Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Supercalifragilistic]

Use and abuse of Statistics

Judgments, not cases "brought up to".
By contrast, 100% judgments at the ECHR against Norway had a violation. It's an example, not to confuse judgments with cases brought up.

Well said Machiavelli. Clearly some people didn't take Statistics at college. To paraphrase Disraeli (?), they use statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination. (All the while thinking nobody will notice.)

 

[Desert Fox]

Judgments, not cases "brought up to".
By contrast, 100% judgments at the ECHR against Norway had a violation. It's an example, not to confuse judgments with cases brought up.

Norway had only 35 ECtHR judgments in the period 1959-2013: 25 had at least one violation; 10 had no violation. Norway has approximately 10% the population of Italy, but over 1959 - 2013 it had far fewer than 10% of the number of ECtHR judgments than Italy had: Italy, 2,268; Norway, 35. The number of ECtHR applications and judgments varies considerably among the CoE states; the northern European ones (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.) and some others tend to be among those on the low end, even when population size is considered.

Oops

 

[Supercalifragilistic]

Norway had only 35 ECtHR judgments in the period 1959-2013: 25 had at least one violation; 10 had no violation. Norway has approximately 10% the population of Italy, but over 1959 - 2013 it had far fewer than 10% of the number of ECtHR judgments than Italy had: Italy, 2,268; Norway, 35. The number of ECtHR applications and judgments varies considerably among the CoE states; the northern European ones (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.) and some others tend to be among those on the low end, even when population size is considered.

You didn't read:

"...It's an example, not to confuse judgments with cases brought..."

 

[Numbers]

You didn't read:

Look at my post #5452.

If you are interested in ECtHR statistics, see:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home and

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

They stated compliance, this is what they recorded. The point can be interpreted differently depending on your personal bias. But my interpretation is the relevant one under the law. And btw, my position is completely consistent.
My position does not consider relevant whether raw data files were handed over to C&V or not. This is not relevant at all. What they received is not relevant. It is not proven from the papers that Stefanoni refused to comply to their requests at the end or whether they changed their own requests themselves. This is not shown by the paper, the exchange posted is incomplete, and the factual details of the final settlement are irrelevant in order to make a point.

Comodi herself never spoke about raw data. Indeed, I believe accessing raw data would require a special entitlement and only those images extracted from raw data during an incidente probatorio procedure should be allowed in the hands of the defence, but this is my personal opinion.

Why shouldn't the defence have access to everything they want/need? If the case against the perpetrator is strong and correct, there should be no reason to not disclose anything.

I thought your argument was that the defence didn't ask within the permitted timeframe, not that they needed a special entitlement.

 

[Diocletus]

Why shouldn't the defence have access to everything they want/need? If the case against the perpetrator is strong and correct, there should be no reason to not disclose anything.

I thought your argument was that the defence didn't ask within the permitted timeframe, not that they needed a special entitlement.

No, his arguments are:

1. They weren't allowed to request the EDFs, but instead had to stop by the lab to pick them up
2. If the were allowed to request the EDFs, then they didn't do it
3. If they did request the EDFs, then it was too late
4. If they did request the EDFs on time, then they got them
5. If they didn't get the EDFs, it was just an accident
6. It the EDFs accidentally weren't given to them, it doesn't matter because they didn't need them
7. If they did need the EDFs, it doesn't matter because the prosecution should be allowed to use secret evidence to convict the defendant

 

[anglolawyer]

They stated compliance, this is what they recorded. The point can be interpreted differently depending on your personal bias. But my interpretation is the relevant one under the law. And btw, my position is completely consistent.
My position does not consider relevant whether raw data files were handed over to C&V or not. This is not relevant at all. What they received is not relevant. It is not proven from the papers that Stefanoni refused to comply to their requests at the end or whether they changed their own requests themselves. This is not shown by the paper, the exchange posted is incomplete, and the factual details of the final settlement are irrelevant in order to make a point.

Comodi herself never spoke about raw data. Indeed, I believe accessing raw data would require a special entitlement and only those images extracted from raw data during an incidente probatorio procedure should be allowed in the hands of the defence, but this is my personal opinion.

What are the reasons for your opinion?

I don't think you understand the difference between the underlying electronic data and the graphs produced from them. Others here, far better qualified than me, can explain it to you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Pascali and a CD ROM

No, his arguments are:

1. They weren't allowed to request the EDFs, but instead had to stop by the lab to pick them up

IIRC Dr. Pascali tried to stop by the lab but was rebuffed.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

When did Vecchiotti and Conti declare or write in trial papers that Stefanoni refused to give them EDFs?

Heh.

Where did Massei deny, in trial papers, that Stefanoni agreed to fellate him in exchange for his complicity in her forensic fraud?

The sad part is, she'd have done it anyway, for nothing. The woman has no self-respect.

 

[Diocletus]

What are the reasons for your opinion?

I don't think you understand the difference between the underlying electronic data and the graphs produced from them. Others here, far better qualified than me, can explain it to you.

It's the same dumb argument that stefanoni tried to pass off on Hellman: the defense might be able to "manipulate" the data and so they shouldn't be able to get it and should be satisfied with whatever the prosecution decides to give them.

I could make a fortune in Italy teaching them how to copy data onto a cd and make a reference copy. This advanced technology appears to be unknown to them.

 

[Diocletus]

IIRC Dr. Pascali tried to stop by the lab but was rebuffed.

I guess he should have hitched a ride with Novelli.

 

[Kaosium]

What are the reasons for your opinion?

I don't think you understand the difference between the underlying electronic data and the graphs produced from them. Others here, far better qualified than me, can explain it to you.

I suspect he understands that just fine, which is why he wants to see that information destroyed. That's apparently what happens to Incidente probatorio data when the trial is completed. Reading that link I can't make heads or tails of why that would apply to DNA forensic information or how it could apply to anything in this case. The examples given in that link suggests it's an extraordinary measure for the sort of evidence that might become corrupted (like witness testimony) by time or public exposure. What do you make of that link and his classification of the DNA data as 'Incidente probatorio?'

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

No, his arguments are:

1. They weren't allowed to request the EDFs, but instead had to stop by the lab to pick them up
2. If the were allowed to request the EDFs, then they didn't do it
3. If they did request the EDFs, then it was too late
4. If they did request the EDFs on time, then they got them
5. If they didn't get the EDFs, it was just an accident
6. It the EDFs accidentally weren't given to them, it doesn't matter because they didn't need them
7. If they did need the EDFs, it doesn't matter because the prosecution should be allowed to use secret evidence to convict the defendant

I think you have to add one here. Apparently they didn't say "please" when they asked.

Indeed, I believe accessing raw data would require a special entitlement.

 

[anglolawyer]

I suspect he understands that just fine, which is why he wants to see that information destroyed. That's apparently what happens to Incidente probatorio data when the trial is completed. Reading that link I can't make heads or tails of why that would apply to DNA forensic information or how it could apply to anything in this case. The examples given in that link suggests it's an extraordinary measure for the sort of evidence that might become corrupted (like witness testimony) by time or public exposure. What do you make of that link and his classification of the DNA data as 'Incidente probatorio?'

I am afraid I could not make head or tail of that.

 

[Diocletus]

I suspect he understands that just fine, which is why he wants to see that information destroyed. That's apparently what happens to Incidente probatorio data when the trial is completed. Reading that link I can't make heads or tails of why that would apply to DNA forensic information or how it could apply to anything in this case. The examples given in that link suggests it's an extraordinary measure for the sort of evidence that might become corrupted (like witness testimony) by time or public exposure. What do you make of that link and his classification of the DNA data as 'Incidente probatorio?'

Yeah but even if it does apply to dna testing, to say they can't have the EDFs is like saying the defense can't have the audio recording of an interrogation simply because the cops made a transcript and gave it to the defense instead. There is actually an echr case that says that the audio has to be made available in such a case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tarnish on the Gold Standard

It's the same dumb argument that stefanoni tried to pass off on Hellman: the defense might be able to "manipulate" the data and so they shouldn't be able to get it and should be satisfied with whatever the prosecution decides to give them.

I could make a fortune in Italy teaching them how to copy data onto a cd and make a reference copy. This advanced technology appears to be unknown to them.

William Thompson demolished this argument some time ago, writing, "The claim that defense reanalysis of electronic data could, under any circumstances, amount to “evidence tampering” is absurd given that defense experts work only with a copy of the original data. By analogy, if the police disclosed digital photos of the crime scene, it would hardly be “data tampering” for a defense expert to manipulate the digital images in an effort to enhance them or bring specific details into focus.Nor should the government be able to dictate the software and “analysis parameters” used by a defense expert to examine the government’s digital data. The use of proper analysis parameters might well become an issue if and when the defense decided to offer into evidence the results of its analysis of the electronic data. But to deny access to digital data on grounds that the defense might analyze it improperly eviscerates the right to discovery."

 

[anglolawyer]

William Thompson demolished this argument some time ago, writing, "The claim that defense reanalysis of electronic data could, under any circumstances, amount to “evidence tampering” is absurd given that defense experts work only with a copy of the original data. By analogy, if the police disclosed digital photos of the crime scene, it would hardly be “data tampering” for a defense expert to manipulate the digital images in an effort to enhance them or bring specific details into focus.Nor should the government be able to dictate the software and “analysis parameters” used by a defense expert to examine the government’s digital data. The use of proper analysis parameters might well become an issue if and when the defense decided to offer into evidence the results of its analysis of the electronic data. But to deny access to digital data on grounds that the defense might analyze it improperly eviscerates the right to discovery."

It is unbelievable that one has to confront such puerile arguments but an indication of how far desperation can take you.

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah but even if it does apply to dna testing, to say they can't have the EDFs is like saying the defense can't have the audio recording of an interrogation simply because the cops made a transcript and gave it to the defense instead. There is actually an echr case that says that the audio has to be made available in such a case.

That's a good analogy.

BTW, do you have any clue what 'Incidente probatorio' might mean and how it would apply to the DNA data?

 

[Numbers]

That's a good analogy.

BTW, do you have any clue what 'Incidente probatorio' might mean and how it would apply to the DNA data?

Here's some info:
From: http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36804
Google translated
This is a small part of the article


CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART TWO

BOOK V.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS AND PRELIMINARY HEARING

TITLE VII
Incident evidence

Art. 392.
Cases. ( 1 )

1. In the course of the preliminary investigation the public prosecutor and the person being examined may ask the judge to proceed with recording evidence:

a) the taking of testimony of a person when there is reason to believe that the same can not be examined in the trial due to illness or other serious impediment;

b) the taking of testimony when, for concrete and specific, there is reason to believe that the person is exposed to violence, threats, offers or promises of money or other benefits, to not give evidence or to give evidence false;

c) examination of the person under investigation of the facts relating to the responsibilities of others;

d) examination of the persons referred to in Article 210;

e) the comparison between people who otherwise recording evidence or the prosecutor made statements inconsistent, when one of the circumstances provided for in subparagraphs a) and b);

f) a judicial examination or an experiment, if the test is for a person, a thing or a place whose status is subject to change can not be avoided; g) in a survey, if special reasons for urgency is not possible to postpone the hearing to act.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's the same dumb argument that stefanoni tried to pass off on Hellman: the defense might be able to "manipulate" the data and so they shouldn't be able to get it and should be satisfied with whatever the prosecution decides to give them.

I could make a fortune in Italy teaching them how to copy data onto a cd and make a reference copy. This advanced technology appears to be unknown to them.

Actually, when you think about it, paranoia about what the defence might do with their copy of the EDFs is a predictable corollary of a mindset in which everybody thinks everybody else is cheating, plotting and lying all the time. In fact, it would be stupid not to join in. Maybe Italy is simply passed the tipping point at which it becomes impossible to cling onto altruistic values like honesty, integrity etc without being a fool.