Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

Is it necessary to say murder is not alright? Has anyone made that claim?

The issue is that Amanda and Raf had nothing to do with that tragic crime, no matter how much you seem to wish or hope they did.

The physical evidence precludes the participation of anyone else along with Rudy Guede.

Is false imprisonment ok? IS perjury on the witness stand OK? Is hiding the raw DNA data OK, the underpinning of the only claimed evidence, is that all oK? Because all that really did happen - unlike your fairy beliefs that Amanda and Raf may be involved.

It should be a crime to repeat these lies. Maybe they did it? Grow up.

I highlighted the portion of post #3776 which unlike your post included the entire post to allow anyone to make up their own minds.

Okay, I understand why you chose to ignore the current legal position of Raffaele and Amanda, which is they were found guilty in their trial, they also lost their automatic appeal and English translation of their Florence appeal is now available, whilst they await deliberation by the Italian Supreme Court

In addition, Amanda has appealed against her libel conviction to the ECHR, which as of a couple of weeks ago we don’t even know the basis of that appeal or indeed whether it has passed the assessment ECHR phase( the first hurdle), actually turning it into a case.

Everything else you mention has no recognisable legal bearing in America, Italy or under the jurisdiction of ECHR.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't know, but the signs aren't looking good for him, what do you think?

I predict that when the ECHR get this case, it will be yet another blight on the Italian court system.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If I am going to be crucified (figuratively) no matter what I do, sometimes I might as well do what I think is right.

Each to their own.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not sure what the PhD reference means Stefanoni does not have a PhD.

These labs do predominantly medical molecular biology, but not forensics. Has Stefanoni any qualification in forensic science? What training has she undergone to work a crime scene?

This is one is another that I don’t know where you got it from; another made up statement. Definitely Patrizia Stefanoni has a PhD. I never read her curriculum vitae personally, but I know she worked eight years as an assistant professor at the University of Naples, and you don’t work as an assistant professor if you are not related to a PhD program. I also know she worked with Cortese and Salvatore and also as a biologist at the University Policlinico of Naples. Then she became a chief executive of the Scientific Police in Rome. She is the author of scientific publications, among which the most successful article of the year in genetic science. I am rather sure she has a PhD. I don’t see why should assume she hasn’t.
You ask what specific training to work on a crime scene: I don't know. But I can't reasonably accept the statement that Stefanoni doesn't have a PhD or that she is not a serious scientist.
Especially not from people who praise Vecchiotti, who is obviously guilty of gross professional wrongdoing.

Again an interesting point. Mach says that the prosecution having presented their case, the burden of proof is on the defence to dismantle the prosecution case. If the defence make a positive argument for innocence separate from opposing the prosecution case they have a very high standard to reach.

This is clearly what has happened, and so Mach as ever is right about the Italian system. This is where the conflict arises, in common law systems if two reasonable scenarios are presented the defence case has to be chosen, and the prosecution have to prove their case. In Italy the defence needs to disprove the prosecution case. (...)

I think you partly misunderstood the point. It is not correct to just say "the prosecution having presented their case", "the burden of proof is on the defense". In fact, there is no difference in principle between common law and civil law system in that the burden of proof is about the accusation thesis. There is no question on this. It is not enough for the prosecution to just "present" their case, they need to bring in what the system would considers legal evidence to their thesis.
The point is that the prosecution on this case did not just present, but actually brought solid evidence.
This is the part that you missed, that you may fail to acknowledge.
When the prosecution case is not just presented bu already proven, supported by solid evidence, and if the evidence is unchallenged, the case is solid and sound and closed.

Now, if the defence wants to bring their own defensive argument, and if they want to do that without challenging the evidence directly, that means: the building of a new argument separete from opposing the prosecution case, such defensive argument - legally called "an alibi" - in order to be effective it must respond to a very high standard, it cannot sustain uncertainities.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Oh that is ok then, right?

Meredith was brutally murdered (relatively quickly) and Raffaele and Amanda are the only remaining defendants awaiting the deliberation of the Italian Supreme Court.

CoulsdonUK,

Factual accuracy is important, and that is why I said what I did. I suggest you reread my comment. I specifically referred to this as "a brutal, terrible crime." That you would infer that I felt it was OK is beyond bewildering, even beyond astonishing. The crime was abhorrent, which makes the relative brevity of Rudy's sentence unjust. I sometimes hear PG commenters say words to the effect, "I would have preferred a longer sentence for Guede." Perhaps people who utter such watery sentiments need to be reminded of the brutality of this crime, but I don't. One of the few statements Michael Nifong ever made that I agreed with was when he said that a murderer destroys two families.

Do you feel that legal actions such as the one against Raffaele and Mr. Gumbel and the ones against Patrizia Moretti have a beneficial or a chilling effect on free speech, transparency, and accountability?

 

[Machiavelli]

The problem with the gastric emtying and TOD alibi however is not just about the intrinsic uncertainities undermining it (that AmyStrange called "improbabilities"), but it is more at the root, something more massive and pervasive, it has to do with things like: a) the weakness of the alibies of both suspects and the fact that the ToD would have a tiny window and is both the alibi and digestion timings are not that time-sensitive, and b) the fact that the very logical 'paradigm' based on the statistical assumption about normal gastric emptying is basically wrong; in my opinion there is evidence that it's just wrong to assume that the statistical norm (average) must be the starting point of reference at any cost, independently from the rest of the information. This is an erroneous procedure.

 

[Diocletus]

I highlighted the portion of post #3776 which unlike your post included the entire post to allow anyone to make up their own minds.

Okay, I understand why you chose to ignore the current legal position of Raffaele and Amanda, which is they were found guilty in their trial, they also lost their automatic appeal and English translation of their Florence appeal is now available, whilst they await deliberation by the Italian Supreme Court

In addition, Amanda has appealed against her libel conviction to the ECHR, which as of a couple of weeks ago we don’t even know the basis of that appeal or indeed whether it has passed the assessment ECHR phase( the first hurdle), actually turning it into a case.

Everything else you mention is no recognisable legal bearing in America, Italy or under the jurisdiction of ECHR.

I have a good feeling about the ECHR.

Amanda was in NYC recently. Any guesses why she goes there?

 

[Dan O.]

Does Stefanony ever make the claim that she has a Ph.D? Does any university list Stefanoni as having received a Ph.D? Is Machiavelli posting ********?

 

[Dan O.]

... When the prosecution case is not just presented bu already proven, supported by solid evidence, and if the evidence is unchallenged, the case is solid and sound and closed.

The prosecution presented their evidence in Rudy's trial where it was uncontested. Case closed.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I have a good feeling about the ECHR.

Amanda was in NYC recently. Any guesses why she goes there?

A good feeling, ok.

Based on what information? Should you not at least need to know the basis of her libel appeal?

Why does Amanda go to NYC?

 

[toto]

The problem with the gastric emtying and TOD alibi however is not just about the intrinsic uncertainities undermining it (that AmyStrange called "improbabilities"), but it is more at the root, something more massive and pervasive, it has to do with things like: a) the weakness of the alibies of both suspects and the fact that the ToD would have a tiny window and is both the alibi and digestion timings are not that time-sensitive, and b) the fact that the very logical 'paradigm' based on the statistical assumption about normal gastric emptying is basically wrong; in my opinion there is evidence that it's just wrong to assume that the statistical norm (average) must be the starting point of reference at any cost, independently from the rest of the information. This is an erroneous procedure.

This seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni's missing letters

This is one is another that I don’t know where you got it from; another made up statement. Definitely Patrizia Stefanoni has a PhD.

Even Ms. Comodi acknowledged that Stefanoni did not have certain letters after her name (as I seem to recall how she put it). The relevant quote may be found in an earlier continuation thread. Mrs. Stefanoni is the Joy Kuhl of this case, and then some.

 

[Desert Fox]

Each to their own.

Look, if it is, as I think it is a cover up to hide prosecutor incompetence, why would it matter if he wrote a book or not? They are going to get him in any case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Even Ms. Comodi acknowledged that Stefanoni did not have certain letters after her name (as I seem to recall how she put it). The relevant quote may be found in an earlier continuation thread. Mrs. Stefanoni is the Joy Kuhl of this case, and then some.

You are making up and climbing on glass. Comodi spoke about the curriculum vitae of Carla Vecchiotti, pointing out that she doesn't have even a degree in biology.

Moreover, a PhD in Italy does not bring letters before the name.

 

[Desert Fox]

A good feeling, ok.

Based on what information? Should you not at least need to know the basis of her libel appeal?

Why does Amanda go to NYC?

The only reason I can see them not seeing the case is due to not having the resources and/or manpower. The procession for libel goes against the European basic tenants as far as freedom of speech.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,
It is my understanding that Meredith lost consciousness died relatively quickly, not that this was anything other than a brutal, terrible crime. Do you have any information to the contrary?

CoulsdonUK,

I suggest you reread my comment. I specifically referred to this as "a brutal, terrible crime." That you would infer that I felt it was OK is beyond bewildering, even beyond astonishing. The crime was abhorrent, which BTW makes the relative brevity of Rudy's sentence unjust.

Yes those words did appear in the post I have included above just as died relatively quickly.

I appreciate your further clarification of your original post.

Do you feel that legal actuions such as this one and the ones against Patrizia Moretti have a beneficial or a chilling effect on free speech, transparency, and accountability?

Do you believe the NYC law enforcement and justice system demonstrated American justice at its best, regarding the Central Park Five? Should we judge the entire American justice system based on the Central Park Five, where was the transparency whilst this case worked its way through the NY justice system?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The only reason I can see them not seeing the case is due to not having the resources and/or manpower. The procession for libel goes against the European basic tenants as far as freedom of speech.

Do you know the content of Amanda’s libel appeal to the ECHR, if the answer is no, then I am at a loss as to how you can write of European tenants of freedom of speech.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem with the gastric emtying and TOD alibi however is not just about the intrinsic uncertainities undermining it (that AmyStrange called "improbabilities"), but it is more at the root, something more massive and pervasive, it has to do with things like: a) the weakness of the alibies of both suspects and the fact that the ToD would have a tiny window and is both the alibi and digestion timings are not that time-sensitive, and b) the fact that the very logical 'paradigm' based on the statistical assumption about normal gastric emptying is basically wrong; in my opinion there is evidence that it's just wrong to assume that the statistical norm (average) must be the starting point of reference at any cost, independently from the rest of the information. This is an erroneous procedure.

This is total bull Machiavelli. The reality is that gastric emptying is actually a fairly precise science. There is a range for what is normal and what is not.

It would be exceptional to the point of disbelief that Meredith Kercher stomach wouldn't have passed some of her meal by 9:30. So we KNOW that the TOD is not hours later as is necessary in Massei's and Mignini's theory. And not only does gastric emptying place the TOD before 9:30, but Rudy does also in his statements.

Your claim that Amanda and Raffaele's alibis are weak is absurd. First it is the same alibi that virtually anyone might have. They were together at Raffaele's apartment which is confirmed by an eyewitness that places them there just before the likely TOD and a computer that places them in Raffaele's apartment at the probable TOD.

What is sad about the guilter phenomenon is that it requires a suspension of logic and science. You discount gastric emptying, you discount the lack of connection between Rudy and Amanda/Raffaele. You ignore negative scientific tests and you dismiss standard scientific protocols. You dismiss the lack of motive and the lack of evidence.

Everything is based on wild speculations and absurd logic. Really really sad.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

You are making up and climbing on glass. Comodi spoke about the curriculum vitae of Carla Vecchiotti, pointing out that she doesn't have even a degree in biology.

Moreover, a PhD in Italy does not bring letters before the name.

Machiavelli,

As quoted in The Fatal Gift of Beauty, Comodi said, “No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn’t even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says the scientific police have to produce all that’s requested. It’s not proof, and we didn’t need it to support our case. The prosecutor’s office decides what is useful and what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police to explain how they found a hooker online. The important thing is that they found the hooker!” (highlighting mine)

Sounds like Stefanoni is missing something. The only real question is why you keep saying things that are provably false.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

As quoted in The Fatal Gift of Beauty, Comodi said, “No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn’t even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says the scientific police have to produce all that’s requested. It’s not proof, and we didn’t need it to support our case. The prosecutor’s office decides what is useful and what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police to explain how they found a hooker online. The important thing is that they found the hooker!” (highlighting mine)

Sounds like Stefanoni is missing something. The only real question is why you keep saying things that are provably false.

The question is why you attempt climbings on glass and to make up falsehoods at any turn. It's a real mystery to me why you try to make up things even out of quotes (alleged quotes of quotes) like this one.
There is nothing here saying Stefanoni is missing something.
Even less letters or PhDs.