Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Ah what you've done here is that you've selectively highlighted. The part immediately preceding your highlighted section is crucial. It is the words "Stefanoni seeks to imply".

I'll explain it again. Stefanoni is telling Micheli that Pascali doesn't need the EDFs in order to do his analysis. She's also telling Micheli that EDFs are never provided to the defence teams. And she's also telling Micheli that the only reason Pascali might want/need to see the EDFs is if he (Pascali) suspects her of fraud in her own analysis.

So she's seeking to imply to Micheli that if he (Micheli) considers that Stefanoni did a good (and non-fraudulent) job, there is no reason whatsoever for him to order the release of the EDFs to Pascali. By extension, she's seeking to imply that if Micheli does order the EDFs to be released to Pascali, then he too (Micheli) must be allowing for the possibility that Stefanoni committed fraud (since otherwise there would be no reason to order the release of the EDFs).

No LJ. This is your invention. There is no logical transitive property from Pascali's thoughts and position to Micheli's. Nowhere you can infer that if Micheli allows the EDF to be deposited, then this implies a taking of position on the part of Micheli.
"allowing for the possibility" is a weasel expression devoid of any meaning (as much as "seeking to imply" actually) since a judge, by definition allows any possibility. The letter implies that Pascali casts a doubt, this is the only implication, not that Micheli in the abstract allows a possibility (which is by definition always the judge's position, a default position that, as by any principle, cannot derive from Stefanoni's statements).

But again, the fact is that the letter says yes, not conditioned to what Micheli thinks, but conditioned to how Pascali uses the data (and the rest of your statements are a desperate attempt of twisting).
And the other fact, rather relevant, is that Pascali retracted from his request and didn't come to analyze the files.

 

[LondonJohn]

No LJ. This is your invention. There is no logical transitive property from Pascali's thoughts and position to Micheli's. Nowhere you can infer that if Micheli allows the EDF to be deposited, then this implies a taking of position on the part of Micheli.
"allowing for the possibility" is a weasel expression devoid of any meaning (as much as "seeking to imply" actually) since a judge, by definition allows any possibility. The letter implies that Pascali casts a doubt, not that Micheli metely allows a possibility (which is by definition always the judge's position).

But again, the fact is that the letter says yes, not conditioned to what Micheli thinks, but conditioned to how Pascali uses the data (and the rest of your statements are a desperate attempt of twisting).
And the other fact, rather relevant, is that Pascali retracted from his request and didn't come to analyze the files.

Holy moly! You still don't get it! Can you not read the part where Stefanoni tells Micheli: If you rule that this computer data must be provided to Pascali, then I'll provide it.


The whole thing is entirely contingent upon Micheli ordering that Pascali must be allowed to see the EDFs. If Micheli doesn't make that order, Pascali doesn't get to see the EDFs. Ever. Under any conditions. Stefanoni explicitly is NOT telling Micheli that she's going to give Pascali access to the EDFs (under those conditions etc). What she's telling Micheli is that she is prepared to give Pascali access to the EDFs if Micheli rules that she must.

How could this be any more clear from the content and tone of the letter? And what's also abundantly clear is that in the same letter, Stefanoni is trying to persuade Micheli NOT to grant the order for Pascali to see the EDFs.

I guess that biassed people sometimes see only what they want to see......

 

[Diocletus]

No LJ. This is your invention. There is no logical transitive property from Pascali's thoughts and position to Micheli's. Nowhere you can infer that if Micheli allows the EDF to be deposited, then this implies a taking of position on the part of Micheli.
"allowing for the possibility" is a weasel expression devoid of any meaning (as much as "seeking to imply" actually) since a judge, by definition allows any possibility. The letter implies that Pascali casts a doubt, this is the only implication, not that Micheli in the abstract allows a possibility (which is by definition always the judge's position, a default position that, as by any principle, cannot derive from Stefanoni's statements).

But again, the fact is that the letter says yes, not conditioned to what Micheli thinks, but conditioned to how Pascali uses the data (and the rest of your statements are a desperate attempt of twisting).
And the other fact, rather relevant, is that Pascali retracted from his request and didn't come to analyze the files.

If you were a little more experienced with legal things, then you would understand Stefanoni's letter for what it is: it is an objection to a discovery request. Stefanoni is asking Micheli to overrule Pascali's request for the log files. Recognizing that her objection is obstructive and therefore likely to fail, Stefanoni is alternatively requesting Micheli only to grant access under conditions that Stefanoni wishes to impose on the use of the files.

Apparently, rocks-for-brains Micheli sustained the objection. This doesn't make Stefanoni's obstruction right, it just makes Micheli stupid.

 

[Machiavelli]

So post a link to her doctoral thesis, plus any academic research where she is one of the lead authors. I could do that for any PhD-qualified person I know. But nobody here can find any such information about Stefanoni, despite numerous honest attempts to do so.

But no problem, because you should be able to find (and link to) this information for the lovely Ms Stefanoni, should you not?

PS I loved your "this is why it is worth recalling how liar the innocentisti camp is" sign-off! Lovely stuff! It's a real bind when facts matter more than unsupported opinions, isn't it

And - just curiosity - what happens if you obtain the CV of Stefanoni, and it becomes evident that she worked 8 years as a researcher, that she has a doctorate and a post-degree training and academic title?
What happens your and Dan O.'s credibility? Are you going to say sorry and admit you are liars?

Because, you know, Stefanoni does not cover any academic position, and PhD is also a title which is normally not mentioned in the Italian use where it is not considered much, but I think would be relatively easy to ask for Stefanoni's CV if you write an e- mail to the Ministry of Interior or to Stefanoni herself.

 

[Diocletus]

I will hit back on this lie because I am absolutely sure of winning. Because this shows how petty, false and stupid the pro-Knoxes assertions are. It is self evident - from all news sources - that Stefanoni was an assistent orifessir and had studied the field for 13 years. The stupid false myths on your part just cast light on your credibility, this is why it is worth recalling how liar the innocentisti camp is.

Forget her length of practice or your interpretation of newspaper articles. Show us her degree or a list of graduates or her CV or a paper setting forth her credential.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Diocletus]

And - just curiosity - what happens if you obtain the CV of Stefanoni, and it becomes evident that she worked 8 years as a researcher, that she has a doctorate and a post-degree training and academic title?
What happens your and Dan O.'s credibility? Are you going to say sorry and admit you are liars?

Because, you know, Stefanoni does not cover any academic position, and PhD is also a title which is normally not mentioned in the Italian use where it is not considered much, but I think would be relatively easy to ask for Stefanoni's CV if you write an e- mail to the Ministry of Interior or to Stefanoni herself.

Why don't you write the email and post the results here, since you have a keen understanding of all things Italian and are the one making the unsupported claim.

My money says that Stefanoni will suppress her CV.

 

[js202]

another solecism?

...that Stefanoni was an assistent orifessir...

I believe the term you were looking for is *assistant orificer*.

 

[LondonJohn]

And - just curiosity - what happens if you obtain the CV of Stefanoni, and it becomes evident that she worked 8 years as a researcher, that she has a doctorate and a post-degree training and academic title?
What happens your and Dan O.'s credibility? Are you going to say sorry and admit you are liars?

Because, you know, Stefanoni does not cover any academic position, and PhD is also a title which is normally not mentioned in the Italian use where it is not considered much, but I think would be relatively easy to ask for Stefanoni's CV if you write an e- mail to the Ministry of Interior or to Stefanoni herself.

What on Earth are you talking about?

It's perfectly simple. All PhD-qualified individuals, the whole world over, will have written a doctoral thesis which is appraised and lodged with the academic institution which granted the doctorate. And that thesis will be publicly available. In addition, any PhD-qualified scientist who goes on to work in the field in which they received their doctorate will be expected to be a fairly regular author on peer-reviewed primary academic research.

You know that "working for 8 years in a university" does not magically qualify one to receive a PhD? Or do you?

Oh and this site...

http://www.neidos.it/index.pl

...rather explicitly gives the lie to your ludicrous claim that "PhD is also a title which is normally not mentioned in the Italian use where it is not considered much". You ought to tell them that the term "PhD" is not "considered much"

 

[Machiavelli]

Holy moly! You still don't get it! Can you not read the part where Stefanoni tells Micheli: If you rule that this computer data must be provided to Pascali, then I'll provide it.


The whole thing is entirely contingent upon Micheli ordering that Pascali must be allowed to see the EDFs. If Micheli doesn't make that order, Pascali doesn't get to see the EDFs. Ever. Under any conditions. Stefanoni explicitly is NOT telling Micheli that she's going to give Pascali access to the EDFs (under those conditions etc). What she's telling Micheli is that she is prepared to give Pascali access to the EDFs if Micheli rules that she must.

Exactly. And this is exactly the only thing she should say. Obviously there must be a judges' ordnance.
This is obvious, and it is absolutely obvious as well that this doesn't imply absolutely anything as for Micheli's position.

How could this be any more clear from the content and tone of the letter? And what's also abundantly clear is that in the same letter, Stefanoni is trying to persuade Micheli NOT to grant the order for Pascali to see the EDFs.

The best that you could guess from Stefanoni's statement, the farthest implication you may attach to it, is the guess that she is personally not favorable, insofar she thinks it is unnecessary and never did it before, but she says she is ready to release them. The statement saying she is ready to release them is absolutely clear, and it is not taken away by the fact that you guess she is not enthusiast. This is what she says, albeit you will try to spin it, in order to divert attention from the fact that the pro-Knixes - Halkides include - kept this offer concealed.

 

[LondonJohn]

http://www.neidos.it/index.pl?pos=02.00&lbl=PhD_Courses_Schools

I wonder which PhD not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni took at Napoli Federico II Uni?

Was it the one in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics perhaps? Or maybe the one in Genetics and Molecular Medicine?

Because, y'know, that university does indeed offer those programmes for PhD study. You know: the mythical "PhD" that actually isn't widely used or "considered" in Italy

 

[Diocletus]

Exactly. And this is exactly the only thing she should say. Obviously there must be a judges' ordnance.
This is obvious, and it is absolutely obvious as well that this doesn't imply absolutely anything as for Micheli's position.



The best that you could guess from Stefanoni's statement, the farthest implication you may attach to it, is the guess that she is personally not favorable, insofar she thinks it is unnecessary and never did it before, but she says she is ready to release them. The statement saying she is ready to release them is absolutely clear, and it is not taken away by the fact that you guess she is not enthusiast. This is what she says, albeit you will try to spin it, in order to divert attention from the fact that the pro-Knixes - Halkides include - kept this offer concealed.

LOL. Why would anyone keep this concealed? It's great for the "pro-Knoxes." It shows that Stefanoni herself was communicating directly with the court in an effort to obstruct discovery, and was fearful of the defense having a full and fair opportunity to analyze her work.

Notice, also, that she never makes the argument that the incidente probatorio is a sufficient substitute for access to the raw data.

 

[Diocletus]

http://www.neidos.it/index.pl?pos=02.00&lbl=PhD_Courses_Schools

I wonder which PhD not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni took at Napoli Federico II Uni?

Was it the one in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics perhaps? Or maybe the one in Genetics and Molecular Medicine?

Because, y'know, that university does indeed offer those programmes for PhD study. You know: the mythical "PhD" that actually isn't widely used or "considered" in Italy

What? They don't offer a PhD in DNA forensics?

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly. And this is exactly the only thing she should say. Obviously there must be a judges' ordnance.
This is obvious, and it is absolutely obvious as well that this doesn't imply absolutely anything as for Micheli's position.



The best that you could guess from Stefanoni's statement, the farthest implication you may attach to it, is the guess that she is personally not favorable, insofar she thinks it is unnecessary and never did it before, but she says she is ready to release them. The statement saying she is ready to release them is absolutely clear, and it is not taken away by the fact that you guess she is not enthusiast. This is what she says, albeit you will try to spin it, in order to divert attention from the fact that the pro-Knixes - Halkides include - kept this offer concealed.

Are you really being serious here?

For the last time: Stefanoni is NOT making an offer to Pascali in this letter. She's telling Micheli that if he orders disclosure of the EDFs (which Stefanoni seeks to persuade Micheli not to do), then - and ONLY then - will Stefanoni make the EDFs available, but only under those conditions.

Given that Micheli obviously didn't grant the disclosure order, Stefanoni in effect never did offer Pascali the opportunity to view the EDFs.

Maybe things might be a little clearer with an analogy:

Suppose I tell my Friend A: I have two tickets to the football on Saturday, and I am going to ask Friend B to go with me. If Friend B cannot come, then I will ask Friend C if he wants to go instead.

So in your strange world, this situation amounts to me making an offer to Friend C to go to the football with me. But I never made that offer to Friend C, because Friend B accepted my offer - thus rendering my conditional offer to Friend C irrelevant.

Maybe that might make things clearer. I sadly suspect, however, that it won't....

 

[Machiavelli]

What on Earth are you talking about?

It's perfectly simple. All PhD-qualified individuals, the whole world over, will have written a doctoral thesis which is appraised and lodged with the academic institution which granted the doctorate. And that thesis will be publicly available. In addition, any PhD-qualified scientist who goes on to work in the field in which they received their doctorate will be expected to be a fairly regular author on peer-reviewed primary academic research.

You know that "working for 8 years in a university" does not magically qualify one to receive a PhD? Or do you?
:

It is simply impossible to work for 8 years in a university in Italy without a PhD, and it is impossible to hold the title of "researcher" as she did.
The rest of what you wrote is basically wrong. I Italy, qualified PhDs often do not do regular research, even less on international level, they rather often teach or have other operational tasks.
It is also not true that doctorate thesis are available on the internet, or if they are they may be not recognizable as such.
But anyway you are going around the question: why don't you make a research yourself before making defamatory statements, and what happens if I turns out that you were making a false statement.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think would be relatively easy to ask for Stefanoni's CV if you write an e- mail to the Ministry of Interior or to Stefanoni herself.

If it's so easy, one has to wonder why you haven't done so in all the years this has been at issue, preferring instead to rely on bluster and evidence-free assertion.

 

[Diocletus]

It is simply impossible to work for 8 years in a university in Italy without a PhD, and it is impossible to hold the title of "researcher" as she did.

So, that's your proof of her PhD:

1) she worked for 8 years in a University

2) she held the title of "researcher" ("assistant researcher"?)

Not impressed.

This is a skeptics board, and your assertion lacks support and logic, and generally falls flat.

 

[LondonJohn]

What? They don't offer a PhD in DNA forensics?

Apparently not. And nor do any of the course programmes make any reference to the idea that simply working in a research department for 8 years magics you up a PhD. It turns out that you actually have to do original work, and complete a sufficiently high-quality doctoral thesis, in order to be given one of these mythical, barely-known-in-Italy "PhD" thingies. Who'd a thunk it?!

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you really being serious here?

For the last time: Stefanoni is NOT making an offer to Pascali in this letter. She's telling Micheli that if he orders disclosure of the EDFs (which Stefanoni seeks to persuade Micheli not to do), then - and ONLY then - will Stefanoni make the EDFs available, but only under those conditions.[Q

This is exactly what she says, the only thing she could say to a judge, and by any criterion tho is called a "yes" answer, it's called an offer (obviously it's an offer to Michelu; Pascali is not her interlocutor in the preliminary hearing).

Given that Micheli obviously didn't grant the disclosure order, Stefanoni in effect never did offer Pascali the opportunity to view the EDFs.

This is what I call an idiotic observation. Stefanoni said "yes" to Micheli.
There can be no question about that.
But Pascali talked with the judge on Oct. 4. and his words are on the record, as well as Bongiorno's words. It is a fact that Pascali retracted and explained the judge he only asked for the peaks area.

Suppose I tell my Friend A: I have two tickets to the football on Saturday, and I am going to ask Friend B to go with me. If Friend B cannot come, then I will ask Friend C if he wants to go instead.

So in your strange world, this situation amounts to me making an offer to Friend C to go to the football with me. But I never made that offer to Friend C, because Friend B accepted my offer - thus rendering my conditional offer to Friend C irrelevant.

But the analogy is false. Here there is only one "friend", and he is the Judge. Stefanoni does not speak to Pascali directly.
The Judge is obviously acting as a mediator, not as a friend that goes to the match in place of someone else. There are no two concurrent friends. There is a requesting party and a mediator. The judge finalizes the terms of agreement or requests or offers between requesting party and offering party. The mediator also has a power of decision; but the requesting party also has an opportunity to go forward with requests, to insist or rise instances or chose what to request.

Rather than two friends and tickets, it's more resembling Nethanyahu and Abbass negotiating: the mediator Kerry has some powers to make decisions, but you can't "blame" Kerry if the parties don't negotiate, as if the mediator was an additional condition. It makes no sense to say a party didn't make a real offer because used the mediator as a condition. The parties always present their offers to the mediator, never directly to the other party, and the mediator always assesses. Which dies not relief the parties from their responsibilities: they are responsible for what they offer and request as the process unfolds. You can't say "Stefanoni didn't make this offer", because she did, as much as the parties would make their offers and their requests in a negotiation.

 

[Diocletus]

This is what I call an idiotic observation. Stefanoni said "yes" to Micheli.
There can be no question about that.

No she didn't. She said "No . . . but in the event that you decide yes, then you should impose these conditions."

 

[Diocletus]

But Pascali talked with the judge on Oct. 4. and his words are on the record, as well as Bongiorno's words. It is a fact that Pascali retracted and explained the judge he only asked for the peaks area.

Point us to this discussion, if you don't mind. As with all of your other characterizations of matters in this case, I suspect that you are full of it.