Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

For a fellow who does not believe in providing a narrative of the horrible initial crime itself - a narrative which supposedly would incriminate two innocents if successful - Machiavelli is providing a virtual roadmap of the behind-the-scene conspiracy to convict them.

Imagine any fair judicial system reading Machiavelli's remarks about how Stefanoni has to control her own data. Data should be data, and should point in a certain direction regardless of who analyses it.

It's like the shopkeeper in my old home town who had a reputation for putting his thumb on the scale when weighing produce. If someone complained about unfairness, he'd say, "Well, let me just weigh that for you again!"

 

[Bill Williams]

Some people may think justice is a value to preserve.



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.

Yes, we'd read that you say this. And it's a story, apparently, you are sticking to!

 

[Diocletus]

Some people may think justice is a value to preserve.



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.

You might have noticed that Hellmann heard from real witnesses, like curatalo, and determined their credibility. Nencini, on the other hand, did jack.

Also, glad we can agree that the really embarrassing part of Hellman still stands. That said, who cares about whether somebody says it's been "annulled"? I have a copy and so will the echr.

 

[carbonjam72]

Some people may think justice is a value to preserve.



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.

Well this is interesting. If the decision in the acquitted charges is null, but the conviction on the lesser charge of calunnia is valid, then what is the status of all the new evidence and testimony presented in the case?

Are Conti and Vechiotti's court appointed DNA analysis also toast? They are after all not part of the judges analysis, but independent experts simply offering their conclusions in their subject matter expertise.

And Curatolo's appearance in court, when he was wheeled into court in a heap of rags, got his days confused, and insisted his daily heroin high could not possibly impair his judgement, which he withheld for what, 6 months before sharing?

Does all the evidence and testimony taken during Hellman's appeal trial also vanish, or is it only Hellman judicial conclusions that are undermined by cassation's reversal?

How can cassation overturn expert opinion, without running any expert opinion to rely upon? Hard to understand from here. Seems as they say in the ECHR, arbitrary.

 

[Machiavelli]

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".

(...)

A strange position, for someone whose main buisness seems to be put others under trial: other posters mainly, but also experts, journalists, judges; make insinuations and cast suspicions on them.
Required, to satisfy the "concept" of whom? To satisfy Bill Williams' concept of truth ?

You don't want to put AK and RS defences on trial, neither the Knox PR supporters, like Prof. Halkides for example, because you only want to put Stefanoni and the accusers on trial, to satisfy your D) concept of fairness.
It's your buisness.

But it was you, who asked: why do we only learn now about the letter where Stefanoni agrees to let Pascali see the ED files? You asked this question. You wondered whether it was part of a conspiracy, something Watergate-like...

And it was just an answer to your question. You should ask your friends among the defences and the Knox.supporters: the reason why you didn't know about Stefanoni's offer for years, is because Prof. Halkides and the other supporters, Bruce Fisher etc., didn't tell you about it, and because the Knox family didn't tell you as well.

You asked a question, and this is just an answer.

 

[Machiavelli]

You might have noticed that Hellmann heard from real witnesses, like curatalo, and determined their credibility. Nencini, on the other hand, did jack.

Also, glad we can agree that the really embarrassing part of Hellman still stands. That said, who cares about whether somebody says it's been "annulled"? I have a copy and so will the echr.

It's not that "somebody says". Except part of the calunnia sentence, there is no "Hellmann" decision among the verdicts of the Italian Justice system. It has the legal value of a monopoly banknote.

 

[Desert Fox]

How can cassation overturn expert opinion, without running any expert opinion to rely upon? Hard to understand from here. Seems as they say in the ECHR, arbitrary.

I was worried that the ECHR would not see the case but the case is unusual in many aspects. I think that makes it actually far more likely that they will see it.

How many other cases are there where they catch the real perpetrator and then come up with some strange conspiracy so that they can avoid embarrassing themselves (not sure if this is unconsciously or consciously even now however.)

 

[Bill Williams]

A strange position, for someone whose main buisness seems to be put others under trial: other posters mainly, but also experts, journalists, judges; make insinuations and cast suspicions on them.
Required, to satisfy the "concept" of whom? To satisfy Bill Williams' concept of truth ?

You don't want to put AK and RS defences on trial, neither the Knox PR supporters, like Prof. Halkides for example, because you only want to put Stefanoni and the accusers on trial, to satisfy your D) concept of fairness.
It's your buisness.

But it was you, who asked: why do we only learn now about the letter where Stefanoni agrees to let Pascali see the ED files? You asked this question. You wondered whether it was part of a conspiracy, something Watergate-like...

And it was just an answer to your question. You should ask your friends among the defences and the Knox.supporters: the reason why you didn't know about Stefnoni's offer for years, is because Prof. Halkides and the other supporters, Bruce Fisher etc., didn't tell you about it, and because the Knox family didn't tell you as well.

You asked a question, and this is just an answer.

Strawman. You are trying to shift the issue away from the prosecution's obligation to full disclosure, sometimes called discovery.

It is a basic right that those accused need to know the evidence against them. You have said Stefanoni was willing to let them see her work, under her own conditions.

Disclosure does not work that way, no matter how hard you try to cloud that as a fundamental issue.

This is what I mean by you being engaged in a modified limited hangout here. There are places you cannot go to defend the indefensible but dig in and blame the other side for some other phantom issue.

Is disclosure by the prosecution required in Italy or isn't it? It's a simple question. Are people allowed to assess the evidence against themselves (with no conditions)?

 

[Bill Williams]

A strange position, for someone whose main buisness seems to be put others under trial: other posters mainly, but also experts, journalists, judges; make insinuations and cast suspicions on them.
Required, to satisfy the "concept" of whom? To satisfy Bill Williams' concept of truth ?

A strange position? Bill Williams concept of truth.

Please find Article 111 of the Italian constitution:

ART. 111
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal
conditions before an impartial judge in third party position. The law provides for the reasonable duration
of trials.
In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed
confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time
and conditions to prepare a defence. The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have
cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons
for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence. The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the
case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are
conducted.​

 

[Diocletus]

It's not that "somebody says". Except part of the calunnia sentence, there is no "Hellmann" decision among the verdicts of the Italian Justice system. It has the legal value of a monopoly banknote.

Yes, well, what the Italian justice system says won't matter when it's the Italian justice system that is on trial, which it will be in Strasbourg and the US courts.

 

[Desert Fox]

Strawman. You are trying to shift the issue away from the prosecution's obligation to full disclosure, sometimes called discovery.

It is a basic right that those accused need to know the evidence against them. You have said Stefanoni was willing to let them see her work, under her own conditions.

Disclosure does not work that way, no matter how hard you try to cloud that as a fundamental issue.

This is what I mean by you being engaged in a modified limited hangout here. There are places you cannot go to defend the indefensible but dig in and blame the other side for some other phantom issue.

Is disclosure by the prosecution required in Italy or isn't it? It's a simple question. Are people allowed to assess the evidence against themselves (with no conditions)?

Actually I am glad that Stefanoni did not release all of the data properly. If all the data had been released and Amanda and Raffaele had still been convicted, it would have been harder to find an argument for the ECHR. The thing is that the whole court case, with the exception of Hellmann, has been a railroad job. I don't think it matters what evidence was presented, the court would have still found them guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

I apologize. I misquoted Article 111 of Italy's constitution. The correct version is below:

ART. 111
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal
conditions before an impartial judge in third party position. The law provides for the reasonable duration
of trials.
In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed
confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time
and conditions to prepare a defence. The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have
cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons
for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence, as long as such production meets the conditions of Dr. Stefanoni of the Scientific Police.The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand
the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.​

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't believe that the Italian legal system wants one to question the truthfulness of people on heroine when they are persecution witnesses either.

 

[carbonjam72]

Actually I am glad that Stefanoni did not release all of the data properly. If all the data had been released and Amanda and Raffaele had still been convicted, it would have been harder to find an argument for the ECHR. The thing is that the whole court case, with the exception of Hellmann, has been a railroad job. I don't think it matters what evidence was presented, the court would have still found them guilty.

Thats how I read it too.

 

[Dan O.]

Is anybody else reminded of the days while we were all waiting for the English translation of th Massei report, Fulcanelli was here making new arguments that nobody could counter. Of course, what he was doing was cherry picking arguments from the advance copy of the translation that only he was privy to. Once I figured that out I was able to hold up the counter attack using my own google translation. Of course, Fulcanelli is history now. Got himself banned. That's what happens to low life cheaters.

Is history repeating itself?

 

[Bill Williams]

Just ran across this:

Quote from retired Italian Judge Edoardo Mori.
"It is also a total failure of the Italian justice system that it uses experts belonging to the police that, certainly in good faith, however, are psychologically worn to support the work of their colleagues and investigators to please the Prosecutor"​

 

[christianahannah]

Is anybody else reminded of the days while we were all waiting for the English translation of th Massei report, Fulcanelli was here making new arguments that nobody could counter. Of course, what he was doing was cherry picking arguments from the advance copy of the translation that only he was privy to. Once I figured that out I was able to hold up the counter attack using my own google translation. Of course, Fulcanelli is history now. Got himself banned. That's what happens to low life cheaters.

Is history repeating itself?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the history repeating itself, but you can go to The Meredith Wiki and view and download yourself an assortment of new documents deposited there, I think under the name File Library. While Google Translate will give you some idea of the content of the documents it won't fully convey what is contained within.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, well, what the Italian justice system says won't matter when it's the Italian justice system that is on trial, which it will be in Strasbourg and the US courts.

The US courts, I seriously doubt. Whatever, what Hellmann says will matter less than less than zero.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't believe that the Italian legal system wants one to question the truthfulness of people on heroine when they are persecution witnesses either.

Witnesses are questioned by both sides just as in the States. And just as in the States some like or don't like the questions posed or answers given.

I wanted to thank you for the playing around with color of the door photo. It does appear open to me with that edit (but I think the original is still lacking in detail to be certain). Are you technically artistic (is that the correct term) to be able to play with the color as if the brown door is closed behind the gate? If not no worries. I just wondered what that might look like (if it could be done).

 

[Annella]

Well this is interesting. If the decision in the acquitted charges is null, but the conviction on the lesser charge of calunnia is valid, then what is the status of all the new evidence and testimony presented in the case?

Are Conti and Vechiotti's court appointed DNA analysis also toast? They are after all not part of the judges analysis, but independent experts simply offering their conclusions in their subject matter expertise.

And Curatolo's appearance in court, when he was wheeled into court in a heap of rags, got his days confused, and insisted his daily heroin high could not possibly impair his judgement, which he withheld for what, 6 months before sharing?

Does all the evidence and testimony taken during Hellman's appeal trial also vanish, or is it only Hellman judicial conclusions that are undermined by cassation's reversal?

How can cassation overturn expert opinion, without running any expert opinion to rely upon? Hard to understand from here. Seems as they say in the ECHR, arbitrary.

Are you able to answer this Machiavelli?