Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

The incidente probatorio - as I said - would be necessary for making new research like changing machine settings.
Novelli visited Stefanoni's laboratory under her supervision. But he did so in fact after Hellmann opened a rinnovazione dibattimentale - a resuming of the evidence discussion phase.
Anyway the defence experts didn't come; they were obviously not interested in analyzing the files under Stefanoni's conditions.

Mach, under this scenario, it's like the defense if frozen into accepting the prosecution expert's analysis of the raw data, without being allowed to double check their work and see how it was accomplished.

By requiring some formal legal process to simply analyze data mathematically away from the prosecution's limitations, its like your trying to use legal formalities to prevent the defense from conducting an independent analysis of the raw data.

The Italian system can't be as you describe it, because its contrary to any common sense notion of fairness in allowing the defendants to understand the evidence being used against them.

Stefanoni's further bad faith on the witness stand, is exactly why this type of 'trust me' forensics should never be allowed, much less enforced, in a trial proceeding.

If this is how Italy does things, then the ECHR must put this procedural reform front and center when they rule that Italy has violated Amanda's human rights in the ECHR case for calunnia, and any further convictions that may be affirmed in March or otherwise.

The further hope is that at some point, the police and prosecutor who mishandled this case, and subjected the defendants to the inhuman and degrading treatment that coerced their confused statements, are held accountable in a court of law, and properly disciplined for their gross misconduct, up to and including custodial sentences if warranted.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli is now expanding the "behind the scenes" explanations for things, in the run up to the March 25 Cassazione rulings. He's letting us in-on certain things which were otherwise unknown, to me at least.

For instance, instead of just saying, "Stefanoni was never asked to supply the EDFs," he's now saying that she tried to release them but the defence refused her conditions.

I may not have that exactly right, Machiavelli, so I apologize - it's not really the point I am trying to make.

Why is it that a "more full detail" of these kinds of things is coming out now! (...)

That's a question you should turn to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's PRs and defence teams.

You should ask why neither prof. Halkides nor the Knox PR machine never released the papers of Stefanoni's exchange with Judge Micheli; why they never made the slightest mention of the existence of an offer to view electronic files on the part of Stefanoni. Why did they kept total silence and pulled a curtain of complete darkness about this.
It's a good question.

As for me, the fact is that I stepped across this detail only late, because I happend to find the letter just recently, on one of the late trial paper releases by the offices of the Kercher legal representatives, following our requests. These papers were not in order, they came from several computers, and it's only on olleosnep's work of putting them in order at the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com that I happened to find this letter.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's a question you should turn to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's PRs and defence teams.

You should ask why neither prof. Halkides nor the Knox PR machine never released the papers of Stefanoni's exchange with Judge Micheli; why they never made the slightest mention of the existence of an offer to view electronic files on the part of Stefanoni. Why did they kept total silence and pulled a curtain of complete darkness about this.
It's a good question.

As for me, the fact is that I stepped across this detail only late, because I happend to find the letter just recently, on one of the late trial paper releases by the offices of the Kercher legal representatives, following our requests. These papers were not in order, they came from several computers, and it's only on olleosnep's work of putting them in order at the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com that I happened to find this letter.

Maybe because it wasn't a real offer, but a sham "offer" designed to placate the judge and make it superficially appear that Stefanoni was being open and honest (while simultaneously insinuating that the defence must be considering her fraudulent to even make the request in the first place...)?

So who's paying the fees of the lovely Mr Maresca and his office staff in passing all this information over to a bunch of unconnected third parties? Are the unconected third parties paying? Or is Mr Kercher footing the bill up front? Or is Maresca incorporating it into the huge invoice that he's got waiting for the Kercher family?

 

[Planigale]

Re Stefanoni academic record; as far as I can see she has 2 original research papers one from 1998 on what appears to be taxonomic genetics of worms, and one from 2004 on pharmaco-genetics, neither first author. By comparison Halides CJ seems to have 6 publications, 3 first author over the same time period (other publications before and after comparable period excluded). She has no original research published in forensic genetics. Two papers over a six year period (at the best) is appallingly poor if employed as a researcher. This makes me wonder if she was in fact employed as a teaching assistant professor (I think teachers are all professors in Italy?).

ETA on the other hand Andrew wakefield published 36 research papers over the same period many first author in addition to multiple reviews; too many in my opinion for a young researcher who had not even got a PhD or a Bsc. So too many may be worse than too few.

 

[carbonjam72]

Maybe because it wasn't a real offer, but a sham "offer" designed to placate the judge and make it superficially appear that Stefanoni was being open and honest (while simultaneously insinuating that the defence must be considering her fraudulent to even make the request in the first place...)?

So who's paying the fees of the lovely Mr Maresca and his office staff in passing all this information over to a bunch of unconnected third parties? Are the unconected third parties paying? Or is Mr Kercher footing the bill up front? Or is Maresca incorporating it into the huge invoice that he's got waiting for the Kercher family?

uh, door number 3?

 

[Machiavelli]

What authority does Stefanoni have to set conditions? Why would she do this other than to be obstructive?

I don't think it's a matter of an authority to set conditions; we can see Stefanoni told the judge she was ready to allow Pascali to see the ED files, but also warned the judge that those data should be only seen under some standard paramenters, otherwise they could be manipulated or used improperly. Now, Stefanoni is factually the subject who keeps custody of the data in her laboratory, and I think this what makes her naturally feel a responsability about the possible improper uses of the material. It's clear she considers the electronic data as potentially sensitive or double-use, and she is concerned about not releasing them for undue uses, outside controlled procedures.

 

[LondonJohn]

Mach, under this scenario, it's like the defense if frozen into accepting the prosecution expert's analysis of the raw data, without being allowed to double check their work and see how it was accomplished.

By requiring some formal legal process to simply analyze data mathematically away from the prosecution's limitations, its like your trying to use legal formalities to prevent the defense from conducting an independent analysis of the raw data.

The Italian system can't be as you describe it, because its contrary to any common sense notion of fairness in allowing the defendants to understand the evidence being used against them.

Stefanoni's further bad faith on the witness stand, is exactly why this type of 'trust me' forensics should never be allowed, much less enforced, in a trial proceeding.

If this is how Italy does things, then the ECHR must put this procedural reform front and center when they rule that Italy has violated Amanda's human rights in the ECHR case for calunnia, and any further convictions that may be affirmed in March or otherwise.

The further hope is that at some point, the police and prosecutor who mishandled this case, and subjected the defendants to the inhuman and degrading treatment that coerced their confused statements, are held accountable in a court of law, and properly disciplined for their gross misconduct, up to and including custodial sentences if warranted.

Unfortunately I think this whole issue is yet another manifestation of the improper (and unlawful) relationship between judges and PMs (and police). I think that it's another hangover from the inquisitorial days, where it was taken as gospel that the police and prosecutors would do the best possible job and under the most scrupulous levels of fairness and parity, with the sole aim being to seek the "truth". To question the competence, fairness and balance of the PM or investigators was, in effect, to question the competence, fairness and balance of the whole Italian criminal justice system. If defence lawyers couldn't categorically and unequivocally PROVE malpractice, misconduct, errors or omissions, then the PM's evidence was necessarily taken wholly at face value.

And while Italian legislation has changed to reflect modern, democratic ideas of criminal jurisprudence, unfortunately it seems that in practice the courts often pay scant regard to their new obligations.

 

[Machiavelli]

Maybe because it wasn't a real offer, but a sham "offer" designed to placate the judge and make it superficially appear that Stefanoni was being open and honest (while simultaneously insinuating that the defence must be considering her fraudulent to even make the request in the first place...)?

Well, the existence of a written offer from Stefanoni, is a fact.
Your opinion that it was a sham, it's an opinion.

The fact is, an offer existed. it's in the records.
Whether it was a sham or not, nobody could assess that and make their own mind about that, because everyone in the Knox PR machine, from prof. Halkides to the defence lawyers, kept a tight silence about it. So no information about even its existence was leaked to the outside.
It's a bit just like the pro-Knox complaint that nobody can assess the raw data ex post independently today, with the difference that we all know the electronic data exists, while nobody knew that Stefanoni's offer existed.

The Knox-Sollecito defence and their supporters never told anyone about the existence of Stefanoni's response.
Not even to inform us that they thought it was a sham.

So who's paying the fees of the lovely Mr Maresca and his office staff in passing all this information over to a bunch of unconnected third parties? Are the unconected third parties paying? Or is Mr Kercher footing the bill up front? Or is Maresca incorporating it into the huge invoice that he's got waiting for the Kercher family?

Nobody is going to get anything.
Simply, they know we always supported them.

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, the existence of a written offer from Stefanoni, is a fact.
Your opinion that it was a sham, it's an opinion.

The fact is, an offer existed. it's in the records.
Whether it was a sham or not, nobody could assess that and make their own mind about that, because everyone in the Knox PR machine, from prof. Halkides to the defence lawyers, kept a tight silence about it. So no information about even its existence was leaked to the outside.
It's a bit just like the pro-Knox complaint that nobody can assess the raw data ex post independently today, with the difference that we all know the electronic data exists, while nobody knew that Stefanoni's offer existed.

The Knox-Sollecito defence and their supporters never told anyone about the existence of Stefanoni's response.
Not even to inform us that they thought it was a sham.


Nobody is going to get anything.
Simply, they know we always supported them.

Who are "they"? The Kerchers? So are the Kerchers instructing Maresca to pass this stuff to you? Or is "they" Maresca and his firm? If so, do the
Kerchers know that he's passing this stuff to you?

And either way, why should it matter one iota to the Kerchers or Maresca what the internet debate about this case thinks? What could they possibly hope to gain by "winning" the internet debate?

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't think it's a matter of an authority to set conditions; we can see Stefanoni told the judge she was ready to allow Pascali to see the ED files, but also warned the judge that those data should be only seen under some standard paramenters, otherwise they could be manipulated or used improperly. Now, Stefanoni is factually the subject who keeps custody of the data in her laboratory, and I think this what makes her naturally feel a responsability about the possible improper uses of the material. It's clear she considers the electronic data as potentially sensitive or double-use, and she is concerned about not releasing them for undue uses, outside controlled procedures.

You mean, like for making a defense against the charges based on the evidence being used to convict?

I can't believe I'm reading this from you Mach. It's absurd on its face.

"Improper use", unreal. It is improper to perform abstract mathematical analysis to verify or refute the meaning of evidence in a criminal trial.

It is an improper act to "think" about evidence, in a way that differs from the prosecution.

A holdover from the inquisitorial system, or THE 'inqiisition' itself?

 

[Machiavelli]

Re Stefanoni academic record; as far as I can see she has 2 original research papers one from 1998 on what appears to be taxonomic genetics of worms, and one from 2004 on pharmaco-genetics, neither first author. By comparison Halides CJ seems to have 6 publications, 3 first author over the same time period (other publications before and after comparable period excluded). She has no original research published in forensic genetics. Two papers over a six year period (at the best) is appallingly poor if employed as a researcher. This makes me wonder if she was in fact employed as a teaching assistant professor (I think teachers are all professors in Italy?).

ETA on the other hand Andrew wakefield published 36 research papers over the same period many first author in addition to multiple reviews; too many in my opinion for a young researcher who had not even got a PhD or a Bsc. So too many may be worse than too few.

I have already answered to you talking about this topic:
in this post for example.

Maybe I was not clear about the fact Stefanoni has top publications in genetic forensic fields, such as this (ranked #1 most successful article in 2011):

http://top25.sciencedirect.com/subject/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/3/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics-supplement-series/18751768/archive/41

Stefanoni was a researcher in genetics before working at the State Police, this was also reported by the news at the time:

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8.html

Patrizia Stefanoni (...) già ricercatrice in genetica, dal 2000 in polizia e ora direttore tecnico-biologo della Sezione Genetica-Forense della Scientifica di Roma che riesce a respingere con decisione le osservazioni dei consulenti scientifici della difesa(...)

translation:

"... she was previously a researcher in Genetics, she works with the POlice since 2000, and now she is the technical-biologist director odf the Section of Forensic Genetics at the Scientific Police in Rome, she was able to firmly reject the objections by the defence experts (..)"

Here you have a short article describing Patrizia Stefanoni:

Per otto anni precaria come ricercatrice in vari dipartimenti del Policlinico della Federico II.

translation:

For eight years she had temporary contracts as a researcher in various departments of the Policlinico [Bio-medical institutes] of the Federico II University

The newspaper talks about the extreme difficulty for worthy people to find good jobs in Southern Italy, especially in Naples (this is a local paper from Naples, points out Patrizia Stefanoni was born in Bagnoli, a neighborhood in Naples).

In fact something of what Planigale points out is correct: while it is not true that Stefanoni only wrote two publications (because she also published articles in Italian) in fact Stefanoni did some research, as long as she finished her doctorate, but then for some years she was paid mainly for working as an assistant professor.
Notice that this extensive, Italian use of the word "resarcher" as an academic title even years after one has finished their PhD and is maybe no longer working as a researcher but mainly as a professor, is something typical Italian. Even if you look at the CV of Carla Vecchiotti you would notice that she obtained her degree in 1978, they she became "researcher" in 1986, but she still had only the title of "researcher" during the 2000s. She was already 50 in 2000, she was working as a professor, basically teaching and not doing much research, yet her title was "researcher" and remained so for several years on.

 

[Diocletus]

I have already answered to you talking about this topic:
in this post for example.

Maybe I was not clear about the fact Stefanoni has top publications in genetic forensic fields, such as this (ranked #1 most successful article in 2011):

http://top25.sciencedirect.com/subject/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/3/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics-supplement-series/18751768/archive/41

Stefanoni was a researcher in genetics before working at the State Police, this was also reported by the news at the time:

http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8/perugia-uccisa8.html



translation:



Here you have a short article describing Patrizia Stefanoni:



translation:



The newspaper talks about the extreme difficulty for worthy people to find good jobs in Southern Italy, especially in Naples (this is a local paper from Naples, points out Patrizia Stefanoni was born in Bagnoli, a neighborhood in Naples).

In fact something of what Planigale points out is correct: while it is not true that Stefanoni only wrote two publications (because she also published articles in Italian) in fact Stefanoni did some research, as long as she finished her doctorate, but then for some years she was paid mainly for working as an assistant professor.
Notice that this extensive, Italian use of the word "resarcher" as an academic title even years after one has finished their PhD and is maybe no longer working as a researcher but mainly as a professor, is something typical Italian. Even if you look at the CV of Carla Vecchiotti you would notice that she obtained her degree in 1978, they she became "researcher" in 1986, but she still had only the title of "researcher" during the 2000s. She was already 50 in 2000, she was working as a professor, basically teaching and not doing much research, yet her title was "researcher" and remained so for several years on.

Pretty sure her doctoral dissertation was on how to successfully suppress evidence of your own incompetency.

 

[Machiavelli]

Who are "they"? The Kerchers? So are the Kerchers instructing Maresca to pass this stuff to you? Or is "they" Maresca and his firm? If so, do the
Kerchers know that he's passing this stuff to you?

By "they" I mean the lawyers. I do not investigate on the Kercher. I just assume they are favourable to the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com,I assume that also because John Kercher expressed a favourable opinion about TJMK.
I consider the lawyers however as friends now, besides the question of who knows and who instructs. I don't think anyone has a right to know or to question about who thinks or knows what about what.

And either way, why should it matter one iota to the Kerchers or Maresca what the internet debate about this case thinks? What could they possibly hope to gain by "winning" the internet debate?

And why should it matter to you? Or to me?
I don't know if anyone "hopes" to "gain" anything actually.
Why does Amanda Knox tell the press she is going to get married? Does she hope to gain some advantage by making public declarations?
I don't know. It's not my main interest, frankly.
I recently read about John Kercher making a comment on Knox announcing her marriage. The comment was not particularly sympathetic with Knox. I don't have much to comment about comments on comments. Everyone has a right to express or say what they like. You should not be surprised in one direction only, be surprised only when one talks while you were not surprised as the other talked; be surprised that one releases documents and not be surprised that the other does the same. That would be utterly hypocritical.

 

[Diocletus]

I consider the lawyers however as friends now, besides the question of who knows and who instructs.

Oh, that's nice. Tell your friends that they're dirtbags.

 

[Samson]

By "they" I mean the lawyers. I do not investigate on the Kercher. I just assume they are favourable to the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com,I assume that also because John Kercher expressed a favourable opinion about TJMK.
I consider the lawyers however as friends now, besides the question of who knows and who instructs. I don't think anyone has a right to know or to question about who thinks or knows what about what.



And why should it matter to you? Or to me?
I don't know if anyone "hopes" to "gain" anything actually.
Why does Amanda Knox tell the press she is going to get married? Does she hope to gain some advantage by making public declarations?
I don't know. It's not my main interest, frankly.
I recently read about John Kercher making a comment on Knox announcing her marriage. The comment was not particularly sympathetic with Knox. I don't have much to comment about comments on comments. Everyone has a right to express or say what they like. You should not be surprised in one direction only, be surprised only when one talks while you were not surprised as the other talked; be surprised that one releases documents and not be surprised that the other does the same. That would be utterly hypocritical.

This is not symmetrical because you are interfering to remove liberties, others are interfering to preserve them. There have been two trials, Massei and Hellmann. Nencini is irrelevant because there was no new evidence, not de novo like Hellmann. The score is guilty once and innocent once. Any liberal view will prefer the preservation of liberty over the deprivation after an evenly balanced judicial quest. And remarkably, the two that Maresca is persecuting and interfering with are leading authentic lives without interfering with others.
I hope the Kercher descendants will publicly remedy and apologise for the vicious interfering of their ancestors.

 

[Machiavelli]

You mean, like for making a defense against the charges based on the evidence being used to convict?

I can't believe I'm reading this from you Mach. It's absurd on its face.

"Improper use", unreal. It is improper to perform abstract mathematical analysis to verify or refute the meaning of evidence in a criminal trial.

It is an improper act to "think" about evidence, in a way that differs from the prosecution.

A holdover from the inquisitorial system, or THE 'inqiisition' itself?

It is generally illegal to disseminate investigation files in the public in Italy.

It is also illegal, in general, to take a trial "outside from the courtroom" and build up a defence in extra-judicial venues.

But here there is also another principle of dealing with the evidence, that is the adversarial principle of the incidente probatorio. Evidence from the incidente probatorio must be established within the procedure itself, things must be investigated with all parties under the same conditions, all of them allowed to be present.
In the abstract, the other parties - the prosecution, the victim's family etc. - have a right to assist to all procedures that the defence experts apply to the material and know about it, what information the parties extrapolate from them. And all what the defence will use from the incidente probatorio must be in the investigation file, in an accessible and readable form. You know, the basis of information needs to be the same. At least so I understand the principle.

But anyway this is beyond the point, because Pascali didn't visit Stefanoni's lab to analyze the ED files, as far as I know. So he didn't even try, they didn't even discuss on what analysis he could perform and what not, what he intended to extrapolate, what he could and what could not do, since he did not go there to analyze and discuss it.

 

[whoanellie]

Maybe I was not clear about the fact Stefanoni has top publications in genetic forensic fields, such as this (ranked #1 most successful article in 2011):

http://top25.sciencedirect.com/subject/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/3/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics-supplement-series/18751768/archive/41

I see what you did there. The question is do you have any idea what you did?

 

[carbonjam72]

Oh, that's nice. Tell your friends that they're dirtbags.

oh dear.

I think they know.

Do you realize there's a particular variety of this type, for whom the act of transgression isn't complete until their victim realizes they've been had?

My guess, is that they delight in your distain. It's what drives them, more so even than the thought of lining their pockets with the stolen proceeds of heir fraudulent civil claim against Raf's inheritance.

I think they realize Amanda's money is beyond their reach. But because they can take Raffeale and hold him hostage in Italian jail, there's a far better chance of successful ransom. They are the moral equivalency of ISIS, except they don't literally light people on fire.

John Kercher is owed nothing from these innocent families and their innocent children. I'm sorry for his loss. But that doesn't entitle him to a wrongful conviction of the innocent. It's his sickness that he thinks it does. You can pass that along as well.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's a question you should turn to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's PRs and defence teams.

You should ask why neither prof. Halkides nor the Knox PR machine never released the papers of Stefanoni's exchange with Judge Micheli; why they never made the slightest mention of the existence of an offer to view electronic files on the part of Stefanoni. Why did they kept total silence and pulled a curtain of complete darkness about this.
It's a good question.

As for me, the fact is that I stepped across this detail only late, because I happend to find the letter just recently, on one of the late trial paper releases by the offices of the Kercher legal representatives, following our requests. These papers were not in order, they came from several computers, and it's only on olleosnep's work of putting them in order at the site themurderofmeredithkercher.com that I happened to find this letter.

With regards to Stefanoni's incompetence, neither AK nor RS, nor this fictional "PR team" are on trial here. Stefanoni's stuff is required to be released, without conditions, to satisfy the concept of "disclosure".

themurderofmeredithkercher.com*** website is perpetuating the hoax of the guilt of Ak and RS. Indeed, in the recent flurry of stuff posted there, some are claiming that this finally is a smoking gu against them.

Which begs the question? Once the DNA and Superwitness evidence fell apart in the middle of 2011, we were told, "don't worry, there is all the other evidence."

Well, in a stunning de facto admission that the 2011 "all the other evidence" was sufficient, in Feb 2015 you're still trying to find incriminating stuff!? Wasn't "all the other evidence" back in 2011 good enough?

Apparently not.

*** http://www.murderofmeredithkercher.com contains unbiased stuff.

 

[Machiavelli]

This not symmetrical because you are interfering to remove liberties, others are interfering to preserve them.

Some people may think justice is a value to preserve.

There have been two trials, Massei and Hellmann. Nencini is irrelevant because there was no new evidence, not de novo like Hellmann.

Don't be ridiculous.
Nencini is an appeal trial, had exactly the same evidence of Hellmann, plus some more.
Almost all appeals have the same evidence set of the first instance trial; if they followed your logic, they would be all irrelevant.

Then, above alle, Hellmann doesn't exist. It's null except for part of calunnia. It was never acknowledged as a decision of the Justice System.
It's deleted, cancelled. Invalid. Annulled.