It was introduced only as a counter-evidence on the principle of completeness because the Sollecito defence introduced the Alessi evidence, and the letter is an element about it.

You know what Mach, I believe you on this one and it seems Hellmann agreed with you as well, not allowing the defense much room for questioning. Probably a mistake on the part of the defense team and Migi used it to his advantage.

 

[Grinder]

Mach I don't think you have explained what Massei was doing when he wrote the following:

That said, it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code.

Why did he discuss the kids in this way. Isn't this summing up their characters?

What exactly is Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code?

How does this differ from Bill's contentions?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach

Please either provide a cite to support your claim that Conti and Vechiotti declared that the laboratory never withheld anything or abandon it.

You are joking? You are not aware about the May 20. 2011 hearing, when Vecchiotti and Conti declared they had obtained all documents they requested from Stefanoni's laboratory?
But their words were reported by mainstream news sources.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/11_maggio_21/meredith-amanda-perizie_4d1d4186-8395-11e0-8dd4-79550cb0ed2e.shtml

.... Gli esperti sono comparsi in Aula, spiegando di avere ottenuto tutti i dati scientifici richiesti. Hanno comunque evidenziato la necessità di poter consultare il verbale relativo al sequestro del coltello e le deposizioni nel processo di primo grado degli agenti che seguirono la perquisizione in casa di Sollecito. Documenti che la Corte ha disposto vengano ora forniti ai periti. Davanti ai giudici uno degli esperti ha sottolineato la «massima collaborazione» fornita dalla polizia scientifica che ha eseguito gli accertamenti tecnici nel corso delle indagini.

The experts appeared in the courtroom and explained they obtained all the scientific data they had requested. They anyway pointed out a necessity to look at the police report about the collecting of the knife and the testimonies from the first degree trial of the officers who operated the search in Sollecito's apartment. One of the experts highlighted how the scientific police who performed the scientific tests offered "complete cooperation".

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/05/21/509949-processo_meredith_risultati_della_nuova_perizia_entro_giugno.shtml

Intanto in Aula, stamani, gli esperti hanno spiegato di avere ottenuto tutti i dati scientifici richiesti.

Meanwhile, in the courtroom the experts explained they obteined all the scientific data they requested.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach I don't think you have explained what Massei was doing when he wrote the following:

That said, it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code.

Why did he discuss the kids in this way. Isn't this summing up their characters?

What exactly is Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code?

How does this differ from Bill's contentions?

Please let me answer for Machiavelli, because he's going to need some help on this one.

(In my best Mach voice) "It doesn't say that! Italian law states that saying a positive does not confirm the negative... or is it saying the negative does not confirm the positive? O never mind... Hey, has anyone heard that the defence paid off Conti & Vecchiotti, just like Hellmann was paid off by the Masons?"

O look, squirrel!

 

[Skind]

Guede's letter itself was a letter he wrote about Alessi's allegations of 'confidences' and confessions by Guede. It was introduced only as a counter-evidence on the principle of completeness because the Sollecito defence introduced the Alessi evidence, and the letter is an element about it.

But that letter contains elements that were not required for completeness as counterevidence to Alessis allegations, and introduced new elements that had not been heard before.

In order to achieve completeness over those elements, Guede would have and should have been required to undergo further "completeness".

Otherwise, Guedes read-out of the letter should have stopped at saying Alessi was wrong, or have been heavily redacted.

Sorry bud, but introducing Guedes letter raised a lot of issues that should have been seen to 'completeness'.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach I don't think you have explained what Massei was doing when he wrote the following:

(..)
Why did he discuss the kids in this way. Isn't this summing up their characters?

What exactly is Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code?

How does this differ from Bill's contentions?

First, Massei is not talking about kids.
Second, he is not "summing up" charachters, and above all he is not making any factual finding concerning potential psychopatologies or othe traits of personalities.
Art. 133 is about discretional power of judge in awarding generic mitigation, § 2.2 is about previous criminal and judicial records, and in general about behavior and conduct of the person in his life before the crime.

Which, as you may understand, is NOT about the defendant clinical personality profile (and could not be).
It is only about whether the person had some particularly positive conduct in his life /thus expressing some social quality) or just if they simply did not express any particular damaging or negative social behavior. We are talking about assessment of social/functional behavior anyway, merely limited to aspects that may imply judicial events; it is not clinical nor psychological, it is not an assessment about personality (it would have nothing to do with psychopaty or personality disorders).

 

[anglolawyer]

You are joking? You are not aware about the May 20. 2011 hearing, when Vecchiotti and Conti declared they had obtained all documents they requested from Stefanoni's laboratory?
But their words were reported by mainstream news sources.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/11_maggio_21/meredith-amanda-perizie_4d1d4186-8395-11e0-8dd4-79550cb0ed2e.shtml



http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cronaca/2011/05/21/509949-processo_meredith_risultati_della_nuova_perizia_entro_giugno.shtml

Nope, not joking. OK, you have some newspaper articles. Thank you. I am not completely persuaded by them. I thought you could perhaps produce an extract from a transcript (if you do I shall be asking for the whole thing).

Leila (Thoughtful) was recently quoting from her own translation of Vechiotti's testimony over at IIP (Math on Trial thread) and I assume you and she have access to the raw material (I almost said 'raw data' there - lol). I am a little picky because Leila claimed that Vechiotti had refused to agree Meredith's profile was found on the knife but when she provided a translation of what was actually said it seemed to me that Vechiotti answered affirmatively but with an explanatory qualification.

If there is a quote from a transcript saying the two experts declared that nothing had been withheld that would satisfactorily dispose of the point.

 

[Machiavelli]

But that letter contains elements that were not required for completeness as counterevidence to Alessis allegations, and introduced new elements that had not been heard before.

(..)

The elements were not new actually, because the letter had been public for months before the hearing. Anyway what you say is higly disputable. The criminal procedure code says you are wrong.
The letter had bee written by Guede and made public months befre - anyone has the right to write letters - and the letter itself was focused on Alessi's testimony and intended to be a response to the public accusations and allegations that Alessi made against Guede.
Because Alessi was the first who made declarations in the open which brought up several new elements against Guede (in order to favor the Knox-Sollecito defence).
Then, the defence decided to bring such accusatory testimony in the trial.
The previous letter writen by Gude is just a piece of evidence, it is necessary to complete the picture about Guede's relation with Alessi, and the letter is as it is.
If there are elements in the letter which are not reliable, that is a judge's job. But you cannot prevent parts of the evidence from being entered into court, you cannot "filter" the evidence before, because this is not an adversarial system and preemptive filters on a piece of evidence are not allowed.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope, not joking. OK, you have some newspaper articles. Thank you. I am not completely persuaded by them. I thought you could perhaps produce an extract from a transcript (if you do I shall be asking for the whole thing).

Leila (Thoughtful) was recently quoting from her own translation of Vechiotti's testimony over at IIP (Math on Trial thread) and I assume you and she have access to the raw material (I almost said 'raw data' there - lol). I am a little picky because Leila claimed that Vechiotti had refused to agree Meredith's profile was found on the knife but when she provided a translation of what was actually said it seemed to me that Vechiotti answered affirmatively but with an explanatory qualification.

If there is a quote from a transcript saying the two experts declared that nothing had been withheld that would satisfactorily dispose of the point.

I don't have that specific transcript (May 20.) but I think I can access it.
However, it should be pretty unnecessary to have a transcript when you have credible news reports (like Il Corriere and La Nazione) which are unequivocal and were never denied.

 

[Grinder]

The elements were not new actually, because the letter had been public for months before the hearing. Anyway what you say is higly disputable. The criminal procedure code says you are wrong.
The letter had bee written by Guede and made public months befre - anyone has the right to write letters - and the letter itself was focused on Alessi's testimony and intended to be a response to the public accusations and allegations that Alessi made against Guede.
Because Alessi was the first who made declarations in the open which brought up several new elements against Guede (in order to favor the Knox-Sollecito defence).
Then, the defence decided to bring such accusatory testimony in the trial.
The previous letter writen by Gude is just a piece of evidence, it is necessary to complete the picture about Guede's relation with Alessi, and the letter is as it is.
If there are elements in the letter which are not reliable, that is a judge's job. But you cannot prevent parts of the evidence from being entered into court, you cannot "filter" the evidence before, because this is not an adversarial system and preemptive filters on a piece of evidence are not allowed.

I thought you taught us that only the judge can bring testimony to court.

 

[Bill Williams]

First, Massei is not talking about kids.
Second, he is not "summing up" charachters, and above all he is not making any factual finding concerning potential psychopatologies or othe traits of personalities.
Art. 133 is about discretional power of judge in awarding generic mitigation, § 2.2 is about previous criminal and judicial records, and in general about behavior and conduct of the person in his life before the crime.

Which, as you may understand, is NOT about the defendant clinical personality profile (and could not be).
It is only about whether the person had some particularly positive conduct in his life /thus expressing some social quality) or just if they simply did not express any particular damaging or negative social behavior. We are talking about assessment of social/functional behavior anyway, merely limited to aspects that may imply judicial events; it is not clinical nor psychological, it is not an assessment about personality (it would have nothing to do with psychopaty or personality disorders).

Wow. Let me get this straight. The prosecution tries to enter evidence at trial that Knox and Sollecito have pathological personality traits which would lead to murder - traits which include the proclivity to engage in sex-games with unwilling partners, and/or escalate normal household tensions (not keeping the bathroom toilet clean, that sort of thing).....

...... and Massei not only makes no mention of psychopathology, Massei goes out of his way to state the exact opposite! And this is NOT Massei giving an assessment about personality?

Perhaps Massei should have done what Machiavelli did - although Machiavelli did it in the more rarefied sleep/sleep-deprivation area. Mach. claimed expertise, clinical expertise, in evaluating Amanda Knox's sleep history, and her ability to be rested going into interrogation, BY READING WHAT SHE WROTE!

Machiavelli - this is a retreat on your part. Basically someone shows you a picture of something, or quotes at length someone, and you're only retort is, "But it doesn't say that?"

I go with Mary_H. You have just proved that Benedict XVI has never been Pope, because Massei did not mention it in his motivations report. Someone should report this immediately to The Vatican!

It's embarrassing that you would even try this. I was going to write, "Try to get away with this," but anyone with an I.Q. north of a kumquat can see through this.

As noted on another thread.... you actually DO represent the line of thinking in the prosecution of this case - where the testimony of a homeless, drug dependent man (heroin and worse) is being advanced as more trustworthy than peer reviewed DNA experts (C&V).

I sincerely hope you keep going with these intellectual retreats, Mr. Mach.

 

[Grinder]

Nope, not joking. OK, you have some newspaper articles. Thank you. I am not completely persuaded by them. I thought you could perhaps produce an extract from a transcript (if you do I shall be asking for the whole thing).

Leila (Thoughtful) was recently quoting from her own translation of Vechiotti's testimony over at IIP (Math on Trial thread) and I assume you and she have access to the raw material (I almost said 'raw data' there - lol). I am a little picky because Leila claimed that Vechiotti had refused to agree Meredith's profile was found on the knife but when she provided a translation of what was actually said it seemed to me that Vechiotti answered affirmatively but with an explanatory qualification.

If there is a quote from a transcript saying the two experts declared that nothing had been withheld that would satisfactorily dispose of the point.

Quick recap please. IIRC C&V eventually received the data after Hellmann forced Stefanoni to release them.

What frustrates me about these conversations is that truth and justice take a back seat to legal technicalities. Why should it be so critical exactly when a request was made? If the trial isn't over why not allow more data and be more sure of the verdict?