Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kaosium]

And the subject?
Don't you notice a change of subject?
"the experts [C&V] proceed to request".
Who is the subject? It seems to me the subject here are Conti and Vecchiotti. We already know Conti and Vecchiotti made a request of raw data. We don't know how their mail exchange ended, we don't know if they obtained the data, if they changed idea or else, what we know for sure is that Conti and Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they requested and were satisfied with the cooperation.

We don't know the latter, you refuse to post the source document (and context) for this claim which is dubious in the light of their statements in the report itself, the courtroom and the fact their commission had to be extended a month due to Stefanoni's failure to provide data in a timely manner.

We know they didn't receive the edfs because of their need to request electropherograms with the peak areas denoted (documented in their report) and their (her?) statements regarding the negative controls. The edfs provide that information.

But from the phrase you quote above, which has Conti and Vecchiotti as subjects, who, you deduce, will get the raw data?
The judge appointed experts, or the defence?
You can read it: the defence are not going to be the ones who will get the data.
How is it, that you expect the raw data to be given to the defence?

Because both the prosecution and the defense can question the independent court experts and would need access to the data they're relying on to support their conclusions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a consistent pattern of stonewalling

But, you imply, you don't have the quotes. You have never seen those papers with these purported multiple requests in them. You are based on your faith (or trust in the assumptions and people mentioned above).
This is also correct?

Machiavelli,

I trust the individuals I quoted more than I trust anonymous internet posters. I see no reason why such requests would generate papers that would come into the public domain. Yet if those requests had been honored, then Conti and Vecchiotti would not have had to ask for the data.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

I trust the individuals I quoted more than I trust anonymous internet posters. I see no reason why such requests would generate papers that would come into the public domain. Yet if those requests had been honored, then Conti and Vecchiotti would not have had to ask for the data.

Well, I would see it more simple, if we say Conti and Vecchiotti wouldn't have had to ask if previous requests existed. In fact, Conti and Vecchiotti did request and complained about the lack of data that was already deposited in the acts (according to prosecutor Crini, who is not an anonymous poster); but this is another story. The fact is you don't have any visible trace about the existence of such requests. What you have is your trust in experts who basically don't know anything about the trial hearings (probably wouldn't even be able to read or understand them). You don't seem to even know the time and venue where and when these requests took place.
The second thing that you have, as a valid support to your conclusion, is your conviction that defence activities such as instances and requests to judges don't leave any trace in trial papers. It's an interesting idea about the courts. Requests that exist in the form of confidential exchanges never recorded. Maybe in the form of phone calls. A trial as something that takes place in the basement of an uncle's house.
You make the claim of the existence of something. Something which is a legal action in a murder trial. You know you, who make the claim of the existence of these multiple things, are the one who has the burden to back the claim, don't you?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Because both the prosecution and the defense can question the independent court experts and would need access to the data they're relying on to support their conclusions.

Would "need" to? And, tell me, when, and how, this access to data is supposed to happen? I'd like Prof.Halkides to elaborate on the point. How were Conti and Vecchiotti expected to give their data to the defence? On what occasion? On whose initiative? How should that work?

 

[Machiavelli]

Who cares. One request is enough.

Of course. If Italy is a mafia institution where authorities are gangster bisses who refer to some big padrino and all citizens are just accessories and complicit to some mechanism of corruption, then who cares. One whistle is enough. Maybe better nothing at all. Maybe you should send your dog.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, I would see it more simple, if we say Conti and Vecchiotti wouldn't have had to ask if previous requests existed. In fact, Conti and Vecchiotti did request and complained about the lack of data that was already deposited in the acts (according to prosecutor Crini, who is not an anonymous poster); but this is another story. The fact is you don't have any visible trace about the existence of such requests. What you have is your trust in experts who basically don't know anything about the trial hearings (probably wouldn't even be able to read or understand them). You don't seem to even know the time and venue where and when these requests took place.
The second thing that you have, as a valid support to your conclusion, is your conviction that defence activities such as instances and requests to judges don't leave any trace in trial papers. It's an interesting idea about the courts. Requests that exist in the form of confidential exchanges never recorded. Maybe in the form of phone calls. A trial as something that takes place in the basement of an uncle's house.
You make the claim of the existence of something. Something which is a legal action in a murder trial. You know you, who make the claim of the existence of these multiple things, are the one who has the burden to back the claim, don't you?

Here's something interesting that Anglo posted before the thread was re-continued:

Cytological analysis on cotton fragments taken from the swabs performed on 03/22/2011 was carried out, with prior notice to the parties, on 04/05/2011, at the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences — Histology and Medical Embryology Section of Sapienza University of Rome, in the presence of the parties.

On April 5, 2011, the following memorandum was drafted:

“On 4/5/2011 at 10:10 am, at the Department of Forensic Medicine of the University of Rome — La Sapienza, Forensic Genetics Laboratory, 336 Viale Regina Elena, as ordered at the hearing of 1/22/2011, testing by the Appointed Experts Prof. Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti was begun, in the presence of the following consultants for the parties:

- Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Dr. Emiliano Giardina, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil plaintiff;
– Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
– Dr. Valerio Onofri, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
– Ms. Donatella Donati, attorney for Raffaele Sollecito, acting on behalf of Mr. Luca Maori;
– Prof. Carlo Torre, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
– Dr. Sarah Gino, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
– Dr. Walter Patumi, consultant for Amanda M. Knox.

It is noted that Prof. Novelli removed himself at 10:35; subsequently, the Appointed Experts and the consultants for the parties [i CTP, presumably Consulenti Tecnici delle Parti] reported to the Histology Section of the Appointed Experts’ home Department, where the slides [vetrini] relative to the Items 36 (knife) and 165b (clasps) were prepared and examined. The Experts and the consultants examined the results with a microscope and agreed to photographically document the item labeled with the letter H (handle-blade contact edge). Prof. Tagliabracci and Dr. Onofri asked that the experts proceed to request the raw data (electronic files generated by the instrument) relative to the quantization and electrophoretic analysis relating to Items 165 B (clasp) and 36 (knife). Dr. Gino, Dr. Patumi, and Prof. Torre concurred with the request. The present memorandum ends at 1:50 pm.”

Notice that all the individuals with 'Prof' or 'Dr.' from the defense teams wanted the edfs made available to the experts, all of those people from the prosecution or victim's lawyer are thunderous in their silence regarding this crucial information.

They don't want this data to be seen by the independent experts, can you hazard a guess as to why?

 

[Kaosium]

Would "need" to? And, tell me, when, and how, this access to data is supposed to happen? I'd like Prof.Halkides to elaborate on the point. How were Conti and Vecchiotti expected to give their data to the defence? On what occasion? On whose initiative? How should that work?

They include a CD with the data when presenting their report to the court.

 

[Dan O.]

Let's approach this with some healthy skepticism.

What evidence is there that the blood downstairs is from a cat? Stefanoni's say-so???

The boys that lived there spoke of promising to clean up all the blood from the cat before they left for the holiday.

ETA: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb.../11/14/quelle-chiavi-per-una-messinscena.html

I quattro studenti hanno giurato di aver pulito le macchie lasciate dal gatto ferito e l' intera casa prima di partire per le vacanze del Ponte dei Morti.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here's something interesting that Anglo posted before the thread was re-continued:

Notice that all the individuals with 'Prof' or 'Dr.' from the defense teams wanted the edfs made available to the experts, all of those people from the prosecution or victim's lawyer are thunderous in their silence regarding this crucial information.

They don't want this data to be seen by the independent experts, can you hazard a guess as to why?

I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.

 

[Machiavelli]

They include a CD with the data when presenting their report to the court.

But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.

Thank you for that, quoted (quickly!) so it can be preserved for posterity.

So what is your evidence for these claims?

Now, to your point: if they distrusted Conti and Vecchiotti the very best response to that would to ensure that the edfs were made available to everyone. That way if Conti and Vecchiotti did try to 'cheat' they'd have the evidence publicly available to denounce them. Instead they chose not to join all the other scientists in asking that that data be made available, a very curious decision for innocent people thinking the trial has been 'hijacked.'

Oh, and Stefanoni did indeed 'object'--in fact she refused to supply the data despite it being formally asked for here and in the court document Charlie Wilkes posted that I recently quoted as well.

That's because she's hiding something Machiavelli, just like she tried to hide the existence of the 2-4 other male contributors to the clasp and the EDFs would show that same pattern of dishonesty with all the rest of the DNA work which would destroy the case against Raffaele and Amanda and probably land her in a prison cell as well.

 

[Kaosium]

But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.

It's the easiest way for it to be done and how it's done in other courtrooms where data of this nature is presented.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

somehow a simple idea has gotten complex

But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.

I have no idea what this question means.

 

[Desert Fox]

I have been watching "The American Experience" about the Scottsdale Boys and it is interesting how many similarities there is in trials in Italy in the Twenty-First Century to trials in the Deep South in the Nineteen Thirties.

 

[Magister]

The boys that lived there spoke of promising to clean up all the blood from the cat before they left for the holiday.

ETA: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb.../11/14/quelle-chiavi-per-una-messinscena.html

Here is the testimony of Marco Marzan on 23 June 2009

He was asked if there was cat's blood or spots of cat's blood in the apartment before he left for the weekend. He replied no as far as he remembered.

scroll down......

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/

 

[sept79]

But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.

I'm not Prof. Halkides, but Wow!

You are kidding, right?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.

Thank you for that, quoted (quickly!) so it can be preserved for posterity.

So what is your evidence for these claims?

Now, to your point: if they distrusted Conti and Vecchiotti the very best response to that would to ensure that the edfs were made available to everyone. That way if Conti and Vecchiotti did try to 'cheat' they'd have the evidence publicly available to denounce them. Instead they chose not to join all the other scientists in asking that that data be made available, a very curious decision for innocent people thinking the trial has been 'hijacked.'

Oh, and Stefanoni did indeed 'object'--in fact she refused to supply the data despite it being formally asked for here and in the court document Charlie Wilkes posted that I recently quoted as well.

That's because she's hiding something Machiavelli, just like she tried to hide the existence of the 2-4 other male contributors to the clasp and the EDFs would show that same pattern of dishonesty with all the rest of the DNA work which would destroy the case against Raffaele and Amanda and probably land her in a prison cell as well.

Every once in a while, Machiavelli advances his conspiracy theory a little bit further.

The 2-4 other male contributors to the bra-clasp..... these are the ones which Nencini de facto concedes are there, because he tries to account for who those profiles might belong to - and it is of tremendous importance for those extra ones to be there for no suspicious reasons. Yet in accounting for them, he assigns 2 of those unknown male contributors to being from "amica".

But getting back to Conti & Vecchiotti being criminals. Will Machiavelli ever answer if he believes the Presdient of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, to also be a criminal?

This needs to be quoted and requoted for posterity.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have no idea what this question means.

1. Do you agree with Kaosium that Vecchiotti would deposit a CD with the raw data attached to the report?

2. Do you think the defences were expecting they would "obtain" the raw data this way?

3. If yes, then, did the defence experts and lawyers already know in advance that C&V were going to deposit a CD with raw data?

4. If the answer to previous question is "yes", then, how do you think the defence experts happened to know in advance what documentation C&V would decide to attach and deposit?

5. If an answer to some previous question was "no", is there another way by which the defence expected to obtain the raw data from C&V, without the defence requesting them directly themselves, a way that is not depositing a CD with the report?

6. Or, in alternative to the previous question, is there some other reason why the defence expected they would obtain the raw data, just by telling C&V to request them?

7. Was there already a contact between C&V and some defence consultant who wished to access the raw data?

 

[Numbers]

But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.

To user of computers, such as the technical experts, the idea of using CDs to copy and store data from the test equipment computer to be observed at a later time and different place would be as obvious as the use of a pen or pencil and paper to write. Your seeming lack of understanding that this is common everyday technology is either feigned or indicates an incredible ignorance of everyday 21st (or even late-20th) century technology.

And yes, the data would only be copied, stored, and transported by CD, DVD, or similar technology (such as USB memory stick); uploading to the internet would not be likely, nor would direct transmission by cable to another computer be as practicable.

Of course, if you somehow were the famous Niccolo Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) come back to enlighten us, and had not been briefed throughly enough on modern technology, this would be understandable. {Meant as a humorous comment.}

 

[Desert Fox]

To user of computers, such as the technical experts, the idea of using CDs to copy and store data from the test equipment computer to be observed at a later time and different place would be as obvious as the use of a pen or pencil and paper to write. Your seeming lack of understanding that this is common everyday technology is either feigned or indicates an incredible ignorance of everyday 21st (or even late-20th) century technology.

And yes, the data would only be copied, stored, and transported by CD, DVD, or similar technology (such as USB memory stick); uploading to the internet would not be likely, nor would direct transmission by cable to another computer be as practicable.

Of course, if you somehow were the famous Niccolo Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) come back to enlighten us, and had not been briefed throughly enough on modern technology, this would be understandable. {Meant as a humorous comment.}

I know this is kind of an aside but would not flash drives be an obvious choice as well? Of course, CDs do have the advantage of once burned being unable to be altered in most cases.