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

[acbytesla]

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.

1. Please provide a cite for the distance of Nara's apartment and the line and it actual location on that hillside. My info has her apartment at 70 meters away and more in line with the front of the cottage.

2.But you are not acknowledging the effect that sliding glass doors would have on the scream. Are you possibly suggesting the sliding door was open November 1st at 11:30 at night? I'm assuming the door was closed. After all Meredith was still wearing her sweat jacket two and half hours after she returned home if you think this scream took place at 11:30.

3. Do you have any idea Mach what a closed double pane (even single pane) sliding door would do to a high pitched sound? The door would both muffle the sound as well as totally filter out the high frequencies. The wooden balcony would make little difference.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Actually several Western European countries are definitely more dismal in comparison (they include countries like France, or Austria). Italy places itself in an average position.

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.

The Italian courts do not "look" at violations as not important: what you fail to realize, is that trial speed violations in Italy depend on the law, not on the courts. Italy has 1.6 million proceedings per year, compared to UK whch has 350.000. This is because of the law, not because of courts credibility. Any attempt to pin this on "court credibility" is just a dishonest pretext by people who want to acquit Knox.

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.

There is also obvious reasons why the statistics are separate. If the difference was irrelevant for a diagnosis, there wouldn't be a separate statistic count. Indeed, the right to a fair trial is a violation of human rights, but has nothing to do with moral conduct of judges or officers ("courts credibility").

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

So the double-glazed and shuttered patio door was wide open on the night of the murder was it? I take it you're totally unaware how little sound penetrates through modern double glazing....

Laughably poor.

EDIT: I see ac has already made the same point. It's both amusing and saddening to watch confirmation bias lead certain people to reach desperately for rationalisations in order to support a ridiculous premise (the premise that dear old Nara actually heard Meredith's "blood-curdling scream of death").

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Oh. Dear.

Not an "argument" rooted in a knowledge of physics or sound propagation, I think it's far to say.....

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Let's forget the "fair" and "speedy" stuff and just focus on just the plain old right to a trial.

What we have here is a situation where these pea-brained supreme court judges have decided that guilt or innocence should be decided based on a decision that they wrote for some other guy's trial, i.e., Rudy's trial.

So, we have had a prior trial of a different guy, which was infected by prosecutorial misconduct, which was not a jury trial, which Knox and Sollecito had insufficient notice (that it would be binding on them) or opportunity or incentive to be heard, insufficient ability to call witnesses and cross-examine, and no right of appeal.

That's not a trial of Knox and Sollecito. It's a silly sham, and it leads me to believe that these supreme court judges either didn't go to law school or are deceitful.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Regardless of whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately convicted of the murder, it is manifestly unfair to essentially say to a person: "You're guilty", "No, you're not guilty", "No, you're NOT not guilty - we'll have to look at that again".

Only an imbecile would think otherwise. The Italian criminal justice system is a total shambles, and it's only now being held up to the light internationally. The fiascos that were/are Berlusconi's trials, the circus of the Costa Concordia captain's trial, and the trial processes of Knox and Sollecito (especially in the context of the way in which rulings from Guede's fast-track trial are being clearly abused) are abundant evidence of just how horribly broken the Italian system currently is.

The judiciary and the police are unaccountable, and are able to run a quasi-police-state system in which people can be trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare for years (sometimes decades) with little apparent prospect of redress. It's a disgrace to a so-called modern democracy, and is unfortunately chiefly the result of two things: firstly, the reactionary inability to get rid of fascist-era codes and legislation; and secondly, the draconian laws put in place to combat the organised crime that is rife in half of Italy - laws which are routinely abused against individuals with no links to organised crime* (viz. Knox and Sollecito).

* It must be said that the UK and US are both also guilty of similar malpractice over the past decade, as a result of extreme anti-terrorism legislation passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks: this legislation has been abused in the pursuit of people with no terrorist connections, and needs to be addressed rather quickly.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's forget the "fair" and "speedy" stuff and just focus on just the plain old right to a trial.

What we have here is a situation where these pea-brained supreme court judges have decided that guilt or innocence should be decided based on a decision that they wrote for some other guy's trial, i.e., Rudy's trial.

So, we have had a prior trial of a different guy, which was infected by prosecutorial misconduct, which was not a jury trial, which Knox and Sollecito had insufficient notice (that it would be binding on them) or opportunity or incentive to be heard, insufficient ability to call witnesses and cross-examine, and no right of appeal.

That's not a trial of Knox and Sollecito. It's a silly sham, and it leads me to believe that these supreme court judges either didn't go to law school or are deceitful.

What's at issue here is that Machiavelli actually defends Andrea Vogt's reporting on this.

Machiavelli says that Ms. Vogt is "honest" when she writes (uncritically) about the ISC, simply by passing on its laughingly absurd decisions on the Knox case. As a journalist, Vogt is only interested in presenting the prosecution's case. Either that or the prosecution's assessment of court rulings.

You can see the side she's on when that's described as "honest", esp. from a journalistic point of view.

 

[acbytesla]

So the double-glazed and shuttered patio door was wide open on the night of the murder was it? I take it you're totally unaware how little sound penetrates through modern double glazing....

Laughably poor.

EDIT: I see ac has already made the same point. It's both amusing and saddening to watch confirmation bias lead certain people to reach desperately for rationalisations in order to support a ridiculous premise (the premise that dear old Nara actually heard Meredith's "blood-curdling scream of death").

I keep trying to make the point that it isn't just the volume of sound that might escape the cottage, but the timbre of the sound.

Machiavelli jumping in to argue this point is just as sad as the deliberate obfuscation of Amanda's conversation with her mother by taking a line out of context.

It's really sad LJ, that they can't argue logically or scientifically.

 

[Machiavelli]

1. Please provide a cite for the distance of Nara's apartment and the line and it actual location on that hillside. My info has her apartment at 70 meters away and more in line with the front of the cottage.

Nara's apartment is in the third yellow building, counting from the Eastern end of the parking lot, the building less tall than the neighbouring yellow one but slightly more prominent towards the parking area. Nara's window is on a 2nd floor (1st floor in Britain), overlooks the balcony area of the cottage, it is 45 meters distant from the very spot where Meredith was found (70 meters was a defence invention).

2.But you are not acknowledging the effect that sliding glass doors would have on the scream. Are you possibly suggesting the sliding door was open November 1st at 11:30 at night? I'm assuming the door was closed. After all Meredith was still wearing her sweat jacket two and half hours after she returned home if you think this scream took place at 11:30.

I think it was closed (althoutgh I can't be sure: there was a "party" that night after all), but I don't think that closed doorwindow would necessarily prevent the hearing of a scream (especially if very loud). Btw, the balcony window was an old cheap frame (and I even don't think it was double-glazed). Moreover, there could well have been further windows ajar (in the big bathroom, for example).

3. Do you have any idea Mach what a closed double pane (even single pane) sliding door would do to a high pitched sound? The door would both muffle the sound as well as totally filter out the high frequencies. The wooden balcony would make little difference.

I don't think there is sufficient argument here. That window is very large, would provide itself a large sound source, and very close to the soure of a very loud sound. There is no guarantee it would be able to prevent its propagation. I see no reason for taking this as a given fact, not even as the most reasonable assumption. The factual starting point is the existence of reliable testimonies, which carry unequivocal details. You can't delete this factual point trhough abstract speculations about unproven (if not unrealistic) properties of a window pane.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Preventing a detainee from conversing with her lawyer is the real story

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.

Ms. Knox was not allowed to talk extensively with her lawyer before appearing before Matteini; therefore, it was sensible to remain silent. In addition, there is not one scintilla of ambiguity in her second memoriale. It is a flat-out withdrawal of her accusation. Period. Full stop.

 

[LondonJohn]

What's at issue here is that Machiavelli actually defends Andrea Vogt's reporting on this.

Machiavelli says that Ms. Vogt is "honest" when she writes (uncritically) about the ISC, simply by passing on its laughingly absurd decisions on the Knox case. As a journalist, Vogt is only interested in presenting the prosecution's case. Either that or the prosecution's assessment of court rulings.

You can see the side she's on when that's described as "honest", esp. from a journalistic point of view.

I slightly disagree. I think that Vogt is looking to write provocative, eye-catching, "sellable" copy first and foremost. I think that she currently feels that she can best do this by peddling a pro-guilt line - and I suspect that's because the better and better-known media commentators are pretty much all pro-acquittal or pro-innocence.

As I said before, I suspect that once the appeal trial starts, Vogt will revert to a straighter reportage of the court proceedings, since that is what will sell. It's possible that she may also try to sell some background analysis during the trial - which may indeed have a pro-guilt bias - but I doubt that any of the mainstream US media will want to buy it. She's free to "publish" it on her own website, of course, for zero income....

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Why don't you start by getting my claims right.

First of all, there doesn't seem to be much question that I am correct that the prosecution has withheld extensive records including: (i) all amplification and control records for 36b, (ii) many, many egrams, which likely show contamination of some sort (including contamination of the bra), and (iii) EDFs.

This isn't really surprising, since we also now know that the prosecution secreted from Matteini exculpatory DNA records in order to obtain a pretrial detention order.

We also know that Stefanoni produced a Report that purports to present all of her results, and she produced a set of Egrams that purport to be the egrams that she produced. However, the Report does not present all of Stefanoni's results and she has excluded egrams from her production. The information that she omitted is harmful to the prosecution and helpful to the defense. This is shameful and deceitful. It is a lie. In fact, it's worse then a plain old lie because they are trying to hide their lie.

I believe that the defense did in fact ask for all of the lab data. But this doesn't even matter. Under the principal of equality of arms, I believe that the prosecution is under an obligation to produce the lab data regardless of any request by the defense. The prosecution is certainly not entitled to produce what it thinks is helpful and to hide from the courts and the defense the information that the prosecution has decided is harmful. That is exactly what has happened here.

It's a lie, it's deceit, and its wrong. I find it telling that pro-guilt people like yourself have to resort to an argument against full disclosure. People who hide things and resist disclosure always have a reason, and that reason is never because they perceive the concealed information to be helpful.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it was closed (althoutgh I can't be sure: there was a "party" that night after all), but I don't think that closed doorwindow would necessarily prevent the hearing of a scream (especially if very loud). Btw, the balcony window was an old cheap frame (and I even don't think it was double-glazed). Moreover, there could well have been further windows ajar (in the big bathroom, for example).

I don't think there is sufficient argument here. That window is very large, would provide itself a large sound source, and very close to the soure of a very loud sound. There is no guarantee it would be able to prevent its propagation. I see no reason for taking this as a given fact, not even as the most reasonable assumption. The factual starting point is the existence of reliable testimonies, which carry unequivocal details. You can't delete this factual point trhough abstract speculations about unproven (if not unrealistic) properties of a window pane.

No, it was a modern door, with double-glazed safety glass (as would be fitted by law to all modern-manufactured french doors). Why am I not surprised that you "guessed" wrong...?

 

[acbytesla]

Regardless of whether or not Knox and Sollecito are ultimately convicted of the murder, it is manifestly unfair to essentially say to a person: "You're guilty", "No, you're not guilty", "No, you're NOT not guilty - we'll have to look at that again".

Only an imbecile would think otherwise. The Italian criminal justice system is a total shambles, and it's only now being held up to the light internationally. The fiascos that were/are Berlusconi's trials, the circus of the Costa Concordia captain's trial, and the trial processes of Knox and Sollecito (especially in the context of the way in which rulings from Guede's fast-track trial are being clearly abused) are abundant evidence of just how horribly broken the Italian system currently is.

The judiciary and the police are unaccountable, and are able to run a quasi-police-state system in which people can be trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare for years (sometimes decades) with little apparent prospect of redress. It's a disgrace to a so-called modern democracy, and is unfortunately chiefly the result of two things: firstly, the reactionary inability to get rid of fascist-era codes and legislation; and secondly, the draconian laws put in place to combat the organised crime that is rife in half of Italy - laws which are routinely abused against individuals with no links to organised crime* (viz. Knox and Sollecito).

* It must be said that the UK and US are both also guilty of similar malpractice over the past decade, as a result of extreme anti-terrorism legislation passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks: this legislation has been abused in the pursuit of people with no terrorist connections, and needs to be addressed rather quickly.

About the only part of Machiavelli's post that I agree with is that all of this is NOT all the judiciary's fault but the laws or in reality the Italian government as a whole. You see, it is the government that created the structure of the Italian justice system as well as many of the laws. It is the Italian government that created an inquisitorial system. It is the Italian government that created this system that both gives judges too little and too much power.

I remember reading an article about an Italian justice who retired about 6 months ago who says the entire Italian judicial system was corrupt and inefficient He complained about lengthy trials for someone who stole a ride on the subway that cost the government the equivalent of thousands of dollars. He said he'd much rather just put his hand in his pocket and pay the fare himself as opposed to going through the farce. He said "experts" in Italy were very often not really experts at all but people with connections to prosecutors, judges and the courts. He also talked in detail about how countless confessions were coerced and really everyone in the system knows it.

 

[MDDVS]

Actually several Western European countries are definitely more dismal in comparison (they include countries like France, or Austria). Italy places itself in an average position.



The Italian courts do not "look" at violations as not important: what you fail to realize, is that trial speed violations in Italy depend on the law, not on the courts. Italy has 1.6 million proceedings per year, compared to UK whch has 350.000. This is because of the law, not because of courts credibility. Any attempt to pin this on "court credibility" is just a dishonest pretext by people who want to acquit Knox.



There is also obvious reasons why the statistics are separate. If the difference was irrelevant for a diagnosis, there wouldn't be a separate statistic count. Indeed, the right to a fair trial is a violation of human rights, but has nothing to do with moral conduct of judges or officers ("courts credibility").

Sorry but no dice, Italy's performance is quite dismal in comparison with other Western Europen countries as shown in this plot of violations per capita. The only real competition is Austria (as you correctly pointed out), but it's quite far from the average performance of other western european countries.

I don't "fail" to realise that it is a matter of law. I understand quite well that it is the way the justice system is organised that leads to its malfunctioning. The bottom line is that the lack of accountability corrupts the system. How many of those proceedings are in reality just being used to obtain leverage in obtaining convictions in sepparate trials? Who knows? Judging by Mignini's modus operandi, probably a reasonable ammount. See, there's a reason why the right to speedy trial is important. Otherwise you can destroy people's life's just by accusing them, and people know it. Note that I also realise that the prossecutors in Italy are just buddies with the judges and so are not really an independent part of the system.

Regardless, even if Italy was a beacon of justice in the world, the way they are acting in this particular trial (including the supreme court) would still be laughable, an afront to logic, and, to be honest, just plain criminal in itself (probably even according to Italian law in anyone cared to investigate).

Regarding your last point, I understand that it may be important to some applications to sepparate different violations of the Article 6 (right to a fair trial), but to judge the level of corruption and moral decay of a given judicial system (including the police and prossecution, not only the courts) I think that it is important to include all information. As I said, you're welcome to disagree.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why wasn't she allowed to talk with her lawyer?

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.

Ms. Knox was not allowed time for a proper consultation with her lawyer. Under these circumstances her staying silent was sensible, and the real culprit is the system that kept her isolated prior to going before a judge who could take away her and Mr. Sollecito's liberty on specious evidence. With respect to your second point, there is nothing ambiguous about her second memoriale; it is a retraction of her accusation, at least to anyone who reads left to right and top to bottom.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - perhaps you can help me with two items.

Andrea Vogt has expressed bitterness about no longer being able to break-in to the American news market with her "honesty" (your word) in reporting on the Kercher murder trials. The implication is that the American market is now only interested in advancing Knox's and Sollecito's side of the case.

Question: do you think the problem is that Andrea Vogt herself is only interested in advancing the prosecution's side of the case? And considering that the prosecution's side of the case so dominated the media in the U.S., U.K., and in Italy and that so many of the, then, prosecution's claims have been discredited - why would the media in ANY country regurgitate old, discredited news?

Also - Andrea Vogt is promoting McCall's wiki, to the exclusion of all other websources in understanding the dynamics of the Kercher murder.

1) Why does Vogt promote a hate site, which is in turn only supported by other on-line hate sites?

2) Why does Vogt promote a site which itself is run by an anonymous source? Unless she already knows the source and is not reporting who runs it, why should the public trust it or her?​

There are more issues to do with your own unwavering support of what you call Vogt's "honest" reporting. Why is it that you give unwavering support to Ms. Vogt's reporting when all it does is promote one side of the case?

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Does Machiavelli want a cracker?

 

[davefoc]

Deleted....but where is the ' delete' button!! grr

Many years ago, there was a delete button available to the riff raff, but it is long gone, now the act of post deletion is restricted to our esteemed forum God and some of his minions.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[MDDVS]

About the only part of Machiavelli's post that I agree with is that all of this is NOT all the judiciary's fault but the laws or in reality the Italian government as a whole. You see, it is the government that created the structure of the Italian justice system as well as many of the laws. It is the Italian government that created an inquisitorial system. It is the Italian government that created this system that both gives judges too little and too much power.

I remember reading an article about an Italian justice who retired about 6 months ago who say the entire Italian judicial system was corrupt and inefficient He complained about lengthy trials for someone who stole a ride on the subway that cost the government the equivalent of thousands of dollars. He said he'd much rather just put his hand in his pocket and pay the fare himself as opposed to going through the farce. He said "experts" in Italy were very often not really experts at all but people with connections to prosecutors, judges and the courts. He also talked in detail about how countless confessions were coerced and really everyone in the system knows it.

This is one of the parts that bothers me about Machiavelli. I believe that he has inside knowledge of the italian judicial system so I'm sure he knows as well as anyone that abusive practices are standard.