Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

I guess "incidents probatorio" must mean "secret testing".

Incidente probatorio means, roughly: a test performed before a judge or a magistrate and open to the defence representatives, which is equivalent to a court hearing.
When an incidente probatorio is ordered, the defence can object to its taking place and if this happens the investigating judge will decide.

 

[js202]

In this particular context "neutral" might mean not to take money from the defence and pro-Knox activists.
Sforza's problem may be not just neutrality but also reliability: what would you think about a person who was arrested in every state where he stayed, who had no job and multiple police records (thing like house harassment or stealing in supermarket) and was kicked out from every house where he was a guest? And apparently translates "storage room" with "restroom".

Of course, for all we know, these things could also be true of you, no?

Come to think of it, this line of attack is not unlike the one you launched against the priest at Cappane prison who believed Knox honorable and innocent. What was it you called him, something on the order of a "provincial idiot"? I mean, we here at JREF are racists & criminals, etc.; but certainly Amanda Knox must have some reputable supporter, even if by accident, somewhere. If the Dalai Lama came out in support of Amanda, would you find some good names to call him?

 

[Diocletus]

Incidente probatorio means, roughly: a test performed before a judge or a magistrate and open to the defence representatives, which is equivalent to a court hearing.
When an incidente probatorio is ordered, the defence can object to its taking place and if this happens the investigating judge will decide.

Whatever. I'm more interested in the secret stuff Stefanoni did. Italians like to scream about "incidente probatorio" like its some kind of incantation that wards off the devil. Truth be told, though, Stefanoni did testing outside of the incidente probatorio process, and in every instance in which she did so, we see serious problems. Here are the tests that I think were not done in an incidente probatorio:

1. Downstairs/"cat's blood" testing and rape kit
2. Knife blade quantification and re-run
3. Rudy Guede items
4. bra clasp re-run

So, someone is a sneaky bitch, and her name starts with an S and ends with an I.

 

[sept79]

How many wrongly convicted individuals are languishing in Italian prisons due to the likes of P. Stefanoni and her colleagues?

 

[Bill Williams]

In this particular context "neutral" might mean not to take money from the defence and pro-Knox activists.
Sforza's problem may be not just neutrality but also reliability: what would you think about a person who was arrested in every state where he stayed, who had no job and multiple police records (thing like house harassment or stealing in supermarket) and was kicked out from every house where he was a guest? And apparently translates "storage room" with "restroom".

Given the last time we got into this it is perhaps wise to say: it may be wise not to make defamatory statements about someone who lives in the same country as you who has access to the complaint process there and we'd already talked about your own liability in this regard.

 

[Bill Williams]

In this particular context "neutral" might mean not to take money from the defence and pro-Knox activists.
Sforza's problem may be not just neutrality but also reliability: what would you think about a person who was arrested in every state where he stayed, who had no job and multiple police records (thing like house harassment or stealing in supermarket) and was kicked out from every house where he was a guest? And apparently translates "storage room" with "restroom".

It would also seem that your definitions here - aside from the ad hominem you toss in just to clarify your own position - are not supported by many outside the Pro-guilt lobby that you represent.

For instance, filmmaker Michael Winterbottom, presumably with Barbie Latza Nadeau's consent, regards Sfarzo's account of the crime to be the most reliable of all. More reliable than even Nadeau's - but most assuredly more reliable than tabloid-star Nick Pisa, and pro-guilt lobbyist Andrea Vogt.

Surely the other pro-guilt lobbyists will cackle at the way you handled this. Then again, given the potential notoriety for Sfarzo because of the Winterbottom film, perhaps this ad hominem (and internet buzz) aimed his way will only serve to raise his profile, and have his telephone ring more. So I guess there's an upside to everything.

 

[Bill Williams]

How many wrongly convicted individuals are languishing in Italian prisons due to the likes of P. Stefanoni and her colleagues?

The problem is that this is unknowable. If Massei's and Nencini's court is any indication, then perhaps quite a few - given that those two courts favour the institutions' labs over independent labs. The labs like Stefanoni simply don't seem to have any real oversight.

This is the case in a nutshell. The courts in Italy have "circled the wagons" around Stefanoni for some reason. Every other expert outside of this club has been clear - there simply is no evidence at all of either Knox or Sollecito to involve them with this crime.

It's why "arguing Stefanoni" is half the battle for the pro-guilt lobby.

 

[Numbers]

How many wrongly convicted individuals are languishing in Italian prisons due to the likes of P. Stefanoni and her colleagues?

My favorite (in an ironic sense) line in Dr. Gino's court testimony is this:

Judge. Let's avoid comments which become rumors.

Which I interpret to mean:

Judge. Stop discussing how the police forensic lab is so screwed up.

 

[Numbers]

How many wrongly convicted individuals are languishing in Italian prisons due to the likes of P. Stefanoni and her colleagues?

My favorite (in an ironic sense) line in Dr. Gino's court testimony is this:

Judge. Let's avoid comments which become rumors.

Which I interpret to mean:

Judge. Stop discussing how the police forensic lab is so screwed up.

Thinking more about the Judge's comment:

IMO this is a clear indication of a lack of impartiality by the tribunal. It's one bit of evidence for the ECtHR about Italy's violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

 

[Machiavelli]

The Qubit was used only on certain days, were the defense consultants present each day that Stefanoni and her lab ran DNA quantification and then profiling? There is a table I prepared which presents a short list of the days and the equipment used, according to the data available at IIP. This table is a photo here at ISF. (one test date is a typo I need to correct by replacing the photo)

ETA If the forensic DNA data were not full of errors, holes, and contamination, then the electronic data files would have been presented to the court as best evidence. Withholding of these files is a certain sign that there are irregularities that must be hidden from the defense and from public view. The analogy is if a tax collector would come to a store to see the register receipts (roll) and other records to verify VAT or sales tax. The store proprietor refuses to show this information, but shares a secondary ledger that itself shows irregularities. And the guilter position, and that of Stefanoni, is that the tax collector should believe the faulty ledger and not be allowed to inspect the contemporaneous register receipts (or automated toll record roll).

ETA2 Photo images at: AK-RS-PFLab-DNA-100-01 001-copy 2.jpg and AK-RS-PFLab-DNA-100-02 001_copy03.jpg

The pro-Knox are finished. They are going nowhere if their arguments are those of these comments. It's going to be a small club of conspiracy theorists forever split from our reality. The defence and the expert activists are no tax collectors, they are no public officers, and the defence did not make a request that was not fulfilled with the rules and opportunities provided by the system. The defence obtained all data they were interested in, and left out what they decided to leave out. Al their legitimate requests were fulfilled.
It's obvious that if their intent is to introduce further evidence at the appeal trial (the Florence one) only because people like Hampikian want to seek material to feed campaigns (calling themselves "tax collectors") this is not a legitimate reason for request. If the defence or other experts want to act as tax collectors and investigate the honesty or the validity of laboratory results, they should file a complaint and request of investigation with a court. They can't do this within the Knox trial.

 

[Diocletus]

The pro-Knox are finished. They are going nowhere if their arguments are those of these comments. It's going to be a small club of conspiracy theorists forever split from our reality. The defence and the expert activists are no tax collectors, they are no public officers, and the defence did not make a request that was not fulfilled with the rules and opportunities provided by the system. The defence obtained all data they were interested in, and left out what they decided to leave out. Al their legitimate requests were fulfilled.
It's obvious that if their intent is to introduce further evidence at the appeal trial (the Florence one) only because people like Hampikian want to seek material to feed campaigns (calling themselves "tax collectors") this is not a legitimate reason for request. If the defence or other experts want to act as tax collectors and investigate the honesty or the validity of laboratory results, they should file a complaint and request of investigation with a court. They can't do this within the Knox trial.

I just can't get past the fact that the ECHR hasn't rejected Knox's "obviously meritless" application yet, and everyday it seems to come out with more and more decisions that make it look like she'll win. Weird.

 

[Machiavelli]

It would also seem that your definitions here - aside from the ad hominem you toss in just to clarify your own position - are not supported by many outside the Pro-guilt lobby that you represent.

For instance, filmmaker Michael Winterbottom, presumably with Barbie Latza Nadeau's consent, regards Sfarzo's account of the crime to be the most reliable of all. More reliable than even Nadeau's - but most assuredly more reliable than tabloid-star Nick Pisa, and pro-guilt lobbyist Andrea Vogt.

Surely the other pro-guilt lobbyists will cackle at the way you handled this. Then again, given the potential notoriety for Sfarzo because of the Winterbottom film, perhaps this ad hominem (and internet buzz) aimed his way will only serve to raise his profile, and have his telephone ring more. So I guess there's an upside to everything.

Ad hominem? What are you talking about. There is no ad hominem. Sfarzo is a source, just like Quintavalle is a trial witness. What makes the reliability of a source become questionable are objective facts. There are reports from people who hosted Frank. There accounts by people giving money to Frank, like the Canadian gentleman which you certainly know. He had problems with law enforcement in Ontario, State of Washington, Hawaii and was a subject of complaints from family members in Italy. But you all well know this. We all read what he wrote and his style when talking about women on some of the incidents. You have a right to chose whom to believe, but the quality of your sources will obviously have an implication on the credibility of your position.

 

[Numbers]

But, I think instead there isn't any litany of errors. There is a kind of litany of claims and complaints, but this is a defense experts and her job is to list all the holes and imperfections, possibly to emphasize them and twist the to cast the worse possible light.
In fact those claims are subjected to verification and even those that are true might be of no importance as to the final decision, since this is a judgement on the defendants' guilt, not on the forensic qualities. Claims subjected to verifications and assessment, for example, is complaints kik that the fluorimeter is not the instrument recorded in testimony and technical report; a complaint of "late discovery" or lack of documentation on this doesn't have substantial merits, since the fluorineter was used in an incidente probatorio and so the defence expert was aware about exactly all operations performed, took part to the documentation and signed it and could have documented it himself.[/QUOTE]

The Qubit was used only on certain days, were the defense consultants present each day that Stefanoni and her lab ran DNA quantification and then profiling? There is a table I prepared which presents a short list of the days and the equipment used, according to the data available at IIP. This table is a photo here at ISF. (one test date is a typo I need to correct by replacing the photo)

ETA If the forensic DNA data were not full of errors, holes, and contamination, then the electronic data files would have been presented to the court as best evidence. Withholding of these files is a certain sign that there are irregularities that must be hidden from the defense and from public view. The analogy is if a tax collector would come to a store to see the register receipts (roll) and other records to verify VAT or sales tax. The store proprietor refuses to show this information, but shares a secondary ledger that itself shows irregularities. And the guilter position, and that of Stefanoni, is that the tax collector should believe the faulty ledger and not be allowed to inspect the contemporaneous register receipts (or automated toll record roll).

ETA2 Photo images at: AK-RS-PFLab-DNA-100-01 001-copy 2.jpg and AK-RS-PFLab-DNA-100-02 001_copy03.jpg

The pro-Knox are finished. They are going nowhere if their arguments are those of these comments. It's going to be a small club of conspiracy theorists forever split from our reality. The defence and the expert activists are no tax collectors, they are no public officers, and the defence did not make a request that was not fulfilled with the rules and opportunities provided by the system. The defence obtained all data they were interested in, and left out what they decided to leave out. Al their legitimate requests were fulfilled.
It's obvious that if their intent is to introduce further evidence at the appeal trial (the Florence one) only because people like Hampikian want to seek material to feed campaigns (calling themselves "tax collectors") this is not a legitimate reason for request. If the defence or other experts want to act as tax collectors and investigate the honesty or the validity of laboratory results, they should file a complaint and request of investigation with a court. They can't do this within the Knox trial.

Was my analogy to the tax collector wanting to see the original, best evidence, of the receipts of the store too clear?

It is in a defendant's rights to see the original, best evidence of any forensic test. Similarly, direct testimony is preferred to hearsay.

The defendant is within his/her rights to challenge the validity of forensic test results or testimony; this is part of the adversarial trial process guaranteed in the Constitution of the Italian Republic, Article 111, and in the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6. No formal bureaucratic complaint is needed; it's within the trial process in the adversarial process.

 

[acbytesla]

The pro-Knox are finished. They are going nowhere if their arguments are those of these comments. It's going to be a small club of conspiracy theorists forever split from our reality. The defence and the expert activists are no tax collectors, they are no public officers, and the defence did not make a request that was not fulfilled with the rules and opportunities provided by the system. The defence obtained all data they were interested in, and left out what they decided to leave out. Al their legitimate requests were fulfilled.
It's obvious that if their intent is to introduce further evidence at the appeal trial (the Florence one) only because people like Hampikian want to seek material to feed campaigns (calling themselves "tax collectors") this is not a legitimate reason for request. If the defence or other experts want to act as tax collectors and investigate the honesty or the validity of laboratory results, they should file a complaint and request of investigation with a court. They can't do this within the Knox trial.

Well, we will see Mach. I'd say you are right if it is up to only the Italian legal authorities. Which is sad not only for Raffaele, but all of Italy. It means it lacks the courage to address the massive dysfunction of it's justice system.

But thank goodness there are others that have influence into this entire process. Amanda is safe inside the US where the people are mostly behind her. The ECHR hasn't address the case as of yet. Italy might succeed in putting another innocent young countryman behind bars. I'm sure it is not the first or likely the last.

If there is a silver lining to this cloud that has brought only rain until now is that just maybe, maybe this will be the impetus your country needs to fix those problems now instead of waiting another decade or two.

 

[acbytesla]

Ad hominem? What are you talking about. There is no ad hominem. Sfarzo is a source, just like Quintavalle is a trial witness. What makes the reliability of a source become questionable are objective facts. There are reports from people who hosted Frank. There accounts by people giving money to Frank, like the Canadian gentleman which you certainly know. He had problems with law enforcement in Ontario, State of Washington, Hawaii and was a subject of complaints from family members in Italy. But you all well know this. We all read what he wrote and his style when talking about women on some of the incidents. You have a right to chose whom to believe, but the quality of your sources will obviously have an implication on the credibility of your position.

That is the pure definition of an ad hominem attack. Instead of dealing with the argument you attack the messenger, in this case Frank Sfarzo. While all of your points may be true, they have little to do with Frank's reporting on the Kercher trial. It is merely a distraction and beneath you.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course, for all we know, these things could also be true of you, no?

Come to think of it, this line of attack is not unlike the one you launched against the priest at Cappane prison who believed Knox honorable and innocent. What was it you called him, something on the order of a "provincial idiot"? I mean, we here at JREF are racists & criminals, etc.; but certainly Amanda Knox must have some reputable supporter, even if by accident, somewhere. If the Dalai Lama came out in support of Amanda, would you find some good names to call him?

Well, no. As for Frank Sfarzo what we have is facts. Police reports are facts not opinions. We had some people who happened to report about precise incidents and episodes.
Don Saulo Scarabattoli he used to be a Parrish priest in a neighborhood of Perugia before working in Capanne. I never met him. I only had opinions from people of that neighborhood and had him as their priest, who did not seem to consider don Saulo as a particularly smart person. Anyway don Saulo is not a source. He may be used as a propaganda ploy, but he was not the source of information from the trial to the pro-Knoxes. Frank Sfarzo was.
I am not a source neither: I am only the pro-Knoxes' Nemesis.

 

[Machiavelli]

That is the pure definition of an ad hominem attack. Instead of dealing with the argument you attack the messenger, in this case Frank Sfarzo. While all of your points may be true, they have little to do with Frank's reporting on the Kercher trial. It is merely a distraction and beneath you.

No just a moment. It's the pro-Knox activist posters who cite Sfarzo as their source, at times now and then. They cite him as a source, as a foundation to their arguments. So, if you motivate your argumentation based on the fact that the Source says that, it's obvious that the reliability of the Source may be part of the question. It's not me who decides to rely on Frank Sfarzo: if some people decide, on their own initiative, to associate themselves to sources that are questionable, this must be noted because reflects on their arguments.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, everybody knows that the msot reliable people are homeless drug adicts and adicts in general.

 

[Machiavelli]

Was my analogy to the tax collector wanting to see the original, best evidence, of the receipts of the store too clear?

It is in a defendant's rights to see the original, best evidence of any forensic test. Similarly, direct testimony is preferred to hearsay.

The defendant is within his/her rights to challenge the validity of forensic test results or testimony; this is part of the adversarial trial process guaranteed in the Constitution of the Italian Republic, Article 111, and in the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 6. No formal bureaucratic complaint is needed; it's within the trial process in the adversarial process.

But the truth is the defence didn't ask to see all the cards. They obtained all what they asked, while the evidence was being discussed. The Florence request at that point was just an opportunistic attempt after the evidence discussion was already closed. The shop owner (Stefanoni) did not refuse, if was judge Nencini who didn't allow the request to be forwarded, since that was not a credible or substantial ground for reopening an evidence discussion session on that topic.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks both. If she was only his cleaner until September then how could she say what the state of his Ace bleach supply was at the beginning of November? And if the last time she looked it was a bottle and a half and it was still a bottle and a half two months later then how come Raf's place smelled so much of bleach? What was the new cleaning lady using?

March 21, 2009 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/41625532.html

Rosa Natalia Guaman Fernandez De Calle said she last went to Sollecito's house on Nov. 5, 2007, when she was asked to clean "as usual" and nothing seemed different in the house.

The woman said she neither used nor smelled bleach that day. She said that, because there were other cleaning products in the house, she could not be sure whether bleach was among them.

Prosecutors say it is significant that the bleach was not used by the cleaning woman, yet it was smelled the day after by police.​

Raffaele and Amanda were there at 2pm when the cleaning lady started. They left and were later having dinner at a friends house. Is there any indication that they had even returned to the apartment before being called back for questioning that evening? The whole house was just cleaned with Lysofoam. Are we to believe a stupid cop that has probably never picked up a cleaning rag in his life that he knows the difference in smell between these cleaning products?

Of course Machiavelli believes the cops. He has nothing to loose by maintaining an unfaultering beliefe in the authorities. In the end when this case finally unravels he will simply drop the anonymous alias and pretend none of this ever happened like he pretends much of the discussion in this thread never happened.