Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Where did post that they were either defence or prosecution expert witnesses? I merely said they were no different as experts the rest of your posts confirms this, although like you I have no idea why SCC treated V & C as they did.

Maybe, they are agenda driven. . . .Why did the just in the West Memphis Three case accept a non accredited satanic expert?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Maybe, they are agenda driven. . . .Why did the just in the West Memphis Three case accept a non accredited satanic expert?

Who V & C, do you think so? Why?

 

[Dan O.]

Where are you comming from CoulsdonUK? What we discuss here is a search for the actual truth. Courts have their own procedures to expedite finding the judicial truth which we are not bound to. When there is a conflict between the actual truth and the judicial truth then a miscarriage of justice has occured and that is where other groups such as the Innocence Project steps in to try and get the injustice corrected. while most of us don't have a direct connection to the Innocence Project, the truths that we uncover here have a tendency to get around.

Your attitude seems to be that we should just shut up and not embarrass the officials and their judicial truth. If that's the way you feel, you should get off now because we aren't going to listen to such crap.

 

[sept79]

Where did I post that Conti and Vecchiotti were either defence or prosecution expert witnesses? I merely said they were no different as experts . . .

Conti and Vecchiotti are very different from defense or prosecution experts in that they were court appointed--i.e, independent. 'Independent' implies no bias; no job dependencies; no face saving; no vested interest . . .

 

[Desert Fox]

Who V & C, do you think so? Why?

I will "play along"

In the case of the West Memphis Three, the prosecution was allowed a non accredited expert in Satanism by the judge. At the same time, the defense had a witness for false confessions and he was effectively gagged by the judge.
The judge had an agenda. . .He wanted them found guilty.

The Italian court is the same way, they want Amanda and (well kind of) Raff found guilty. Their Supreme Court pretty much ordered it if you read their ruling.

 

[Diocletus]

Where did I post that they were either defence or prosecution expert witnesses? I merely said they were no different as experts the rest of your posts confirms this, although like you I have no idea why SCC treated V & C as they did.

You're still wrong. Prosecution and defense experts are paid to express a point of view favorable to their clients. Court-appointed experts aren't.

 

[acbytesla]

You're still wrong. Prosecution and defense experts are paid to express a point of view favorable to their clients. Court-appointed experts aren't.

I'd phrase this a little differently Diocletus. Prosecution and defense experts are paid to express their view, not necessarily a point of view that is favorable to their clients, although it works out that way. Neither is likely to pay for an expert who expresses a view that would be contrary to their case. And in the US, if an expert was paid and the expert came to a contradictory point of view, that would have to be disclosed to the opposing council. The beauty of the court appointed expert is that they are paid by the court themselves and not by the prosecutor or the defense.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Conti and Vecchiotti are very different from defense or prosecution experts in that they were court appointed--i.e, independent. 'Independent' implies no bias{/HILITE]; no job dependencies; no face saving; no vested interest . . .

Doesn’t seem to be how they were treated by SCC, I wonder why?

You're still wrong. Prosecution and defense experts are paid to express a point of view favorable to their clients. Court-appointed experts aren't.

Oh right, yet for some reason they have been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

 

[NancyS]

Sure they were. They were independent, court-appointed experts. The fact that they didn't agree with the way the prosecution did things doesn't make them any less independent, expert, or court-appointed.

Exactly this - and question for CoulsdonUK, does it not concern you in the slightest that court appointed independent experts have been mostly ignored? I find it concerning that respected scientists have presented evidence at court, detailing the multiple forensic errors and severely criticising the DNA evidence and yet their opinions seem to have been dismissed with regards to the latest verdict.

 

[js202]

Doesn’t seem to be how they were treated by SCC, I wonder why?

I don't wonder why in the least. Instead you should wonder why Judge Pratillo Hellmann has come out publicly staking his reputation that any arm of the Italian judicial system which returns AK & RS to prison will have the imprisonment of two innocents on its conscience, if it possesses such.

Oh right, yet for some reason they have been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

Do you get for an instant the chorus of voices here explaining to you that we do not respect the actions of the Italian Supreme Court? You are a non-skeptic nattering ceaselessly with variations on the same reply to dyed in the wool skeptics. It is pointless.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh right, yet for some reason they have been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

I do not know why the Italian court decided how they did but a reading of the evidence leads to the conclusion that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

 

[acbytesla]

Doesn’t seem to be how they were treated by SCC, I wonder why?



Oh right, yet for some reason they have been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

What is your explanation for court appointed experts being ignored? I'm not sure I would describe it as a conspiracy against Amanda or Raffaele, but a conspiracy to protect public perception of the judicial process. Raffaele and Amanda are insignificant. The SCC doesn't really care about these two people. But they do care about how their citizens view their own integrity.

Time and time again, it has been said that this continued farce is about saving face and that hasn't changed.

 

[sept79]

.
.
for some reason C-V has been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

Why should this discussion continue?

 

[kwill]

I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

Straw man, ad hominem. (Arguing from the evidence leads to innocence; suggesting that there needs to be a "wider conspiracy" is a straw man. Suggesting that people who have made the case for innocence are also making the accusation of a "wider conspiracy" is an ad hominem.)

You believe that they're guilty, but you won't say so. My guess as to the reason why you won't say so is that you prefer not to engage the evidence.

I'm not sure what the point is. The evidence shows that there is plenty of reasonable doubt. If you choose to ignore it, okay. It must get pretty dull, though.

On another subject, really good show about an innocent guy released from death row -- it's called Rectify & the first 6 episodes are on Netflix.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh right, yet for some reason they have been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

If by "wider conspiracy" you mean group of officious jackasses screwing up epically, then yes.

 

[Diocletus]

Why should this discussion continue?

Why has this trial lasted for almost 7 years?

 

[AmyStrange]

hyoid bone and the Nencini report

-

Yes, welcome to the world of Google translations. the hyoid bone is the skeletal structure that enables us to speak so "skeleton of the language" would be a reasonable translation. You have to be flexible when interpreting these mechanical translations so as not to jump to a wrong conclusion. An example is how an Italian would interpret the literal translation of "see you later".

-

The Google translation was funny (I think that's more because of our English grammatical structure as opposed to the Italian, than Google's fault), but I did get the gist of it (the hyoid bone was damaged, but no one knows how according to Lalli), and I appreciate your going through the trouble of posting it for me. Thanx d.

I'm no expert, but I do know that the hyoid bone is a small delicate bone and is also one of the first places MEs go to look for signs of strangulation, but they also look for bruising and/ or ligature marks in the neck area.

In this case, there was bruising on the chin itself but not in the neck area where someone would be strangled, but that might have been hard to see because of the stab wounds, but still, the conclusion I reached (due to the lack of other supporting evidence she was strangled, i.e. bruising in the neck area) is that the damage to the hyoid was caused by the stabbing, but that's not an absolute and just my opinion, and there's still the chance that it was damaged by strangulation.

But to conclude absolutely, like the Nencini report did, that the hyoid bone was damaged by strangling when there is more evidence to support it was damaged by the knife and no other evidence to support strangulation, is a minor mistake (in my opinion), but that conclusion is the first sentence (the top of page 4 of the PDF) in the 355 (PDF) page Nencini report explaining his ruling.

Anyone who can get past that first sentence without going "what?" is definitely ruled by confirmation bias in my opinion,

d

-
REPORT: http://injusticeanywhereforum.org/download/file.php?id=1520

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I wonder why

Doesn’t seem to be how they were treated by SCC, I wonder why?



Oh right, yet for some reason they have been knocked into the long grass by SCC, I guess it’s all part of this wider conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda, right?

CoulsdonUK,

Stefanoni's laboratory stored the bra clasp in a closed container in the presence of aqueous extraction buffer, conditions that were almost guaranteed to produce decomposition, and did exactly that. Yet the SCC criticized Conti and Vecchiotti but not Stefanoni. I wonder why.

I also wonder why there exists no cogent explanation for the SCC's preferring less qualified over more qualified DNA experts. I also wonder why the Nencini court turned up additional (mildly) exculpatory DNA evidence yet convicted.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

His letter is his testimony Coulsdon. If they accepted the letter, it becomes part of the court record and can be considered.

-

Yup, just like Rudy's letter became part of the court record,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

Just because...

-

We are sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled program with this announcement: this is a duplicate. We repeat, this a duplicate. If this were a real post, you would be advised where to go f....
-

We are sorry, but we are interrupting this message again, because... well, because we can,

d

-