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

[Machiavelli]

The cottage actually acts like a bandshell focusing the sound down the valley. Here is a famous band shell in the US. It is the backdrop of the Hollywood Bowl. You can find bandshells that direct sound toward the audience in great concert theaters around the world. They don't put the band shell between themselves and the audience. This is the audio engineering reason why Nara and Monaccia testimony would be terrible to use to pinpoint Meredith's TOD.

[qimg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hollywood_bowl_and_sign.jpg[/qimg]

The cottage (and its balcony) actually would focus the sound upwards. The balcony window being the main way out for sound, and the balcony the platea deflecting area. What you call bandshell - the cottage - is in fact oriented towards Nara's apartment.

 

[RoseMontague]

Got a cite?

For Knox: the traces on the knife handle found at the home
of Sollecito, statements by Guede, the footprints from Knox and Sollecito detected by luminol, traces of genetic material on the sink and bidet, the phrase "I was there" in a conversation intercepted in prison between Knox and her parents, the testimony of Nara Capezzali who, at the time of the crime from her home about 70 meters away from via della Pergola heard a heart-rending scream and soon afterwards the footsteps of people going in opposite directions

From Rudy's ISC sentencing report page 10. Quite amazing.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, that hasn't been shown in these foruns. What people tried to do was to minimise the importance of the right to speedy trial. But the reality is that this a very important human right and an actual violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Numan Rights, the right to a fair trial.

Italy is the worst offender in western europe, and the italian courts know it but chose to ignore it.

So please don't try to sweep it under the carpet.

About the "European Convention of Numan Rights", the number of rights violations is not considered as a shapeless indistinct mass of homogeneous things. You should not sweep the truth under the carpet, if you want to attack the "credibility" of something. If you want to attack the efficiency or rightfulness regarding trial speed, that's one thing (regardless to the importance you put on it, still it is a distinct topic). But if you want to suggest corruption, unfair trials, on the ground of European Court data, you are lying.

 

[acbytesla]

In the semantics of the conversation, clearly Knox is contending with someone. There are basically two possibilities, about who is the second referent (or "actant"). Either she is contending with her parents about a version her lawyers suggested her (lawyers suggested her to not lie about the fact that she was at the cottage, and she tells this to her mother that there is no reason why she should lie - but the mother disagrees), or she is contending not against a person present there but against a theory which the police (or prosecution) is suggesting (she puts forward her argument against the police theory: there is no reason why I should lie).

In the first case, her parents are asking her to lie; in the second scenario, the phrase "I have no reason to lie" is merely emphatic, she wants her parents to believe her and puts forward an argument for that.

I bear in mind that Knox comes from a hearing before a judge (Matteini) where she decided to remain silent (she refused to answer questions, she refused to make statements; so she stuck to her ambiguous hand written notes) and she is elaborating the strategy about the defensive line she needs to keep at a coming interrogation by the public minister.
Indeed, the question about what her version could be is not stupid at all. She could be thinking of putting forward a recollection where she was at the cottage but she is innocent, something similar to her 05:45 spontaneous statement (I'm sure her lawyers suggested that was the best strategy). It might be indeed stupid to lie if she actually was at the cottage, which is what her lawyers believed.
But let's say that her parents said: no! And in order to convince her, they suggested that the police was lying, that their evidence fas false. Curt and Edda Knox wanted a hard line, because they agreed to that strategy under suggestion of a PR firma. The conversation betwen Knox and hr mother might be about this. I don't think this is stupid at all. Also because this resembles to what Sollecito's parents did with Raffaele: his father pressured him to keep some defensive line rather an another.

It's either stupid Mach or it's a deliberate obfuscation because it ignores the context of the conversation which was the knife. I think one of the biggest problems in this case is that people whose first language is NOT English, misunderstand the nuances and jump to grossly mistaken conclusions.

Your suggestion that her lawyers told her not to lie about being in cottage is NOT in evidence. It is a deliberate supposition that is designed to offer some nefarious context of the conversation that was not there during the conversation. By inserting this, you are obfuscating the meaning of Amanda's conversation. If you take Amanda's conversation in total without your obfuscation, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR,she is referring to Raffaele's cottage.

 

[MDDVS]

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.

So you admit that at most Nara heard a reflected sound. Since it was a reflection, the original source could have been pretty much anywhere. It is impossible to determine that the original source of the sound was a particular house just from hearing the reflection, because when the sound is reflected it changes direction (in general).

 

[Machiavelli]

Your suggestion that her lawyers told her not to lie about being in cottage is NOT in evidence. It is a deliberate supposition that is designed to offer some nefarious context of the conversation that was not there during the conversation. By inserting this, you are obfuscating the meaning of Amanda's conversation. If you take Amanda's conversation in total without your obfuscation, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR,she is referring to Raffaele's cottage.

In order to make such a clear cut statement, you would need to actually quote the whole conversation ("in total"). That should be at least the information basis required to make such an absolute claim.

 

[Dan O.]

Got a cite?

Quoted above and found on paged 2 and 10 of the English translations.

 

[anglolawyer]

The lamp absolutely is a piece of evidence. You might consider it a phantom, the way Marx called Communism a phantom, but it exists in the trial papers and was never explicilty disproven. The assessment that it played no part in a conviction might well be wrong, but anyway it is misleading. The avsence of a pice of evidence from a report is not evidence of its absence.

Oh no it isn't! If you haven't already, read this brilliant, total demolition of the lamp. 'Never disproven'? What? Wrong way round Mach! It's the prosecution which has to prove stuff, not the defence! Massei made no finding on the lamp, Hellman never had to consider it, there is nothing in Galati and nothing in the ISC. How can it be a piece of evidence? We need a complete list of all these pieces of evidence that apparently point to guilt but which the various tribunals see no need to make rulings about.

But I find this kind of criticism hypocrite and unbalanced at the utmost. You should consider that Vogt left out a metric ton of details which are unfavourable to Knox and put them into the equation. The you should also consider the crazy, gotesque pro-Knox campaign played by English-speaking mainstream media, instead of providing actual information. And you should put this into the equation. You can't just judge Andrea Vogt picking up an isolated "assessment" about a detail (she did not give two sides of this detail) while you are on a standing point of acceptance of a media coma, you never complained about it. You can't enter a living room walking out of a marsh, and complain that a corner of the carpet is not properly polished. While are sullying everything, while you are splashing into mud, you are not in the position for pointing the fingers against imperefctions of clean things. Intellectual dishonesty consists exactly in this.

Point taken. Like I said, I am not that interested in the doings of journalists. Others more knowledgable than me may take over. I was only enquiring into the one single issue of the 'I was there' thing. I found it instructive for reasons entirely unconnected with Ms Vogt.

 

[MDDVS]

About the "European Convention of Numan Rights", the number of rights violations is not considered as a shapeless indistinct mass of homogeneous things. You should not sweep the truth under the carpet, if you want to attack the "credibility" of something. If you want to attack the efficiency or rightfulness regarding trial speed, that's one thing (regardless to the importance you put on it, still it is a distinct topic). But if you want to suggest corruption, unfair trials, on the ground of European Court data, you are lying.

What I'm saying is that lenghty trials are unfair trials, by definition.

 

[anglolawyer]

From Rudy's ISC sentencing report page 10. Quite amazing.

Thanks Rose. Stunning.

 

[acbytesla]

The cottage (and its balcony) actually would focus the sound upwards. The balcony window being the main way out for sound, and the balcony the platea deflecting area. What you call bandshell - the cottage - is in fact oriented towards Nara's apartment.

Yes, the front of the cottage, is oriented toward Nara's apartment. However, the only window in Meredith's bedroom is focused directly away from Perugia and down the valley.

How does the balcony come into play Mach? Are you suggesting that Meredith screamed while out on the balcony?

Try again

 

[Machiavelli]

No they don't and yes it is. What you are suggesting might have been the practise of the Star Chamber but it only takes a second to see that if justice must be done and seen to be done there cannot be a bunch of secret reasons for a conviction.

Unfortunately this is a very big point of disagreement. I object ant the roots to your interpretation of what "evidence" in a trial is, and I call it false. Pieces of evidence may well exist and can be picked up (by magistrates, courts, or journalists) even when they are not reported in a motivations report. This doesn't mean they are secret. It may imply they are not used by a particular judge, not that they are disproven or that they do not exist. They do belong to the trial file and may well be seen as significant, or potentially significant, even in the legal discourse.

(..) (source: WTBH) and all subsequent judges fell into line (I am still waiting for a page reference in Cassazione to 'I was there').

There isn't a reference to the "I was there" phrase, but there is a reference to the whole conversation a a potentially important piece of evidence, and there is a point about the "method" that you object: that this piece of evidence was not mentioned as being important by some of the judges. So indeed the non mention of evidence is not evidence of non existence.

As requested, please quote the passage you think Vogt is relying on here.

I think Vogt is relying on the arguments made by Mignini at the 2008 preliminary hearing; he refers more than once to the conversation, this is one (2008 PM argument, p. 101):

"(...) Questo e non altro è il senso di una frase intercettata in un colloqui con i suoi familiari: "Io ero là" "

 

[Dan O.]

In the semantics of the conversation, clearly Knox is contending with someone. There are basically two possibilities, about who is the second referent (or "actant"). Either she is contending with her parents about a version her lawyers suggested her (lawyers suggested her to not lie about the fact that she was at the cottage, and she tells this to her mother that there is no reason why she should lie - but the mother disagrees), or she is contending not against a person present there but against a theory which the police (or prosecution) is suggesting (she puts forward her argument against the police theory: there is no reason why I should lie)."

If it were so clear you would have the whole conversation and not jost the soundbyte that Mignini put forward in order to keep an innocent girl locked up. Everything else you are putting into this is straight from your imagination.

Why do you feel the need to hurt other people Machiavelli?

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, the front of the cottage, is oriented toward Nara's apartment. However, the only window in Meredith's bedroom is focused directly away from Perugia and down the valley.

How does the balcony come into play Mach? Are you suggesting that Meredith screamed while out on the balcony?

Try again

Meredith shouted out towards her bedroom door. The sound propagated through her bedroom door, which faces directly the glass door that leads to the balcony, so then through the said door tpwards the balcony. The cottage body itself is the waveshell and the balcony is the platea. That was the sound direction.
Nara's apartment is only 45 meters distant in line from the spot in her room where Meredith's body was found. It becomes 46 if you calculate elevation pitch. It's not far. I think it's perfectly compatible.

 

[Machiavelli]

What I'm saying is that lenghty trials are unfair trials, by definition.

This is not what you said, when you said that Italian courts are not credible.
ECHR has the category "right to a fair trial" as separate from the "right to a speedy trial". So it's two kind of violations.

 

[acbytesla]

In order to make such a clear cut statement, you would need to actually quote the whole conversation ("in total"). That should be at least the information basis required to make such an absolute claim.

The entire conversation has been posted here and elsewhere. Moodstream posted enough of the Amanda's conversation with Edda to demonstrate the actual context of the conversation to be about the double DNA kitchen knife and how Amanda said ""It's crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's what they're doing now. They're just lying." And in reference to the police and prosecution pursuit of her "It's all an invention."

All you're doing Machiavelli is introducing fictional elements and taking statements out of context.

 

[Machiavelli]

No...be patient...we will get to the others in time. There are plenty of liars in this case. Not just Vogt. Why are you not addressing Diocletus posts? The missing scientific data? That withholding evidence is a lie? BTW...the HIV test in prison was not faked...only the result of this test was faked.

Of course Diocletus claim it's a lie. He is unable to quote anything to document an alleged defence request for those allegedly requested an denied files.
Of course, whoever thinks the result of the test was fake, is accusing the whole medical staff (who work for the Umbria Health Care system, not the police nor the judiciary) of being corrupt and criminals, and is accusing Knox's defence attorneys of severe misconduct too (worth their disbarring).
Moreover, any sane person who makes such accusation would do that only while having serious evidence of that, and knowledge of the person accused (you only have evidence of the contrary, that nothing of the kind ever happened).
So it's hard to deal rationally with people whose assertion are built as pure delusion. (and ignorance: tell me the names of the doctors, at least...).

 

[anglolawyer]

Unfortunately this is a very big point of disagreement. I object ant the roots to your interpretation of what "evidence" in a trial is, and I call it false. Pieces of evidence may well exist and can be picked up (by magistrates, courts, or journalists) even when they are not reported in a motivations report. This doesn't mean they are secret. It may imply they are not used by a particular judge, not that they are disproven or that they do not exist. They do belong to the trial file and may well be seen as significant, or potentially significant, even in the legal discourse.

I am not talking about what evidence is but about what is required in a reasoned judgment (or motivation). Obviously and simply, that will be the reasons for the decision, fully set out so the parties know why the court decided as it did. The court should not simply ignore important evidential points. I thought this was one of the criticisms of Hellman, that he did precisely that. If the court does not set out its reasons, or if it simply fails to make a finding on an issue between the parties its decision will be open to appeal in my jurisdiction.

Take the lamp. Mignini introduced no evidence of his own about it. He just popped a question to Amanda about it. He did not seek to prove the lamp was in the room when the door was broken open. If he had, Massei would have to have made a finding one way or the other. Likewise, unless I am mistaken, Mignini did not seek to argue that 'I was there' meant what you say it meant. Ergo, once again, Massei was not called upon to make a finding.

If you are saying these two points can be raised again in Florence then I don't doubt you may be right but in the proceedings to date (i.e. Massei, Hellman and the ISC) they have not been advanced as probative of anything and they have been rightly ignored for that reason.

There isn't a reference to the "I was there" phrase, but there is a reference to the whole conversation a a potentially important piece of evidence, and there is a point about the "method" that you object: that this piece of evidence was not mentioned as being important by some of the judges. So indeed the non mention of evidence is not evidence of non existence.

I found the general reference to the telephone conversation. That might have something to do with the fact that Galati appended the entire transcript to the appeal document. I wish we had the whole text. If you know somebody who could get hold of it it would be cool if you could dump it here.

On the 'method' if you mean basing judicial decisions on unspecified items of evidence then I do have a problem with it and so, I would expect, would the ECHR.

I think Vogt is relying on the arguments made by Mignini at the 2008 preliminary hearing; he refers more than once to the conversation, this is one (2008 PM argument, p. 101):

This is not a reply to my question, which asked you to identify the passage in the ISC judgment that was being referenced. Never mind now. We have converged on a better understanding of the path the 'I was there' fact has taken through the various stages of the process.

 

[MDDVS]

This is not what you said, when you said that Italian courts are not credible.
ECHR has the category "right to a fair trial" as separate from the "right to a speedy trial". So it's two kind of violations.

I already discussed this detail before, so I'm not going to again. Just a few comments:

Italy's performance in categories other than the "right to a speedy trial" is still quite dismal when compared with other western europen countries, even when controled for the countries' populations.

In my opinion, the fact that Italian courts (the Italian judicial system as a whole really) look at violations of the right to a speedy trial as irrelavant or not important enough to do something about it undermines their overall credibility. We may agree to disagree on this.

That separation between categories is present in the statistics but is completely artificial because both the "right to a fair trial" and the "right to a speedy trial" are violations of the same article (Article 6, right to a fair trial). There are obvious reasons why the right to a fair trial includes the right to speedy trial.

 

[Machiavelli]

The entire conversation has been posted here and elsewhere. Moodstream posted enough of the Amanda's conversation with Edda to demonstrate the actual context of the conversation to be about the double DNA kitchen knife and how Amanda said ""It's crap, yes it's crap, total crap, a piece of crap, a total invention. That's what they're doing now. They're just lying." And in reference to the police and prosecution pursuit of her "It's all an invention."

All you're doing Machiavelli is introducing fictional elements and taking statements out of context.

Well actually I think also "your" context was not there; and that it is not clear at all. And it's certainly not going to be there at least unless we see the conversation transcript "in total".
So any claim that Vogt should "recant" or that she is unbalanced, of that the meaning and context is "clear cut", is unfounded, as long as you don't have the context yorself.