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

[Machiavelli]

So you agree that if these claims were not false, then the actions they refer to would be idiotic. Indeed.

It's the idea that they happened that it's idiotic. They are not even "actions" actually, they are stories. They make no sense as stories.

 

[Diocletus]

It's the idea that they happened that it's idiotic. They are not even "actions" actually, they are stories. They make no sense as stories.

Perhaps you would like to explain to us the current whereabouts of the following Egrams: 600-604, 617, 622, 626, 628, 631, 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, 762-69, 939, 944, 948, and 952.

And, let us know why they are not included in the Bates-stamped collection of Egrams that Stefanoni/Prosecution provided to the court.

Selective disclosure is a lie.

 

[Mary_H]

It's the idea that they happened that it's idiotic. They are not even "actions" actually, they are stories. They make no sense as stories.

Based on all the evidence of the previous behaviors of the people involved in these "stories," they make perfect sense.

• Mignini described a Satanic ritual
• Knox underwent a fake HIV test
• Guede's letter was fake or that he should have been arrested before
• Stefanoni lied or denied a defence request to disclose information

Now, here is a story that makes no sense at all:

Mr Mignini saw the scene so clearly in his mind that he was able to describe it to the judge in detail: Meredith on her knees before the wardrobe, Rudy holding her immobile, Raffaele grasping one arm, Amanda in front of her, pricking her throat teasingly with the knife – until the blade in her hand struck home. “To prove it,” he told the judge triumphantly, “the only thing missing was a video camera in the room.”

http://rea1001.blogspot.com/2008_11_02_archive.html

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't call Vogt a liar, I just say that she does not tell the whole truth, which means her reports are unbalanced. In the 2011 piece I linked to yesterday, Vogt says, "Though not raised during her first trial, the "I was there" prison conversation reference is tucked into a long paragraph detailing the evidence pointing to Knox's involvement."

Why does Andrea act like this is new news, when she knows the quote and the reaction to it are from 2007? Why does she not state anywhere in the 2011 article that Knox and her lawyers had long since clarified the meaning of Knox's statement, and that a judge had agreed that it was not evidence pointing to Knox's involvement?

The title of the 2011 article, Italian judges' report: Amanda Knox says she 'was there,'is not only misleading, but I would go so far as to say it is intended to be misleading. Some people might call that a lie.

1. Bill Williams asked Vogt to "recant" one specific piece of information which he called "false" (saying he is sure of that), on which he claimed the truth was different (meaning that it was proven what the truth was) and said such truth it was "clear".

2. Fron your quote, the title of the quoted article is correct (anyway, the newspaper and not the journalist is the one responsible for the title, you should know that). Moreover, Vogt does not "act like it is new news", she only reports from legal documents (which might be news); she does not report that the defence "clarified" - and, now it is proven, correctly so - maybe because the defence did not clarify; they only claimed an explanation (as they have to do on anything) while such explanation did not "clarify" and did not sound convincing to any judge, neither to the public, nor to Vogt.

3. What I find more astonishing anyway, is this pointing the finger agains Vogt talking about "unbalanced report". And I say this not because of the merit of the judgement itself; anyone can have their opinion on who makes the best balanced report (but you need to know the topic); but here, ths criticism to Vogt about "balanced reporting" comes from people who did not raise an eyebrow when a CNN anchor woman reported that the Perugians were angry "with the police". It seems you were not too outraged that Popham wrote that Mignini talked about a Satanic ritual; that MSNBC had the Koxes as regular guests to comment on the case; that all US media failed to report the existence of tens or hundreds of pieces of evidence and witnesses (who ever reported of Meredith's girlfriends? Luminol footprints? etc.); that Spezi and Preston reported that Mignini was the Prosecutor in the MoF investigation; that the US network did not report about Knox's claim of false memory syndrome, about her statement "I stand by what I said" or about her dec 17th interrogation, nor about Vecchiotti's "everything is possible...", and so on....
You concept of "balanced reporting" is really astonoshing. No outrage against bloggers/journalists who wrote about fake HIV tests, or who falsely wrote that Mignini was guilty of abuses (without even mentioning anything about the true proceedings and their true context, nature and conclusion), or that 100 instances of Guede's DNA were found in the murder room (or that it was found "everywhere"), no outrage for what was falsely claimed about Stefanoni....
So you point instead your finger against Vogt and you ask her - only her - to be "more balanced", to recant something, which btw is true according to all judges.

 

[Diocletus]

1. Bill Williams asked Vogt to "recant" one specific piece of information which he called "false" (saying he is sure of that), on which he claimed the truth was different (meaning that it was proven what the truth was) and said such truth it was "clear".

2. Fron your quote, the title of the quoted article is correct (anyway, the newspaper and not the journalist is the one responsible for the title, you should know that). Moreover, Vogt does not "act like it is new news", she only reports from legal documents (which might be news); she does not report that the defence "clarified" - and, now it is proven, correctly so - maybe because the defence did not clarify; they only claimed an explanation (as they have to do on anything) while such explanation did not "clarify" and did not sound convincing to any judge, neither to the public, nor to Vogt.

3. What I find more astonishing anyway, is this pointing the finger agains Vogt talking about "unbalanced report". And I say this not because of the merit of the judgement itself; anyone can have their opinion on who makes the best balanced report (but you need to know the topic); but here, ths criticism to Vogt about "balanced reporting" comes from people who did not raise an eyebrow when a CNN anchor woman reported that the Perugians were angry "with the police". It seems you were not too outraged that Popham wrote that Mignini talked about a Satanic ritual; that MSNBC had the Koxes as regular guests to comment on the case; that all US media failed to report the existence of tens or hundreds of pieces of evidence and witnesses (who ever reported of Meredith's girlfriends? Luminol footprints? etc.); that Spezi and Preston reported that Mignini was the Prosecutor in the MoF investigation; that the US network did not report about Knox's claim of false memory syndrome, about her statement "I stand by what I said" or about her dec 17th interrogation, nor about Vecchiotti's "everything is possible...", and so on....
You concept of "balanced reporting" is really astonoshing. No outrage against bloggers/journalists who wrote about fake HIV tests, or who falsely wrote that Mignini was guilty of abuses (without even mentioning anything about the true proceedings and their true context, nature and conclusion), or that 100 instances of Guede's DNA were found in the murder room (or that it was found "everywhere"), no outrage for what was falsely claimed about Stefanoni....
So you point instead your finger against Vogt and you ask her - only her - to be "more balanced", to recant something, which btw is true according to all judges.

Stefanoni is hiding evidence like a common criminal.

 

[Machiavelli]

Based on all the evidence of the previous behaviors of the people involved in these "stories," they make perfect sense.

• Mignini described a Satanic ritual
• Knox underwent a fake HIV test
• Guede's letter was fake or that he should have been arrested before
• Stefanoni lied or denied a defence request to disclose information

• 
  
  Of course, what you write makes a lot of sense. Take for example point #2. Based on "all the evidence" of the "previous behaviour" of the "people involved", assumes that you have collected a dossiers with a list of criminal records and behaviours (and biographies) of the medical staff of Umbria Health Care system working at the Capanne prison. Of course you did. Of course it makes a lot of sense...
  
  The Guede's letter is obviously not only his handwriting, but also obviously written in his own personal language (it is weitten by a native French speaker); an anyway you don't have a shred of evidence to say it's not true. It is just proven that Guede could not be arrested before, self evident under the law (even Charlie Wilkes admitted that). You are also unable to bring any shred of evidence that Stefanoni denied an alleged defence request to disclose EDF files. But it doesn't matter to you. You "believe", based on your ideas about people and behaviors, and there is nothing to actually discuss whtn it's about belief.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps you would like to explain to us the current whereabouts of the following Egrams: 600-604, 617, 622, 626, 628, 631, 685-86, 688-89, 693-94, 758-60, 762-69, 939, 944, 948, and 952.

And, let us know why they are not included in the Bates-stamped collection of Egrams that Stefanoni/Prosecution provided to the court.

Selective disclosure is a lie.

Selective "diclosure" (in your non-legal, incorrect way of using the term) is just the law and the normal praxis, not everything enters the file unless there are specific requests. If you (incorrectly) understand "disclosure" as entered into the investigation or trial file, then "disclosure" is selective.
Perhaps you were willing to show us the defence request that was allegedly denied.

 

[Machiavelli]

When it was found as not being accurate, she did not recant. That's all I am saying. You really need to calm down.

Who "found" it out as "not being accurate"? The defence?

And, btw, what about your claims, that were found out to be false?

 

[Diocletus]

Selective "diclosure" (in your non-legal, incorrect way of using the term) is just the law and the normal praxis, not everything enters the file unless there are specific requests. If you (incorrectly) understand "disclosure" as entered into the investigation or trial file, then "disclosure" is selective.
Perhaps you were willing to show us the defence request that was allegedly denied.

Why did Stefanoni produce anything at all? She produced a bates-stamped copy of egrams. Why?

 

[Machiavelli]

There is a reason why Italy is the champion of human rights abuse, in Western Europe, by its courts.

And please, stop pretending torture (yes, beating suspects counts as torture for me) is not common practice by the police. I know you know.

For the sake of truth, as it was already proven more than once on forums, Italy is not the champion of human right abuse in Western Europe. We know that Italy has a problem with lengh of proceedings. More than other countries in Westarn Europe. But doesn't have more problems with human rights abuse than the average Western European countries at all, by its courts.

 

[Machiavelli]

You've lost me here, Mach. You (and Vogt, I presume) say 'I was there' meant she was at the apartment when Meredith was killed. If that were true it would be a major element in the case against her and we would expect to see it blazoned across the pages of Massei and Cassazion e but I can't find it

You can't find it into the Cassazione ruling? You're kidding?

 

[LondonJohn]

Amplified is a better word. Dan doesn't think there are rocks in hills and shares photos of the cottage with a limited view of trees; there are better ones that show hills on all sides, perhaps I can post a better one. Perugia is surrounded by hills make up of calcareous breccias a type of rock.

This is an extraordinarily poor and unscientific "argument", without a shred of merit. You are plain wrong. 100% wrong. Perhaps a basic science lesson (I'm not sure whether it would be correct to suppose that your "argument" is the product of little or no scientific training or education?) might help.

Here's why your "argument" is so stupendously wrong: Sound is transmitted through air by pressure waves, which are in essence* formed by "squeezing" the air in a rolling wave motion. The energy transmitted in sound pressure waves through air is therefore entirely bound in the energy of individual molecules within air (chiefly nitrogen and oxygen), which gain energy as they are "squeezed", then transfer it as they "unsqueeze" and the next molecule along "squeezes" in turn.

With me so far? I hope so! Now, here comes the first important bit: it's the difference between sound and light. Have you ever perhaps wondered why you can see someone from 500m away, but you can't hear what they might be saying in a normal conversational voice at that distance? It's chiefly because light is high-energy electromagnetic radiation, and sound is low-energy pressure waves in air. The reflected light emitting from the skin and clothes of the person hardly degrades or fades at all over the 500m distance, whereas sound pressure waves degrade a huge amount over the same distance.

So, the first point to notice is that sound waves degrade and fade much, much, much sooner than light. That's important, but we'll park that for now.

On to the second important bit: What happens to sound when it hits a solid object (especially when compared with light)? In order for sound pressure waves to be "reflected" off a surface, it needs to hit a very smooth, flat surface in order for the air to "bounce" off the surface in an orderly waveform pattern. If the surface is not smooth, the "reflected" sound will get progressively distorted from the original sound pressure wave. In addition, the very act of hitting a solid surface degrades the power of a sound pressure wave substantially. This is a very different situation from light, where a highly-mirrored surface can reflect light radiation with virtually no loss, degradation or distortion. As a further factor, most sound pressure energy is lost if the wave hits the surface "head-on", as opposed to a more glancing contact (which would of course not reflect the wave, but merely deflect it by a small angle).

Furthermore, if the surface encountered by the sound pressure waves is a) rough-textured and b) not flat, a vast majority of the sound energy will be lost in the collision. That, for example, is why sound recording studios can use material similar to cardboard egg boxes to line the walls and ceiling in order to almost eliminate sound reflection.

So the second conclusion is that sound pressure waves cannot be reflected without a very significant loss of energy, even if they are reflecting off a smooth, flat surface. When one adds in trees and other foliage, the loss of energy from any reflection would be very large indeed.

In summary, sound cannot be "amplified" in a canyon. That is a specious and totally incorrect supposition. I am guessing that it may be predicated on a mistaken and incorrect assumption that sound pressure waves might behave in a similar way to electromagnetic light radiation. Whether such an erroneous comparison is responsible or not, the fact that remains is as follows: any sound pressure waves emitted within Meredith Kercher's room on the night of the murder - even if her window was open (and there is no evidence to suggest that it WAS open, since it was found closed) - would have hugely degraded in strength by the time they had radiated out to the valley below, reflected back up past the cottage again, and arrived at Sig.ra Capezzali's window.

In short, the elderly lady (and the other "ear-witnesses") were either a) honestly mistaken, or b) they heard something (a shout or scream perhaps) from directly on the road or the parking lot, or c) they are fantasists or liars. What they DIDN'T hear was a scream originating from within Meredith Kercher's room, let alone one loud and piercing enough to wake someone through double-glazed windows.


* The real mechanism is actually a bit more complicated than this, but my slightly simplified description is accurate insofar as it allows for a robust description of the properties of sound pressure waves in air.

 

[RoseMontague]

Selective "diclosure" (in your non-legal, incorrect way of using the term) is just the law and the normal praxis, not everything enters the file unless there are specific requests. If you (incorrectly) understand "disclosure" as entered into the investigation or trial file, then "disclosure" is selective.
Perhaps you were willing to show us the defence request that was allegedly denied.

Any system of justice that allows this is not really interested in justice at all.

You previously indicated Stefanoni had a strategy of withholding evidence. I agree with Diocletus. She is a lying liar.

 

[anglolawyer]

You can't find it into the Cassazione ruling? You're kidding?

No. Can I have a page number?

ETA - I checked again. Still can't find any reference to the 'I was there' remark. The phone call is otherwise repeatedly referred to though. Anyway thanks to Bill for turning up the reference in Massei, who makes no finding that these words meant that she was at her place. So it's like the lamp. It gets a mention but no finding. Weird.

 

[Diocletus]

That is a good point about low template DNA. A new post at View from Wilmington looks at the Court of Cassation's report.

Very nice blog post, Chris. This Italian supreme court is so clueless that it's scary.

 

[Bill Williams]

Who "found" it out as "not being accurate"? The defence?

And, btw, what about your claims, that were found out to be false?

Massei says this about the statement, "I was there." I regard Massei as the current "Finder of fact."

Then, with regard to the intercepted conversation with her mother and father, in which she said ‚ I was there I have no interest in lying, I’m not afraid of the truth‛ and ‚It’s stupid, I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there, I mean, I can’t lie there’s no reason to do it," she explained that the reference to the fact that "she was there" meant that she was in Raffaele’s apartment.

This is ALL Massei writes. If, according to Ms. Vogt, it is factual that the "I was there" statement to Amanda's mother (secretly recorded) was tantamount to a confession, why does Massei make no further reference to it?

You see, I am not accusing Ms. Vogt of lying. I have no doubt that the prosecution at the Massei trial spun this, taking the secretly recorded conversation with her mother out of context, as a confession.

If it was a confession, why does Massei make no further mention of it? If it was a confession, Massei would make mention of it as a reason to find Knox guilty. With this fact, he does no such thing. It's amazing you argue the way you do about it.

I get the feeling that this bothers you more than it does Ms. Vogt. My feeling is that if pushed, she'd recant and not make a big deal out of it. If she was a true journalist, she would concede that reporting is an inexact science and "facts" are fluid, esp. when one only reports on one side of the case.

All I am asking, really, is on this one point - does Ms. Vogt agree with Judge Massei now (today), or doesn't she?

 

[Diocletus]

Any system of justice that allows this is not really interested in justice at all.

You previously indicated Stefanoni had a strategy of withholding evidence. I agree with Diocletus. She is a lying liar.

Machiavelli's argument goes like this:

If you're playing Go Fish, and you ask Mach for all of his Jacks, he thinks it's OK to turn over two Jacks but hold on to the third, just to prevent your opponent from making a match.

Lyin' and cheatin'. That's what that is.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think people should be getting fixated on Vogt. She is a jobbing hack (like many others) who's trying hard to earn a shilling in the tough world of print journalism. She has seen an angle as an "expert" reporter on the Knox/Sollecito trial, and since she has credentials and an article history, it's a given that she will get some articles bought by the mainstream press during the height of the appeal trial. So will Nick Pisa and even "Barbie" Nadeau, for the same reasons.

That's the way the mainstream media operate - for short-term, once-only events like these, they buy in copy rather than go to the trouble and expense of bringing in their own people and doing their own journalism. Heck, the UK and US media (both print and broadcast) barely cover Italian politics or other news issues at all anyhow. They laughably flew out a few hacks to cover the righting of the Costa Concordia this week, but that was a short, visual, easy-to-understand event that didn't need any background. For the Knox/Sollecito appeals, they will almost definitely sub-contract the reporting - up to and excluding the verdicts of course - to stringers such as Vogt, Pisa and Nadeau. It's the way it works.

All that having been said, it should really be immaterial what people like Vogt are writing in their unpublished freelance pieces right now. When the appeal trial gets going, Vogt and all the others will be sticking to their brief: simple reportage of what happens in the courtroom. That's what the media who pay their wages will be asking for.

 

[Antony]

You can't find it into the Cassazione ruling? You're kidding?

Ah ... the Cassazione. Are you going to answer my question as to how they can declare the Hellman verdict "not legitimate" on the basis of challenging his evaluation of the evidence, rather than on points of law?

 

[RoseMontague]

3. What I find more astonishing anyway, is this pointing the finger agains Vogt talking about "unbalanced report". And I say this not because of the merit of the judgement itself; anyone can have their opinion on who makes the best balanced report (but you need to know the topic); but here, ths criticism to Vogt about "balanced reporting" comes from people who did not raise an eyebrow when a CNN anchor woman reported that the Perugians were angry "with the police". It seems you were not too outraged that Popham wrote that Mignini talked about a Satanic ritual; that MSNBC had the Koxes as regular guests to comment on the case; that all US media failed to report the existence of tens or hundreds of pieces of evidence and witnesses (who ever reported of Meredith's girlfriends? Luminol footprints? etc.); that Spezi and Preston reported that Mignini was the Prosecutor in the MoF investigation; that the US network did not report about Knox's claim of false memory syndrome, about her statement "I stand by what I said" or about her dec 17th interrogation, nor about Vecchiotti's "everything is possible...", and so on....
You concept of "balanced reporting" is really astonoshing. No outrage against bloggers/journalists who wrote about fake HIV tests, or who falsely wrote that Mignini was guilty of abuses (without even mentioning anything about the true proceedings and their true context, nature and conclusion), or that 100 instances of Guede's DNA were found in the murder room (or that it was found "everywhere"), no outrage for what was falsely claimed about Stefanoni....
So you point instead your finger against Vogt and you ask her - only her - to be "more balanced", to recant something, which btw is true according to all judges.

If a journalist knows there is another side to the story and fails to mention it in their report then they are in fact editorializing. Only an idiot (like the judges) would believe she meant the "I was there" to mean she was at the cottage during the murder. Vogt may also be an idiot so I give her the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Popham was not the only one that reported the phrase Satanic ritual in connection to the prosecution claims. Barbie Nadeau says this several times in her book. And even judge Micheli mentions Mignini's claims of a ritual murder.

On Guede's handwritten statement, are you a handwriting expert? I don't take it as a given that he wrote it, in fact I still have doubts about it. On the HIV test, were you present at the testing and can certify the result as positive? Personally, I don't think it can be proven at this point that they faked it, but I would not put it past them.