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

[Bill Williams]

No, the La Stampa article does say that the newly-found Knox DNA was near where Meredith's DNA was found:

But Vogt should have known better than to repeat this inaccuracy - with all its attendant nudge-nudge implications. And not only did she repeat it, she put it front and centre in her short tweet. You fail, Andrea....

My bad about La Stampa.

Maybe I should try to recover with a Machiavelliesque piece of dietrology about what "near" means.

It's probably better just to take my lumps, now that I've managed a small diversion by working Machiavelli into what was my mistake.

 

[Mary_H]

The big game in town now is the Rudy interview,I have never seen it happen at this side of the Atlantic where a convicted murderer rapist like Rudy Guede was interviewed,while they were serving their sentence in jail.I know that it happens in the US.I think what he says in an interview will not affect the appeal,he could only do that by entering the witness stand,I know he can be used to once again poison Italian public opinion against Amanda and Raffaele.Would Rudy have any contact with his lawyers at his stage,is he getting any advice as to what is his best interest,stating now that Amanda and Raffaele were present when Meredith Ketcher was murdered,how does it help him

I think it's horrifying, and shows that the prosecution will stop at nothing. It's obviously orchestrated to affect public opinion and the trial. As you say, you have never seen it happen in Europe, so you know someone powerful is allowing it to happen.

 

[GreyFox]

I'm not worried. Every time Guede opens his mouth a bone falls out. I think it's another wonderful opportunity for him to screw up and incriminate himself worse if that's possible.

Perhaps he will recap how on a first date he got sex from his buddy's girl and then in the short time of taking a pooh she winds up dead with anal bruising. Will he say Raf did that too ? Or will he present the victim as a little freaky ? Either way he's a liar all the way around. The more he talks the better it is. I say give him some beer and let him speak freely ! Worked with Curatalo !

 

[Mary_H]

.<snip>I disagree that the animation would be "prejudicial" to a defendant - actually the concept does not even belong to the Italian justice system. We don't have the typical question/objection of the US system "should this piece of evidence/statement be admitted, or is this prejudicial?". This question does not belong to this system.

The animation is not evidence. It is an imagined vision with no basis in reality.

The prosecution brings evidence through a chain of preliminary judges and by entering excerpts of investigation files. Then they need to make arguments; they are supposed to persuade the court about their evidence, scenarios, theories. Now, the purpose of animation could be that of making the scenario/dynamic look realistic, it is exactly to allow the court to visualize it. The courts should exactly memorize the scenario together with the identity of the persons they are judgeing, in order to assess it. I don't see why this should be regarded as a "manipulative" technique.

It is manipulative for the very reasons you stated -- the courts memorize the scenario and are persuaded that it reflects something that actually happened. Combining video with audio makes it a more effective "teaching tool" than audio (verbal arguments) alone.

"Manipulation" - in terms of human feelings, behavior and psychology - has to do with conveying false information and pretending; is the act of deceiving, lying, attempt to convey fraudulent or bogus feelings/behaviours and use other people as instruments, having them "do" what we want by feeding them information we know to be false.

That is exactly what the animation does. The prosecution may not have known the information to be false, but they want to believe it's true and they want the court to believe it's true, too, so they illustrate it, very expensively. The problem is they had no evidence for the animated scenario they portrayed.

Manipulation, by the way, is not limited to conveying false information. Presentation affects how people receive information, both true and false.

 

[katy_did]

No, the La Stampa article does say that the newly-found Knox DNA was near where Meredith's DNA was found:

anche un’altra attribuita con forti contestazioni alla vittima, proprio in prossimità della traccia analizzata adesso dal Ris.

also another attributed with strong objections to the victim, just near to the sample now analyzed by the RIS.

But Vogt should have known better than to repeat this inaccuracy - with all its attendant nudge-nudge implications. And not only did she repeat it, she put it front and centre in her short tweet. You fail, Andrea....

This is actually a near-quote from the Supreme Court report, believe it or not, and the phrase "proprio in prossimità" is a direct quote. So neither La Stampa nor Vogt can really be blamed for that one.

ETA: following my investigative intuition, I just went and checked Galati's appeal, and who would've guessed it, he describes the new trace as "in prossimità" to the spot Meredith's DNA was allegedly found. So maybe not even the SC can entirely be blamed for that piece of misinformation...

As an aside, I think the chapter in Leila's book about the third trace was written partly on the understanding that this trace was near the one containing Meredith's DNA, because I remember on the thread at IIP she was talking initially about it being near to that point. Only after her book was published did it come out that the third trace was actually near the handle.

 

[billyryan]

I'm not worried. Every time Guede opens his mouth a bone falls out. I think it's another wonderful opportunity for him to screw up and incriminate himself worse if that's possible.

Perhaps he will recap how on a first date he got sex from his buddy's girl and then in the short time of taking a pooh she winds up dead with anal bruising. Will he say Raf did that too ? Or will he present the victim as a little freaky ? Either way he's a liar all the way around. The more he talks the better it is. I say give him some beer and let him speak freely ! Worked with Curatalo !

A sign of how desperate the prosecution are,it could backfire spectacularly,but they believe it has a chance of working that is why they are taking the risk,but then Maresca did not want him questioned its really hard to know who is behind this interview in Italy whether they are Mignini's friends or his enemies

 

[js202]

Manipulation, by the way, is not limited to conveying false information. Presentation affects how people receive information, both true and false.

Absolutely. In another context, by another name, they call it propaganda.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is actually a near-quote from the Supreme Court report, believe it or not, and the phrase "proprio in prossimità" is a direct quote. So neither La Stampa nor Vogt can really be blamed for that one.

ETA: following my investigative intuition, I just went and checked Galati's appeal, and who would've guessed it, he describes the new trace as "in prossimità" to the spot Meredith's DNA was allegedly found. So maybe not even the SC can entirely be blamed for that piece of misinformation...

As an aside, I think the chapter in Leila's book about the third trace was written partly on the understanding that this trace was near the one containing Meredith's DNA, because I remember on the thread at IIP she was talking initially about it being near to that point. Only after her book was published did it come out that the third trace was actually near the handle.

As far as I'm concerned, then, everyone from Galati onwards can be blamed. The SC should have had sufficient intellect to actually look at the spot on the knife where Meredith's DNA was allegedly found, then looked at the spot on the knife which was subject to a further DNA test, and realised easily that they were in no reasonable sense "near" to one another.

That the SC apparently didn't bother to make such a simple check before buying Galati's partisan (and misleading) line on the proximity of the two spots is, in my view, an indictment of the SC itself. And, in turn, it's an indictment of La Stampa, that it didn't check either - although it's possible that today's piece was written by someone who was not all that familiar with the case.

The same excuse (unfamiliarity) cannot however be made for Vogt. She should have known full well that 36I was nowhere near 36B. And the fact that she consciously chose to reproduce those words in her tweet (and, I'll bet, in her forthcoming "Article for sale! Anyone?! Going cheap!" piece on the subject) gives me very strong reason to suspect that she deliberately chose to perpetuate this myth, for reasons of personal agenda. Shame.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

A sign of how desperate the prosecution are,it could backfire spectacularly,but they believe it has a chance of working that is why they are taking the risk,but then Maresca did not want him questioned its really hard to know who is behind this interview in Italy whether they are Mignini's friends or his enemies

We can only guess, right? My guess is that the prosecution doesn't have to worry about convincing the court, which will follow the instructions handed down by the politburo. Their concern is to enhance the credibility of the guilty verdict, especially given the scope of the new inquiry, which consists of a non-incriminating DNA result and a single witness who showed up in drag and said nothing of importance. This is their strategy... put Guede on TV, let him tell whatever fable suits him and them. I was expecting something like this.

 

[katy_did]

As far as I'm concerned, then, everyone from Galati onwards can be blamed. The SC should have had sufficient intellect to actually look at the spot on the knife where Meredith's DNA was allegedly found, then looked at the spot on the knife which was subject to a further DNA test, and realised easily that they were in no reasonable sense "near" to one another.

But the Supreme Court can't look at the evidence, remember. That's why it's also under the impression that photos and video showed glass on top of Filomena's clothes, and why it had to cite Massei referencing a video supposedly showing evidence collection being carried out correctly, rather than watching and referring to the video itself. Checking that it had the facts right would be outside its remit.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, nobody should lose sight of the fact that no matter whose DNA was identified on 36I (it appears to have been solely Knox's), the actual amounts of DNA involved were extraordinarily small.

Given that there had already been irreversible mistakes made in the way the knife was collected, stored and handled prior to it coming into Vecchiotti's possession, it was in many senses immaterial for evidential purposes whose DNA might have been at 36I in such minute quantities. Frankly, even if Meredith's DNA had been identified at 36I, the prior incompetence and malpractice surrounding the knife would have rendered any such result highly questionable anyhow.

So, even though it appears that Knox is the only DNA contributor to 36I, I think it's still highly arguable that this result is inherently unreliable anyhow, owing to the prior possibility of contamination - even if the Carabinieri employed only best practice in their analysis of 36I.

And when you add not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's gross abandonment of practically every single piece of mandatory low-template protocol in her initial analysis of 36B (and her supposed discovery of Meredith's DNA), it can only serve to render Stefanoni's results utterly unreliable and incredible.

 

[LondonJohn]

But the Supreme Court can't look at the evidence, remember. That's why it's also under the impression that photos and video showed glass on top of Filomena's clothes, and why it had to cite Massei referencing a video supposedly showing evidence collection being carried out correctly, rather than watching and referring to the video itself. Checking that it had the facts right would be outside its remit.

No, they can and should look at the evidence! They can only rule on matters of law (and - supposedly at least - not on matters of fact), but it's vital that they address the evidence as part of their assessment of the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
That is exactly what the animation does. The prosecution may not have known the information to be false, but they want to believe it's true and they want the court to believe it's true, too, so they illustrate it, very expensively. The problem is they had no evidence for the animated scenario they portrayed.

The knowledge that about what information is false as opposed to what is true is quite essential in a psychological perspective about manipulation. If a person persuades someone about something he belives by conveying information he belives true, I do not call that manipulation.
On non-psychological level, a pure communication level, you may address the power of the media employed - the "unbalance of medium" - and one may call that a media influence. Which is something different. But that - as for psychology, communication and moral - would be persuasion techniques, not manipulation.
If the reporter has access to all information and bears a specific responsability of telling the truth, and understands the message is partial, slanted or false (such as the US networks did when talking about the Meredith case) this would be manipulation. But the prosecution is a party, they have a task of illustrating ther accusation.

However when you say "they want to believe it's true and they want the court to believe it's true, too, so they illustrate it", this - which regards presentation can't be acceptable as a criticism of the video animation, because just the same could be said about everything a prosecution, does, any prosecution, in any trial. The prosecution attempts to convince the court, wanting the court to believe their accusation is true. They deploy an array of means to that purpose. Several of those are communication techniques. Why specifically a video should be wrong or not acceptable rather than something else?

 

[Bill Williams]

The knowledge that about what information is false as opposed to what is true is quite essential in a psychological perspective about manipulation. If a person persuades someone about something he belives by conveying information he belives true, I do not call that manipulation.
On non-psychological level, a pure communication level, you may address the power of the media employed - the "unbalance of medium" - and one may call that a media influence. Which is something different. But that - as for psychology, communication and moral - would be persuasion techniques, not manipulation.
If the reporter has access to all information and bears a specific responsability of telling the truth, and understands the message is partial, slanted or false (such as the US networks did when talking about the Meredith case) this would be manipulation. But the prosecution is a party, they have a task of illustrating ther accusation.

However when you say "they want to believe it's true and they want the court to believe it's true, too, so they illustrate it", this - which regards presentation can't be acceptable as a criticism of the video animation, because just the same could be said about everything a prosecution, does, any prosecution, in any trial. The prosecution attempts to convince the court, wanting the court to believe their accusation is true. They deploy an array of means to that purpose. Several of those are communication techniques. Why specifically a video should be wrong or not acceptable rather than something else?

You're kidding, right?

 

[katy_did]

No, they can and should look at the evidence! They can only rule on matters of law (and - supposedly at least - not on matters of fact), but it's vital that they address the evidence as part of their assessment of the case.

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. If they make rulings based on the evidence, the least they can do is look at it first. As it is, they've accidentally rubbished the idea that glass in Filomena's room could have been moved around after the crime, and given priority to what the photos and videos show. So, whoops.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic. If they make rulings based on the evidence, the least they can do is look at it first. As it is, they've accidentally rubbished the idea that glass in Filomena's room could have been moved around after the crime, and given priority to what the photos and videos show. So, whoops.

Oh I see - I was slow there! Sowwy!!

 

[Machiavelli]

There are two different concepts here:

1. What is "evidence", and

2. In what situations is the probative value of evidence so outweighed by potential prejudice, that the evidence should be inadmissible.

I don't think that Italian courts have a clue in the world about either of these concepts.

The evidence is supposed to be visible "outside" independently from the judge; evidence is a logical elaboration, explicitly expressed, based on factual elements which exist outside the judge's mind.
It's verified, explicit, objective, consistent.
Prejudice, instead, is a judgement. It's an evaluation. So it's entirely inside the judge's or the people's mind.
Prejudice is also usually implicit. So it's unexpressed, subjective, unverifiable. You can't "weigh" or "scale" prejudice, a subjective condition.

 

[Mary_H]

The knowledge that about what information is false as opposed to what is true is quite essential in a psychological perspective about manipulation. If a person persuades someone about something he belives by conveying information he belives true, I do not call that manipulation.
On non-psychological level, a pure communication level, you may address the power of the media employed - the "unbalance of medium" - and one may call that a media influence. Which is something different. But that - as for psychology, communication and moral - would be persuasion techniques, not manipulation.
If the reporter has access to all information and bears a specific responsability of telling the truth, and understands the message is partial, slanted or false (such as the US networks did when talking about the Meredith case) this would be manipulation. But the prosecution is a party, they have a task of illustrating ther accusation.

By presenting the scenario in pictures, the prosecution implies they have evidence to support the scenario. But the prosecution did not have access to all information and their message is partial, because they were not there and did not see what happened. A physical illustration, such as a drawing or video, of what might have happened is not appropriate. Once the judges have seen it, they can't unsee it, and the subconscious mind does its work.

In the Italian justice system, it doesn't seem to occur to the judges to reflect on the fact that the prosecution has no basis for the illustration, because the judges start out aligned with the prosecution. That is, they are already prejudiced -- they begin with the assumption that the case would not have been brought if it did not have merit. When you say the question of whether "evidence" is prejudicial does not belong in your system, you do not realize that the reason such laws exist in other judicial systems is to insure that the law is above the judges, not vice versa, as it is in Italy, where loopholes for the supremacy of the judges are written into every law.

However when you say "they want to believe it's true and they want the court to believe it's true, too, so they illustrate it", this - which regards presentation can't be acceptable as a criticism of the video animation, because just the same could be said about everything a prosecution, does, any prosecution, in any trial. The prosecution attempts to convince the court, wanting the court to believe their accusation is true. They deploy an array of means to that purpose. Several of those are communication techniques. Why specifically a video should be wrong or not acceptable rather than something else?

Any variety of evidence presentations can be right or wrong, depending on how informed the judges are about the sources of the evidence. If the prosecutor comes in and says, "We have reason to believe this is what happened," it is up to the judges to require the prosecution to show why they have reason to believe that's what happened. I haven't seen any evidence in this case of the judges asking the prosecution exactly how they could see their vision so clearly, when there was no evidence for it.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The evidence is supposed to be visible "outside" independently from the judge; evidence is a logical elaboration, explicitly expressed, based on factual elements which exist outside the judge's mind.
It's verified, explicit, objective, consistent.
Prejudice, instead, is a judgement. It's an evaluation. So it's entirely inside the judge's or the people's mind.
Prejudice is also usually implicit. So it's unexpressed, subjective, unverifiable. You can't "weigh" or "scale" prejudice, a subjective condition.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Most evidence must be evaluated and interpreted. In a trial, it is then presented to the judge and/or jury. It is in the presentation of this evidence where judges and juries are swayed.

ETA: therefore there is a judgment factor involved in evidence and it is not entirely in the judge's or the people's minds.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The evidence is supposed to be visible "outside" independently from the judge; evidence is a logical elaboration, explicitly expressed, based on factual elements which exist outside the judge's mind.
It's verified, explicit, objective, consistent.
Prejudice, instead, is a judgement. It's an evaluation. So it's entirely inside the judge's or the people's mind.
Prejudice is also usually implicit. So it's unexpressed, subjective, unverifiable. You can't "weigh" or "scale" prejudice, a subjective condition.

One more thing: I think you have hit on something here. You state that evidence is "verified, explicit, objective, consistent." I think you, and maybe Italians in general, believe the presented evidence as fact -- even if it is an interpretation of evidence. In most trials of which I am familiar, the merit of all evidence is weighed by the judge/jury and its value is debatable.