Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[griffinmill]

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.

I agree, and you've stated it better than I ever will. My point is that the PIP can claim lying, EDF's, and discovery suppression are a major component of the trial. But at Nencini, when all that "information" was on the table, Bongiorno failed to mention it. Apparently, sheh didn't consider it a viable part of her defense. To me, that's very telling.

 

[Kaosium]

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".

I don't believe you, especially on that last point, what is the source for the line ("obtained all data they had requested") you quoted?


How do you square that with the transcript you yourself posted a year or so ago where Vecchotti said before the appeals court she didn't receive the negative control data?

 

[Machiavelli]

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

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

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.'

You don't seem to answer clearly.
First, what do you mean they thought? Was it only a thought something remained entirely within the borders of their subjective thinking without taking any factual shape, or was there some actual fact, something that occurred outside their subjective sphere of wishing, for example like a statement, or an agreement?
Second, if their "wanting" through the judge-appointed experts was merely a subjective feeling of hope, then 1) how is it that they thought they would obtain the data from C&V? By which way you think would the data be transferred from the hands of the judge-appointed experts to the defence experts? ; and 2) if their "wanting" data through C&V means merely something subjective, merely that they felt a subjective feeling of hope, then so where and when did it happen that the defence requested raw data "multiple times"?

 

[griffinmill]

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



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



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.

Seriously? A defense attorney knows her client to be innocent, and knows it has to do with suppressed data on discovery, but strategically decides not to bring it up on her final address to the court?

It's almost laughable you believe this.

 

[js202]

I agree, and you've stated it better than I ever will. My point is that the PIP can claim lying, EDF's, and discovery suppression are a major component of the trial. But at Nencini, when all that "information" was on the table, Bongiorno failed to mention it. Apparently, sheh didn't consider it a viable part of her defense. To me, that's very telling.

But then your ilk always rely on this sort of innuendo, right? This or that being "very telling."

Such as, it is "very telling" that RWVBWL - with all due respect to Randy, since he is far closer to the truth than you ever dreamt of being - has a hunch a white male was involved, and hey, Raffaele Sollecito is white! Problem is, there was never any association or contact, whatsoever, between RG and RS, which, in the realm of policing, investigation and judicial reasoning based on mere *evidence*, is a whopping obstacle.

 

[Numbers]

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.

But this comes to two points:

1. Italian Constitution Article 111, clause (sentence) 5:
The defendant shall have the right...to produce all other evidence in favour of the defense.

2. ECHR Article 6.1: Equality of Arms, Adversarial Hearing: Right to a Fair Trial
Equality of arms is an inherent feature of a fair trial. It requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.

The right to an adversarial hearing means in principle the opportunity for the parties to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed with a view to influencing the court’s decision. The right to an adversarial trial is closely related to equalityof arms and indeed in some cases the Court finds a violation of Article 6§1 looking at the two concepts together.
From: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf

 

[Kaosium]

I agree, and you've stated it better than I ever will. My point is that the PIP can claim lying, EDF's, and discovery suppression are a major component of the trial. But at Nencini, when all that "information" was on the table, Bongiorno failed to mention it. Apparently, sheh didn't consider it a viable part of her defense. To me, that's very telling.

No, what's 'telling' is that Stefanoni went to such great lengths to hide it with the complicity of the prosecution. Griffinmill, this is very simple: the edfs contain the raw data behind all the charts Stefanoni produced in court. If they aren't available then Stefanoni could have just photoshopped those electropherograms etc. More likely however is she 'missed' something she doesn't want the defense to see, much like she 'missed' the other 2-4 (male) contributors to the bra clasp.

If her charts were representative of the data they were derived from there would be no reason at all to deny the defense the right to see them. None.

 

[js202]

It's almost laughable you believe this.

To those with a bit of skepticism coupled with two brain cells to rub together, every single thing you've ever argued in these threads is laughable. So there's that to consider.

 

[griffinmill]

No, what's 'telling' is that Stefanoni went to such great lengths to hide it with the complicity of the prosecution. Griffinmill, this is very simple: the edfs contain the raw data behind all the charts Stefanoni produced in court. If they aren't available then Stefanoni could have just photoshopped those electropherograms etc. More likely however is she 'missed' something she doesn't want the defense to see, much like she 'missed' the other 2-4 (male) contributors to the bra clasp.

If her charts were representative of the data they were derived from there would be no reason at all to deny the defense the right to see them. None.

Very persuasive. Now explain to me why Bongiorno didn't bring this up in her address to Nencini.

 

[Numbers]

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.

If no legal or judicial documentation followed from Ms. Knox providing the authorities with her written statement, the authorities are the only ones culpable for that failure and lack of documentation.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't believe you, especially on that last point, what is the source for the line ("obtained all data they had requested") you quoted?

The source is a short hearing before Pratillo Hellmann & Zanetti court that took place on May 20. 2011. I don't have the transcript of that hearing, but news sources reported the words of Conti and Vecchiotti and their statements on that occasion are an event accepted as a known fact.

How do you square that with the transcript you yourself posted a year or so ago where Vecchotti said before the appeals court she didn't receive the negative control data?

In fact, she also failed to say that she explicitly requested negative control data (she never did). But in fact you are right: Vecchiotti was in flat contradiction, she contradicted herself on multiple points in her court declarations, this is why I infer she was being a liar.

Moreover, the negative control data she requested were already in the trial file, prosecutor Crini confirmed they were there, and he also showed the records of deposit. They were there since Oct. 2008, also in the electronic data form.

 

[js202]

I agree, and you've stated it better than I ever will.

Well then, this unfortunate fact leaves you rather at a deficit when it comes to the equipment necessary to reason through this case, no?

To me, that's very telling.

Yes, it's telling that you would find anything this hydra-headed entity proffers "telling." Are you the Machiavelli sock puppet for the evening, and praising your own paltry offerings?

 

[Kaosium]

Seriously? A defense attorney knows her client to be innocent, and knows it has to do with suppressed data on discovery, but strategically decides not to bring it up on her final address to the court?

She had a lot on her plate and the DNA evidence had already been considered 'unreliable' by the appeals court. Or she was trying to preserve an error. Or perhaps she's incompetent and/or as part of the Ministry of Justice is aware what might happen were real scientists to get too close a look at the crap that passes for 'science' in Italian courtrooms and would imperil other convictions which might be politically inconvenient for her.

Who knows for sure, however one thing that's crystal clear is there would be no reason for them not to cough them up unless there's something critically damaging to their case, if not to the integrity of the lab that did the work. It's happened before in the US and Australia, it can happen in Italy.

It's almost laughable you believe this.

Then laugh!

 

[Desert Fox]

No, what's 'telling' is that Stefanoni went to such great lengths to hide it with the complicity of the prosecution. Griffinmill, this is very simple: the edfs contain the raw data behind all the charts Stefanoni produced in court. If they aren't available then Stefanoni could have just photoshopped those electropherograms etc. More likely however is she 'missed' something she doesn't want the defense to see, much like she 'missed' the other 2-4 (male) contributors to the bra clasp.

If her charts were representative of the data they were derived from there would be no reason at all to deny the defense the right to see them. None.

What is interesting is that even if the signatures are not due to lab contamination, they very easily could be through contamination either at the crime scene due to poor horrid handling or improper transport. There are so many ways that the signatures could have become contaminated but those who argue pro guilt cannot accept any of them.

 

[Machiavelli]

If no legal or judicial documentation followed from Ms. Knox providing the authorities with her written statement, the authorities are the only ones culpable for that failure and lack of documentation.

Absolutely not. The charge of beating cannot be investigated by authorities unless they receive a specific order from the victim, an type of request called querela di parte. Italian law says authorithies cannot take the initiative to investigate on several offences, unless there is a formal request by the victim to do so. The simple information about the existence of an offence is not enough: the law requires that the victim expresses his/her intent to start a legal action, through a docuemnt called querela.
Many offences under the Italian penal code can only be investigated starting from a private initiative, only if there is this specific complaint from a victim (that becomes an offended party, and requires a lawyer). Otherwise authorities can't.
You talked about adversarial versus inquisitorial principles, and while I am not sure you actually appreciate the real nature of what "inquisitorial" systems means, I note that you have forgotten to point out another dycothomy, that has to do with the concept of civil law system.
In the Italian system, most offences can "exist" (be investigated and prosecuted) only on a private basis, based on a victim's complaint. Such complaint is not a mere information, does not consist in just making somebody know.
You may find some further explanation here:

http://www.avvocatocastellani.com/diritto_penale.html

 

[Kaosium]

The source is a short hearing before Pratillo Hellmann & Zanetti court that took place on May 20. 2011. I don't have the transcript of that hearing, but news sources reported the words of Conti and Vecchiotti and their statements on that occasion are an event accepted as a known fact.

I don't believe the news sources, especially when you yourself posted the part of the transcript from the appeals appearance where Vecchiotti complained about the negative controls. Even moreso when the independent experts needed their commission extended by a month or so due to Stefanoni failing to turn over data in a timely manner.

In fact, she also failed to say that she explicitly requested negative control data (she never did). But in fact you are right: Vecchiotti was in flat contradiction, she contradicted herself on multiple points in her court declarations, this is why I infer she was being a liar.

I don't, I think the error (or lie) is on the part of the interpreter in this instance.

Moreover, the negative control data she requested were already in the trial file, prosecutor Crini confirmed they were there, and he also showed the records of deposit. They were there since Oct. 2008, also in the electronic data form.

Stefanoni should have just coughed them up when asked, it amazed Vecchiotti that she didn't include them when told to turn over all the records. I'll believe Crini when I see them for myself and not before.

 

[griffinmill]

Well then, this unfortunate fact leaves you rather at a deficit when it comes to the equipment necessary to reason through this case, no?



Yes, it's telling that you would find anything this hydra-headed entity proffers "telling." Are you the Machiavelli sock puppet for the evening, and praising your own paltry offerings?

Are you not aware of how stilted and condescending your posts are? I'm not surprised you haven't addressed the seminal question of why Bongiorno didn't raise the issue of discovery suppression in her address to the Nencini court. Maybe you have a take on that.

 

[Machiavelli]

But this comes to two points:

1. Italian Constitution Article 111, clause (sentence) 5:
The defendant shall have the right...to produce all other evidence in favour of the defense.

2. ECHR Article 6.1: Equality of Arms, Adversarial Hearing: Right to a Fair Trial
Equality of arms is an inherent feature of a fair trial. It requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.

The right to an adversarial hearing means in principle the opportunity for the parties to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed with a view to influencing the court’s decision. The right to an adversarial trial is closely related to equalityof arms and indeed in some cases the Court finds a violation of Article 6§1 looking at the two concepts together.
From: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf

So, still maybe what I said is not clear: they had all opportunities.
They just didn't want to.
They would have to do more staps and present more explanations if they wanted to ask for information about a piece of evidence that had been already examined in an adversarial hearing (called incidente probatorio), but hey had plenty of opportunity to submit their requests and explanations.

The just didn't do that. They never attempted to obtain such information through the proper steps. It was not their legal strategy to do so.

 

[griffinmill]

She had a lot on her plate and the DNA evidence had already been considered 'unreliable' by the appeals court. Or she was trying to preserve an error. Or perhaps she's incompetent and/or as part of the Ministry of Justice is aware what might happen were real scientists to get too close a look at the crap that passes for 'science' in Italian courtrooms and would imperil other convictions which might be politically inconvenient for her.

Who knows for sure, however one thing that's crystal clear is there would be no reason for them not to cough them up unless there's something critically damaging to their case, if not to the integrity of the lab that did the work. It's happened before in the US and Australia, it can happen in Italy.



Then laugh!

So in other words, you admit that Bongiorno, in her last address to the court, did not claim the defense didn't receive information crucial to their client's defense?

 

[Kaosium]

Are you not aware of how stilted and condescending your posts are? I'm not surprised you haven't addressed the seminal question of why Bongiorno didn't raise the issue of discovery suppression in her address to the Nencini court. Maybe you have a take on that.

Maybe she knows a show trial when she sees one?