Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

The proper term is 'stonewalling.'

Yet with all this stonewalling, Bongiorno fails to explicity mention it in front of Nencini.

 

[Kaosium]

Yet with all this stonewalling, Bongiorno fails to explicity mention it in front of Nencini.

Are you sure this is true? If it is true, why do you think she didn't and how sure of your conjecture are you?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
ETA: We are pretty much back to Diocletus' list of reasons here.

But Diocletus' is a mere provocation founded on a basic misunderstanding of the real situation: there isn't a "list of reasons", and there isn't necessarily a specific reason, because it is not a point on which it is the prosecution who needs to have reasons. Instead, based on their previous trial conduct, it is the defence who would need to have a reason if they want to explain why they need the raw data so late, like in 2009, why it is now an important piece of evidence for them while did not care about them before. They would need to explain that clearly, starting their instance by admitting they changed their mind only late, explain to the judges and prosecution what the raw data are and why they need them. This, if we are talking about 2009. Because the defences - and remind there are two defence teams - didn't do any further stap except the ambiguous statement from Dalla Vedova (only a person who already knows what raw data are could have identified what he intended to adress), they didn't submit any further instance, not even subsequently.

 

[griffinmill]

The sharing of the prosecution data, including EDFs for DNA evidence, is routine in the US. This is called "discovery" and also referred to as the Brady rule, after the US Supreme Court ruling Brady v. Maryland:

From: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule


The Brady Rule, named for Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused-- evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense. The defendant bears the burden of proving that the undisclosed evidence was material, and the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that there would be a difference in the outcome of the trial had the evidence been disclosed by the prosecutor.
_____
The EDFs are potentially exculpatory because they would likely show the presence of contaminant DNA in the police forensic lab samples. It is known from quantitative data given to the defense by Stefanoni that several controls were contaminated.

Without getting into the nitty gritty, citing US law seems irrelevant. But all US trials have pretrial evidence hearings to determine what will, or will not, be admitted.

It seems to me those steps were taken in the Italian process. And there was no complaint, that I'm aware of, that Bongiorno felt discovery wasn't met in her final address to Nencini.

 

[Kaosium]

But Diocletus' is a mere provocation founded on a basic misunderstanding of the real situation: there isn't a "list of reasons", and there isn't necessarily a specific reason, because it is not a point on which it is the prosecution who needs to have reasons. Instead, based on their previous trial conduct, it is the defence who would need to have a reason if they want to explain why they need the raw data so late, like in 2009, why it is now an important piece of evidence for them while did not care about them before. They would need to explain that clearly, starting their instance by admitting they changed their mind only late, explain to the judges and prosecution what the raw data are and why they need them. This, if we are talking about 2009. Because the defences - and remind there are two defence teams - didn't do any further stap except the ambiguous statement from Dalla Vedova (only a person who already knows what raw data are could have identified what he intended to adress), they didn't submit any further instance, not even subsequently.

That's a lie.

 

[Desert Fox]

Greetings everyone,
I've read the R. Hendry reconstruction,
and I know about the PM Mignini assertion,
that it was a 3 on 1 scenario,
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9240[/qimg]
where 2 new luvers who met at a classical music concert a week ago decided to invite a stranger to let him rape this girls roommate while she stabs her to death and her new boyfriend helps restrains her.

I'd like to read of a scenario where there are 2 only assailants,
and it includes all of the downstairs evidence, ok?
RW

The problem with that picture is that it does not take into consideration the environment. Even with just two people, it is a very small room.

 

[griffinmill]

Are you sure this is true? If it is true, why do you think she didn't and how sure of your conjecture are you?

Why do I need to be sure of my conjecture? Where is the cite from her presentation in front of Nencini that discovery wasn't met? If they didn't receive crucial information that could exonerate her client, I would imagine she would have asked for it. I would even think it would be the bedrock of her address. Instead, she never mentions it to my knowledge.

 

[Machiavelli]

If I understand correctly, she put her claim of mistreatment during the interrogation into writing and presented it to the authorities.

The "facts" do not need to be a judicial finding. Generally the ECtHR works from written records, preferably official records. It has sometimes concluded violations based on the lack of official records. For example, an individual files a complaint of abuse by police. There are no records of a response to the complaint. The individual applies to the ECtHR, relying on Article 3. The ECtHR concludes that a violation of Article 3, procedural, has occurred: failure to conduct an effective investigation. The ECtHR concludes however, that it cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of Article 3, substantive, has occurred because of the lack of evidence. I am referring here to recent cases actually judged: (...)

But this is precisely what judicial finding means. It is judical documentation. In Italian we say "atto documentale", as opposed to "fatto documentato".
If no legal action follows from a complaint this is a typical case of judicial documentation (this s what I meant as judicial finding: not just anything merely referred to within a document, but what the document itself says, insofar as it is a judicial document). If there are no records of response in the judicial papers, this is a record of a failure, expressed by the documentation itself.

But we can guess this is not our case, because there are no flaws that you can infer from the judicial documentation on the Knox proceedings.

 

[Kaosium]

Why do I need to be sure of my conjecture?

You don't, but if you aren't it might be better not to post it.

Where is the cite from her presentation in front of Nencini that discovery wasn't met?

What makes you think there should have been one at that juncture?

If they didn't receive crucial information that could exonerate her client, I would imagine she would have asked for it.

They already had, multiple times.

I would even think it would be the bedrock of her address. Instead, she never mentions it to my knowledge.

It might have been a better strategic move not to do so.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's a lie.

What I said is absolutely true.
We are talking about the defences. I don't understand how you can object to my statement, obviously true, by pointing at documentation from C&V which is supposed to have nothing to do with defence attorneys' activities.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) They already had, multiple times. (...)

Show us these "multiple times". I am open minded. Quote the trial papers.

 

[Kaosium]

What I said is absolutely true.
We are talking about the defences. I don't understand how you can object to my statement, obviously true, by pointing at documentation from C&V which is supposed to have nothing to do with defence attorneys' activities.

It is nowhere near 'absolutely' true, it's not even enough to amount to a half-truth. It's pure sophistry for someone (who is well aware Vecchiotti testified in court that the defense had asked for the raw data through them) to claim that the defense didn't subsequently make that request after 2009.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do I need to be sure of my conjecture? Where is the cite from her presentation in front of Nencini that discovery wasn't met? If they didn't receive crucial information that could exonerate her client, I would imagine she would have asked for it. I would even think it would be the bedrock of her address. Instead, she never mentions it to my knowledge.

Yet Nencini would be a bit late, it's was already the second time the defence was performing at an appeal trial.
Bongiorno should have asked for the raw data also to Hellmann; also in her reasons for appeal; also at the opening phase (in fact called the "request instances phase") of the Massei trial; should also have asked them at the preliminary hearing before judge Micheli. In fact, as for a proper timing, she should have asked them to Matteini and to Ricciarelli. And if she was really unsatisfied she should have petitioned the Supreme Court for their release.

 

[griffinmill]

You don't, but if you aren't it might be better not to post it.



What makes you think there should have been one at that juncture?



They already had, multiple times.



It might have been a better strategic move not to do so.

So in other words, you acknowledge that Bongiorno didn't mention it in front of Nencini. You claim requests for additional data were made several times, but yet Bongiorno didn't make that request in her last address to the court.

Why? What strategic reason could there be not to mention something that is intrinsic to the defense of her client?

 

[Kaosium]

Yet Nencini would be a bit late, it's was already the second time the defence was performing at an appeal trial.
Bongiorno should have asked for the raw data also to Hellmann; also in her reasons for appeal; also at the opening phase (in fact called the "request instances phase") of the Massei trial; should also have asked them at the preliminary hearing before judge Micheli. In fact, as for a proper timing, she should have asked them to Matteini and to Ricciarelli. And if she was really unsatisfied she should have petitioned the Supreme Court for their release.

No, the prosecution should have handed them over as a matter of course when the trial began. They should have included them in the July 30 2009 data dump when the SALs and other records were (finally!) disclosed. They should have presented them without questions or quibbling when C&V requested them, they should have handed them over when Hellmann told Stefanoni through e-mail that she should hand over to the independent experts everything they asked for.

Instead you think the prosecution should be rewarded for stonewalling this long by being allowed to blame their refusal to comply on the defense!

 

[Machiavelli]

It is nowhere near 'absolutely' true, it's not even enough to amount to a half-truth. It's pure sophistry for someone (who is well aware Vecchiotti testified in court that the defense had asked for the raw data through them) to claim that the defense didn't subsequently make that request after 2009.

What did you say? Are you saying the defence forwarded a request to the judges through Conti and Vecchiotti?
I hope you are not serious when you make such a claim. Do you realize what this would mean?

I think you are confused. Maybe you refer to the fact that the defence has requested to Conti and Vecchiotti the raw data of those tests that they (Conti and Vecchiotti) performed on the knife. That the defence experts request C&V for the raw data of the Conti&Vecchiotti's tests is normal. But if you say the defence forwarded a request to obtain raw data from Stefanoni's tests through Conti and Vecchiotti, then you are on a very different terrain. Let's hear what prof. Halkides knows on the point.

 

[Kaosium]

So in other words, you acknowledge that Bongiorno didn't mention it in front of Nencini.

No, of course not, I've never read it.

You claim requests for additional data were made several times, but yet Bongiorno didn't make that request in her last address to the court.

Maybe she figured it was too late with the trial ended and all?

Why? What strategic reason could there be not to mention something that is intrinsic to the defense of her client?

In US courts it's called 'preserving an error.' If the judge fails to resolve an error during a trial it then becomes a potential point in the appeal, if the judge corrects the error then it's not. There may be similar strategic reasoning in Italian courts as well.

 

[Kaosium]

What did you say? Are you saying the defence forwarded a request to the judges through Conti and Vecchiotti?

No, that the defense wanted the independent experts to get the raw data which would lead to them having it as well.

I hope you are not serious when you make such a claim. Do you realize what this would mean?

That the defense wanted the raw data like they'd asked for previously and they thought the independent experts should see it.

I think you are confused. Maybe you refer to the fact that the defence has requested to Conti and Vecchiotti the raw data of those tests that they (Conti and Vecchiotti) performed on the knife. That the defence experts request C&V for the raw data of the Conti&Vecchiotti's tests is normal. But if you say the defence forwarded a request to obtain raw data from Stefanoni's tests through Conti and Vecchiotti, then you are on a very different terrain. Let's hear what prof. Halkides knows on the point.

You don't recall the long discussion we had on this point about a year ago? You posted the transcript regarding the negative controls and Vecchiotti's appeal testimony. While she's explaining that she requested the negative controls and didn't get them and was astonished they weren't provided at the outset, she mentions something to the effect of 'the defense even wanted the raw data.'

 

[Machiavelli]

No, the prosecution should have handed them over as a matter of course when the trial began. They should have included them in the July 30 2009 data dump when the SALs and other records were (finally!) disclosed. They should have presented them without questions or quibbling when C&V requested them, they should have handed them over when Hellmann told Stefanoni through e-mail that she should hand over to the independent experts everything they asked for.

Instead you think the prosecution should be rewarded for stonewalling this long by being allowed to blame their refusal to comply on the defense!

It's not that I think it should be "rewarded", it's simply a fact that the prosecution didn't breach any law and any principle, while you are instead making up the rules. You would like people to be discredited for and accused of violating "rules" which don't exist in reality. In fact there is no basis for any argument for claiming that the defence has requested raw data "multiple times", it's false; or that Stefanoni stonewalled or lied.
On the other hand, when it comes to the other side, you seem to completely ignore how the defence actions are actually (legally) in need of explanation. The fact that they didn't follow any strategy to obtain them, that don't explain or change their mind without explanation or don't submit instances seems to be something indifferent to you; but it isn't indifferent to a judge, and in the economy of a trial. As well, this goes for your failure to properly assess the conduct of C&V, as you seem to ignore how judge-appointed experts should work. And btw it seems to me Hellmann didn't even exactly tell Stefanoni what she should do, and you fail to note how C&V expressed no complaint about Stefanoni's cooperation or about the lack of raw data and on the contrary they stated (this one multiple time) that her laboratory was cooperative and their cooperation was "complete", and C&V also stated that they "obtained all data they had requested".

 

[Bill Williams]

In message #5450, Machiavelli and I had this exchange:

One only needs to read Machiavelli's last 7 to 10 posts here, and the responses to finally "get" that he's here to provide a Pro-guilt spin one everything, even if he has to outright lie - or "forget" that refutation to his regurgitated claim was posted a long time ago.

Why do you accuse me of lying? Can't you resort to anything else now? I never noticed any disproval about my claims. I've never seen anything like someone showing that I am lying (about what, btw?). I have not being seeing a claim that has some touch with the real world fro the pro-Knox crowd over the last times, actually. All what I see is a kind if rabid conspiracy theory, that encompasses in is projection possibly most of a whole country.

No refutation or reasonable counter argument to my opinions was "posted" as far as I know. I am waiting to see some reasonable arguments.
The defence obviously has son arguments, in any case the defence always has son argument, like in any battle any side always has some weapon and always causes some degree of damage to the other army (accusation argument, evidence, in a case) with no exception. Yet there is one side that loses, having an argument doesn't mean that argument is strong and will prevail. The defence has lost because their arguments are weak. Their supporters may go on repeating them and making up new ones, but they'll remain wrong, false, discredited or weak arguments, insufficient to change the outcome.

And in message #5525 Machiavelli and Kaosium have this exchange:

But Diocletus' is a mere provocation founded on a basic misunderstanding of the real situation: there isn't a "list of reasons", and there isn't necessarily a specific reason, because it is not a point on which it is the prosecution who needs to have reasons. Instead, based on their previous trial conduct, it is the defence who would need to have a reason if they want to explain why they need the raw data so late, like in 2009, why it is now an important piece of evidence for them while did not care about them before. They would need to explain that clearly, starting their instance by admitting they changed their mind only late, explain to the judges and prosecution what the raw data are and why they need them. This, if we are talking about 2009. Because the defences - and remind there are two defence teams - didn't do any further stap except the ambiguous statement from Dalla Vedova (only a person who already knows what raw data are could have identified what he intended to adress), they didn't submit any further instance, not even subsequently.

That's a lie.

Or message #5532

What I said is absolutely true.
We are talking about the defences. I don't understand how you can object to my statement, obviously true, by pointing at documentation from C&V which is supposed to have nothing to do with defence attorneys' activities.

It is nowhere near 'absolutely' true, it's not even enough to amount to a half-truth. It's pure sophistry for someone (who is well aware Vecchiotti testified in court that the defense had asked for the raw data through them) to claim that the defense didn't subsequently make that request after 2009.

Through it all, Machiavelli wonders why I call him a liar, and seems to indicate that no one else regards him as such.

Machiavelli wonders why I cannot resort to anything else right now. The only response is to follow the threads in which people converse with Machiavelli, such conversation, more often than not, ends like the one Kaosium posted, where Kaosium concludes that what M. is saying is a......

Two months from now, the same ground will be covered - M. will make the same claim, as if K. had not ever rightly refuted the claim. And around and around we go.

How many times has M. come here saying some variation that Bongiorno had not asked for EDFs? Or raw data files? And around and around we go.