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

[Bill Williams]

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....

With all due respect, LJ, you may be confusing Ms. Vogt with Barbie Nadeau. It must be quite something to have the two main parrots of the Perugia prosecution see one go one way, and the other go into book deals, a gig on CNN reporting in this, as well as selling the rights to the book! That was Nadeau who seems better able to make money off the tragedy than Ms. Vogt.

It's why I claim that Ms. Vogt is ultimately not in this for the money. If she is, she's not particularly good at it - at least compared to Nadeau. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they get together over a glass of whine!

Machiavelli, who seems quite intimate with Ms. Vogt's view of things, claims her interest is only honesty and justice for Meredith Kercher. Machiavelli is to be applauded for such loyalty.

If Ms. Vogt's interest is writing "sellable copy", perhaps the only thing that Machiavelli and I agree on, is that Ms. Vogt's primary interest is not self-economic. What we disagree on, is what that actual interest is.

 

[acbytesla]

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...?


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_40237523c5588da6e9.jpg[/qimg]

Great rebuttal LJ. I really wish Mach and Briars would take the time to learn a little about how sound propagates. His contention that a double pane door would do little to muffle and filter the scream is of course absurd.

Also the idea that the door was open on November 1st at 11:30 PM is of course a major stretch. Machiavelli's claim that they were having a party (4 people constitutes a party??) as a justification that somehow the door was open? Really Mach? If I'm playing "sex games" at 11:30 at night, the windows and doors would be closed.

*BTW, the average midnight temperature in Perugia on November 1st is 46 degrees F. 13 degrees above freezing. I'm not sure what it was actually on that night. I'm sure there is some way to look it up. It would be easy to look up the historical temperature of anywhere in America hour by hour, but I have no idea how to do that for Italy. I'm guessing there are some Italian websites that probably could offer the same info for Perugia.

 

[acbytesla]

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).

Thank you for this information. I just put it into Google Earth and the distance is in fact 66 meters. I'm going to add this to my blog and then link the Satellite diagram here later today. Who pegged it at 45 meters? The prosecution??

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - it seems that there is plenty of evidence out there about Ms. Vogt's lack of objectivity. I know you're not going to be thrilled, but hold off on your invective aimed Bruce Fisher's way just for a minute and consider who else that invective needs to be aimed at in the ever growing list of people who are "on to" Ms. Vogt's place in this journalistic universe:

http://groundreport.com/journalist-andrea-vogt-promotes-website-operated-by-anti-amanda-knox-blogger/

This piece makes reference to other pieces which are critical of Ms. Vogt's brand of journalism, some also by Bruce Fisher but not all:

http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-and-the-architects-of-the-foxy-knoxy-myth/

http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-reporter-andrea-vogt%E2%80%AD-%E2%80%ACcontinues-to-go-to-bat-for-prosecutor%E2%80%AD-%E2%80%ACgiuliano-mignini/

http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/

Ms. Vogt cites only one site that she finds credible.... and the person who runs that site is also on record as saying.... (Can Vogt say if she also agrees with these assessments of people who support Raffaele and Amanda).....

McCall goes on to give his analysis of Knox’s supporters: “For the most part they are just mentally ill. Knox supporters are broken down into two categories. The first and smaller category are people who think they can somehow benefit from this. The second category are people with serious mental issues.”

McCall is also able to conclude that a majority of Knox supporters are crazy stupid racist homophobes. McCall wrote: “I will say that unlike the Groupies (Knox supporters) you won’t find anything I have posted that is damaging because unlike the majority of the Groupies I’m not a racist or homophobe. I’m also not crazy or stupid.”

McCall recently supported Vogt when I posted a completely factual article about her biased reporting on a website called Digital Journal. McCall wrote: “When Bruce tried to publish something on Digital Journal I had it taken down because people do actually consider that a legitimate site with decent traffic.” The article can be read here on Ground Report: “Amanda Knox reporter Andrea Vogt continues to go to bat for prosecutor Giuliano Mignini.”

 

[Skind]

The factual starting point is the existence of reliable testimonies, which carry unequivocal details.

And there's your immediate problem. You're starting with the assumption that the tesimonies are reliable, and then using that to argue that any contention about the reliability of the testimonies can be dismissed because of the reliability of the testimonies.

You can't delete this factual point trhough abstract speculations about unproven (if not unrealistic) properties of a window pane.

But you can't validate it either then, meaning you cannot claim the testimonies are reliable, factual and unequivocal, unless you can demonstrate that it would be possible to hear such a scream as described, over that distance, through such a window.

You cannot claim the properties for the window - as you have done -and then tell us we can't do the same thing.

 

[Grinder]

God has the last few days been tedious.

The Nara testimony doesn't matter because no time, no correct date and no identification was ever produced. It is a red herring as to whether or not she could possibly hear a scream since it wasn't really probative testimony at all.

Vogt is a ****. So what? It's not like there aren't others covering the story.

MAch wrote: 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):

And MAch you stated that the Kerchers believe she meant she was at the cottage and they are English speakers. How do you know that and did they hear the original in English or only the police translations?

Clearly if she is doing balanced reporting she should also rely on the defense arguments. You know, the prosecution said she admitted to being at the cottage when she said X but the defense pointed out that in the context of the WHOLE conversation she meant that she was at Raf's and couldn't and wouldn't lie about it even if it would help her.

The new trial is 10 days from starting. I doubt anything we argue over will make a difference but I'll guarantee that the recent debates won't.

 

[moodstream]

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.

Come now! It's a part of a phone call. The ENTIRE phone call was recorded. If her mother had asked her lie, we would all know that, because it was recorded! If she were talking about the police theory ( that she was at the cottage) then either Knox or her mother would have had to mention this somewhere in the call, and we would also all know this again, because it would have been recorded.

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.

This is just so crazy I don't even know what to say. The quote comes from a phone call that was recorded and transcribed. None of what you allege occurred during that call. You are wrong in your guesses, and they are guesses nothing more. Nothing that you suggest is true, and that is a simple and obvious fact, because the call was recorded.

What's truly bad is not your failure to follow simple English as given in the actual transcription of the call, but your use of evidence of stuff you just make up like 'let's say' or 'the conversation might have been'.

Two can play at that game. Machiavelli, you've written a thousand posts declaring Knox + Sollcitio guilty. I cannot think of anyone with a more intimate knowledge of the crime. You were in Italy at the time of the crime.

It could be, Machiavelli, that you killed Ms Kercher. It could be that your intense involvement with proving Knox + Sollecito guilty is to allow you to feel you are controlling the outcome, making sure guilt does not come back to you. It could be, therefore you are the murderer Machiavelli. I have this implicative evidence!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

buffers usually refer to aqueous solutions

Carla Vecchiotti's article was not tedious. She said that the clasp had been stored in the presence of an aqueous solution. No wonder it rusted.

 

[Grinder]

Carla Vecchiotti's article was not tedious. She said that the clasp had been stored in the presence of an aqueous solution. No wonder it rusted.

To my point. Your contribution has for the most part been lost in the tedium of echos and mas(c)h potatoes.

The article was great and as may recall I suggested someone translating into English from science would be helpful.

The author should be included in a YT video on the DNA.

I think that is when I suggested pointing out the fundamental difference between full blown DNA used to identify something obviously associated with the crime like a semen stain versus a testing randomly collected items (kitchen knife) for LCN DNA.

To illustrate the issue with LCN, I'd tell the story of the German cases where the same DNA kept showing up causing great concern until it was discovered it was the DNA of someone working in the glove factory. In Germany that led to getting better gloves while in Italy it probably would have led to arrest as a mass murderer and an animated video showing she was able to travel far and wide committing the crimes.

 

[Machiavelli]

And there's your immediate problem. You're starting with the assumption that the tesimonies are reliable, and then using that to argue that any contention about the reliability of the testimonies can be dismissed because of the reliability of the testimonies.

The first statement is correct. I do start with the assumption that the testimonies are reliable. Because there is no manifest reason for holding the witness unreliable, and various reason that make them look reliable.
I also point out that Hellmann-Zanetti make the same point, as they call the witnesses "credible" (or "reliable"); (Hellmann-Zanetti were illegitimate and legally their opinion doesn't have consequence, but those who see Hellmann-Zanetti as credible and want to be consistent they should take their opinion into account).
The second is false. I clearly made a distinction between factual elements and mere possibilities. Any contention about the reliability of the witnesses (hence of the testimonies) must be based on factual elements, not on speculations, since the testimonies are factual elements.
It is just possible - theoretically - that the physical conditions (cottage, window pane, distance etc) are an insuperable obstacle for sound propagation, so much as to make it extremely improbable that anyone from neighbouring houses could hear any scream from that room. But whoever wants to make this point, should bring factual elements. There is no obvious impossibility here (like there is no 1 mile distance). There are only 45 meters and a number of favourable conditions, there is the possibility that there were even further favourable conditions. Now, this means who wants to make an argument (for example the defence) would need to find some new information. For example the defence could have done a sound propagation test, and experiment at the location; they did not do it. They requested a hearing test on Nara Capezzali, but they made this request only in 2009, at the very end of the first instance trial. And they made no request (nor any test their own) about sound propagation, uder various conditions, betwen the two spots.
It is obvious that no factual argument was given to back the theory of insuperable physical obstacle, that would be the actual information needed to undermine the credibility of the testimony on the ground of alleged impossibility of hearing a scream.

But you can't validate it either then, meaning you cannot claim the testimonies are reliable, factual and unequivocal, unless you can demonstrate that it would be possible to hear such a scream as described, over that distance, through such a window.

This is absolutely wrong. Testimonies do not require "validation" to be reliable. They are presumed reliable, in the absence of arguments of the contrary. Testimonies hae the status of factual elements, while your doubts are merely doubts, they are question marks and not factual. You don't need an unequivocal proof that hearing that sound is possible, in order to have a raliable testimony. You don't need to validate a testimony with a proof to make it credible. It's enough if you just don't have a manifest, obvious evidence that the testimony must be false.

 

[Machiavelli]

double post deleted

 

[JREF2010]

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.

Have you not been paying attention to the trials? The trial was delayed due to the prosecutions obstinate behavior at being transparent.

I dont need to go into the sloppy work of Stefonani which is why the bra clasp molded. Thats at least easier to understand their incompetence and poor ability, but the refusal to be transparent with all the data has been obvious and mentioned many times.

The lie is actually the guilter-clubs denial of all the examples of incompetence of the prosecution and comical forensic videos that actually had the courtroom laughing as they played "pass the bra-clasp around".

The obstinate behavior of Stefonani and Commodei is more disturbing as it brings to light the "face-saving" ego aspect of dishonesty.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you for this information. I just put it into Google Earth and the distance is in fact 66 meters. I'm going to add this to my blog and then link the Satellite diagram here later today. Who pegged it at 45 meters? The prosecution??

Try Google Distance calculator.
Or maybe you got the wrong house.

 

[acbytesla]

The first statement is correct. I do start with the assumption that the testimonies are reliable. Because there is no manifest reason for holding the witness unreliable, and various reason that make them look reliable.
I also point out that Hellmann-Zanetti make the same point, as they call the witnesses "credible" (or "reliable"); (Hellmann-Zanetti were illegitimate and legally their opinion doesn't have consequence, but those who see Hellmann-Zanetti as credible and want to be consistent they should take their opinion into account).
The second is false. I clearly made a distinction between factual elements and mere possibilities. Any contention about the reliability of the witnesses (hence of the testimonies) must be based on factual elements, not on speculations, since the testimonies are factual elements.
It is just possible - theoretically - that the physical conditions (cottage, window pane, distance etc) are an insuperable obstacle for sound propagation, so much as to make it extremely improbable that anyone from neighbouring houses could hear any scream from that room. But whoever wants to make this point, should bring factual elements. There is no obvious impossibility here (like there is no 1 mile distance). There are only 45 meters and a number of favourable conditions, there is the possibility that there were even further favourable conditions. Now, this means who wants to make an argument (for example the defence) would need to find some new information. For example the defence could have done a sound propagation test, and experiment at the location; they did not do it. They requested a hearing test on Nara Capezzali, but they made this request only in 2009, at the very end of the first instance trial. And they made no request (nor any test their own) about sound propagation, uder various conditions, betwen the two spots.
It is obvious that no factual argument was given to back the theory of insuperable physical obstacle, that would be the actual information needed to undermine the credibility of the testimony on the ground of alleged impossibility of hearing a scream.



But you can't validate it either then, meaning you cannot claim the testimonies are reliable, factual and unequivocal, unless you can demonstrate that it would be possible to hear such a scream as described, over that distance, through such a window.

You cannot claim the properties for the window - as you have done -and then tell us we can't do the same thing.

[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between credible and reliable. Credible means that they are likely to be honest, reliable however means that their testimony is accurate and can be counted on. While I have no reason to call Nara a liar, meaning she believes her own testimony, there is however significant scientific logic as which to make one seriously doubt how reliable it is.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Just a side question: you picked up a chart which doesn't show the year.
(and also does not show quite well single categories).
When you get to numbers, count for example: how many violation of right to a fair trial in Italy and in France over, let's say, the years 2008-2010.

 

[acbytesla]

God has the last few days been tedious.

The Nara testimony doesn't matter because no time, no correct date and no identification was ever produced. It is a red herring as to whether or not she could possibly hear a scream since it wasn't really probative testimony at all.

I agree that this is tedious and that Nara's testimony shouldn't matter. It is a red herring.YES. It shouldn't even be considered in any way. Particularly when she came forward so late.

However, the prosecution's estimate of Meredith's TOD relies entirely on Nara's and Monaccia's abilty to pinpoint the date and time when they "think" they heard a scream. So their inability to hear a scream and discern it from that distance through the cottage's walls and through at least two double pane windows could definitely be important in demonstrating that the prosecution's case if flawed.

On the one hand you have Defense's argument that the TOD can be proven by the anecdotal evidence that Meredith didn't call her mother as was her custom, that she hadn't removed her clothes from the washer, that she hadn't removed her jacket and the state of her digestion after her 6:30 pizza meal.

This versus the prosecution estimated TOD based on two people who guessed at the time of something they heard which they "thought" was a scream that would have had to be heard through multiple walls and windows. One of whom came forward a year after the murder.

 

[RWVBWL]

I didn't follow thoroughly your discussion with Briars. However I do agree that the topography - the cottage and houses - does favour the hearing of sounds. Although, not exactly for the reasons offered by Briars. The background valley won't contribute; but the cottage and its balcony itself would. Well if you are interested, when I have time I write my opinions. Physics of amphiteatres is an interesting topic (and I had to do with it). It doesn't depend on background (actually, only a very small portion of backgound and the stage - cavea - helps the sound).
Sound absorbtion of surfaces (absorbent building material like vulcanic or porous rock, and shape, like stairs) is most important. Actually an amphiteatre works by "absorbing" sound rather than amplificating it: the absorbtion of close-range sounds is what favors most the hearing of sounds from afar. It creates "silence" not noice (loudness - clear hearing of sounds - is in fact a perception dependings on relative volume, even though it is perceived as absolute). The amphiteatre "silences" noises (whatever is below 500 herz) which is voices from the public sitting close to you. Also allows you to catch selective directional soundwave.
There is a part of functioning of an amphiteater acustic which exploites properties of the human ear (humans perceive noises around about 2000 hertz as much "louder" than an equally loud sound at 1000 hertz; at 2500-3000 hertz they are heard as if they were extremely loud in comparison: that's why you may hear children voices speaking in places where you won't hear adults speaking at the same volume).
The houses of Perugia are built in vulcanic rock. There are some famous city squares in central Italy which are fampus for their "amphiteatre effect" (the feeling of silence, and people who can speak to each other fifty meters away). For example the Piazza of Lucca.
Yes I believe Nara's apartment is in a favourable location and the cottage itself with the balcony can work as a good stage.

Sure.
And Amanda Knox, who borrowed Laura's guitar and practiced playing Beatles songs on that same balcony,
had concerts there too...

 

[Diocletus]

Let’s talk about 36b. What we do know is that it is sample no. 47330; extracted in run no. 261, location L1; Egram No. 771 from plate 365bis.

1. Would you like to see the controls from plate 365bis? Suppressed.

2. Want to see what other Egrams look like from 365bis? 12 out of 16 have been suppressed.

3. How about amplification: this sample was probably amplified in run nos. 547 or 548. Too bad, the records of both runs have been suppressed.

4. Well, we know from the SAL that this sample was extracted in run no. 261, location L1. Want to see what is in the preceding rows, J and K? No mention of them in any record.

5. How about the other extraction rows in plate no. 261? There is no record for rows A through G.

6. Speedvac. Want to know how that was done and what else was in the machine when 36b was being spun around? Too bad: no records.

 

[Diocletus]

how many violation of right to a fair trial in Italy . . . over, let's say, the years 2008-2010.

Is this a trick question?

 

[Skind]

This is absolutely wrong. Testimonies do not require "validation" to be reliable. They are presumed reliable, in the absence of arguments of the contrary.

And we are presenting arguements to the contrary.

You cannot disallow subjective arguements about the physical/accoustic properties of the window, as you have advanced several yourself, without basis, so you have no power here to demand a level of evidence you have failed to submit yourself. If your supposition is valid, so is ours.

Arguing about the vagaries of what an Italian court would require does not change or invalidate any arguements about whether the testimonies are not reliable as defined by common useage of the term.

We will be examining ALL of the 'testimony' to determine if it is reliable or not, not just the bits 'officially' given in court. It would be absurd to use only the elements given in court to presume the testimonies are reliable and a valid indicator of actual witness belief. It's even more absurd to presume that even a reliable testimony is therefore an accurate and true depiction of events, just because it is given with full belief that is is true.