Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

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).



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.


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.

Oh dear. Let's have another go.

1) Pascali never had the opportunity to even evaluate Stefanoni's offer to view the EDFs under those odd and improper conditions.

2) Pascali never had the opportunity because Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs.

3) Because Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs, Stefanoni did not provide Pascali with the opportunity of viewing the EDFs.

4) Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs because Stefanoni persuaded him that to grant disclosure would be a) unnecessary to Pascali being able to do his job properly, b) contrary to every other experience her laboratory had gone through, and c) implicitly suggestive of potential fraud on Stefanoni's part.


It astonishes me that you still cannot (or refuse to) grasp the conditional nature of Stefanoni's "offer" to Pascali. It was wholly conditional on Micheli ordering disclosure. And the primary purpose of Stefanoni's letter (to any objective analyst) was to persuade Micheli NOT to grant that order. Therefore Stefanoni could have promised to personally go over the Pascali's office in a pink tutu and hand him the EDFs while doing a little dance. Provided Micheli didn't grant the disclosure order (as Stefanoni was obviously confident he wouldn't do), Stefanoni could make as many empty promises as she liked.

As others have also tried to point out, there are only two interesting/important things to take away from this rather revealing letter: 1) Stefanoni was lobbying Micheli to try to get him not to order disclosure; and 2) Pascali never got the chance to take Stefanoni up on the "offer" she made in this letter, since Micheli obviously never granted the disclosure order.

 

[Rolfe]

Points of information.

One, no university offers any "programme for PhD study". There's no such thing. You do original research on a topic you propose and have approved, and if it's good enough, you get the degree.

Two, universities employ people without PhDs in various capacities, even in research laboratories. All the time.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh dear. Let's have another go.

1) Pascali never had the opportunity to even evaluate Stefanoni's offer to view the EDFs under those odd and improper conditions.

2) Pascali never had the opportunity because Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs.

3) Because Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs, Stefanoni did not provide Pascali with the opportunity of viewing the EDFs.

4) Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs because Stefanoni persuaded him that to grant disclosure would be a) unnecessary to Pascali being able to do his job properly, b) contrary to every other experience her laboratory had gone through, and c) implicitly suggestive of potential fraud on Stefanoni's part.


It astonishes me that you still cannot (or refuse to) grasp the conditional nature of Stefanoni's "offer" to Pascali. It was wholly conditional on Micheli ordering disclosure. And the primary purpose of Stefanoni's letter (to any objective analyst) was to persuade Micheli NOT to grant that order. Therefore Stefanoni could have promised to personally go over the Pascali's office in a pink tutu and hand him the EDFs while doing a little dance. Provided Micheli didn't grant the disclosure order (as Stefanoni was obviously confident he wouldn't do), Stefanoni could make as many empty promises as she liked.

As others have also tried to point out, there are only two interesting/important things to take away from this rather revealing letter: 1) Stefanoni was lobbying Micheli to try to get him not to order disclosure; and 2) Pascali never got the chance to take Stefanoni up on the "offer" she made in this letter, since Micheli obviously never granted the disclosure order.

I asked this of Machiavelli, but there were too many rapid-fire questions being put his way...... so mybe you, LJ, can have a go:

What is the implication of this reality (the responsibility of Micheli, really) when considering Article 111 of the Italian Constitution?

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.
In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the
principle of adversary hearings. The guilt of the defendant cannot be
established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free
choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by
the defendant or the defence counsel.
The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not
occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or
owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit
conduct.
All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons​

There are other issues there.... like the fact that:

The guilt of the defendant cannot be
established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free
choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by
the defendant or the defence counsel.​

.... tends to relegate anything at Rudy's fast-track process irrelevant to AK and RS's process, althought perhaps a lot hinges on the legal interpretation of the word, "voluntarily".

 

[Bill Williams]

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 happens if you post the C.V.? You'd rather ask this question than actually posting the C.V.?

Unbelievable!

 

[Matthew Best]

What happens if you post the C.V.? You'd rather ask this question than actually posting the C.V.?

Unbelievable!

I think you misspelled "predictable" here.

 

[Dan O.]

I will hit back on this lie because I am absolutely sure of winning.

This is what Machiavelli is all about. Like an Italian prosecutor, it's all about winning regardless of what truths get rolled over in the process.

 

[Desert Fox]

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?!

I have to be honest here. . . . .I think you guys are chasing a wild hare.

Michael Behe has a PHD in Biochemistry but does not mean his conclusions about irreducible complexity have any merit.

 

[Numbers]

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.

The only sensible inference one can make from your statement above, with your other statements on this topic, is that Patrizia Stefanoni, the DNA lab technician in this case, does not have a Ph.D.

If she did, you would present the evidence of the granting of this degree from a university.

The problem with Stefanoni is not her degree level or her experience. It is her ethical approach - which is lacking, and so prosecution-centered as to render the trial unfair - and her willingness to do work which is beyond her knowledge and experience. This includes the forensic sampling and failure to seal the crime scene as well as her laboratory malpractice.

 

[Dan O.]

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?

Nothing will happen to our credibility because we post the information we know when we know it. You however claim to have this information and refuse to post it. That tanks your credibility even if your information is true. Nobody can trust what other information you might be withholding.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nothing will happen to our credibility because we post the information we know when we know it. You however claim to have this information and refuse to post it. That tanks your credibility even if your information is true. Nobody can trust what other information you might be withholding.

I believe Machiavelli is about to offer to release the info about Stefanoni's Ph.D......

With conditions. We have to go to his place to see it.

ETA - but the mods here will not allow divulging of personal information, so Machiavelli will be able to claim that he'd made the offer, and that we refused to go to his place.

 

[Bill Williams]

For accurate information on the grueling case as it grinds on, and the narrative of wrongful conviction, see:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/

This is about the wrongful conviction of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox in 2009 and 2014.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nothing will happen to our credibility because we post the information we know when we know it. You however claim to have this information and refuse to post it. That tanks your credibility even if your information is true. Nobody can trust what other information you might be withholding.

If my claims is true, you will be the one making a false defamatory claim for years, without any attempt of seeking verification; you will be a person who has been making an unproven assertion. Because you would have stated a defamatory false claim about Stefanoni. If you had bactracked and say that you don't know and you reserve judgement for when you have information, it would have been different. But this is not what you said. You said something completely different. You said you know something.
But -you anticipate - you will deny having said that if you are busted. And this this underscores everything about your credibility.

 

[Machiavelli]

The only sensible inference one can make from your statement above, with your other statements on this topic, is that Patrizia Stefanoni, the DNA lab technician in this case, does not have a Ph.D.

If she did, you would present the evidence of the granting of this degree from a university.

(...)

Of course, if you live in a world where reality depends on what Machiavelli decides to post.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Nothing will happen to our credibility because we post the information we know when we know it. You however claim to have this information and refuse to post it. That tanks your credibility even if your information is true. Nobody can trust what other information you might be withholding.

Can the credibility of someone whose credibility is near zero, due to numerous misstatements about forensics, biology, law, and generally verbose obfuscation "tank"?

If and when Machiavelli does post Stefanoni's CV, if it legitimately shows that she indeed has a Ph.D., I am sure there will be an increment to his/her/their credibility. Don't hold your breath waiting for such a posting.

 

[platonov]

A mysterious entity appears - late in the day.

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?

I have no interest in the utterly irrelevant groupie fixation [& even if you show she has a PhD she is still an ITALIAN WOMAN and thus intrinsically unworthy of trust ]
But I feel I must intervene here. What credibility is this you speak of ?
Evidences please.

 

[Machiavelli]

Points of information.

One, no university offers any "programme for PhD study". There's no such thing. You do original research on a topic you propose and have approved, and if it's good enough, you get the degree.

In the UK. Not in Italy.

Two, universities employ people without PhDs in various capacities, even in research laboratories. All the time.

Not with the title of "researcher". Not in Italy. If you are a "researcher", then you are either following a PhD research program that ends with obtaining the title, or you already have the title.

 

[Machiavelli]

Can the credibility of someone whose credibility is near zero, due to numerous misstatements about forensics, biology, law, and generally verbose obfuscation "tank"?

If and when Machiavelli does post Stefanoni's CV, if it legitimately shows that she indeed has a Ph.D., I am sure there will be an increment to his/her/their credibility. Don't hold your breath waiting for such a posting.

If I decide to post something, such as Stefanoni's CV (which you can well ask yourself), the purpose won't be to increase my credibility, but to trash yours (albeit, I take platonov's remark).

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course, if you live in a world where reality depends on what Machiavelli decides to post.

I've had people criticize me for this! Now Numbers has joined the club!

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh dear. Let's have another go.

1) Pascali never had the opportunity to even evaluate Stefanoni's offer to view the EDFs under those odd and improper conditions.

Pascali, as well as the rest of the defence team, had obviously access to Stefnoni's mail, since it was deposited in the trial papers. So she was well aware about Stefanoni's response.
But also, Pascali had a confrontation with Micheli and Stefanoni on Oct. 4., they were all three in the courtroom, Pascali spoke with the judge and with Stefanoni, and he was able to make requests (he did) and to mention and discuss his instances.

2) Pascali never had the opportunity because Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs.

See above.

3) Because Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs, Stefanoni did not provide Pascali with the opportunity of viewing the EDFs.

Stefanoni provided an offer thae the defence was aware about, insofar her response was deposited within the court and belongs to the trial papers. See above.

4) Micheli did not order the disclosure of the EDFs because Stefanoni persuaded him that to grant disclosure would be a) unnecessary to Pascali being able to do his job properly, b) contrary to every other experience her laboratory had gone through, and c) implicitly suggestive of potential fraud on Stefanoni's part.

Micheli did not order the disclosure of the log files because Pascali did not go forward with his request on Oct. 4., and instead he backtracked and changed request.

To say "the conditional nature of Stefanoni's offer" is just ridiculous. The "conditional nature" simply belongs to the existence of a power of the judge itself. Any "offer" or "decision" by Stefanoni would be conditional to a decision by the judge. There won't be anything such as a decision that bypasses the judge's decision. The judge reserved his decision until Oct. 4., when he spoke again with the parties altogether.

 

[sept79]

Pascali, as well as the rest of the defence team, had obviously access to Stefnoni's mail, since it was deposited in the trial papers. So she was well aware about Stefanoni's response.
But also, Pascali had a confrontation with Micheli and Stefanoni on Oct. 4., they were all three in the courtroom, Pascali spoke with the judge and with Stefanoni, and he was able to make requests (he did) and to mention and discuss his instances.



See above.



Stefanoni provided an offer thae the defence was aware about, insofar her response was deposited within the court and belongs to the trial papers. See above.



Micheli did not order the disclosure of the log files because Pascali did not go forward with his request on Oct. 4., and instead he backtracked and changed request.

To say "the conditional nature of Stefanoni's offer" is just ridiculous. The "conditional nature" simply belongs to the existence of a power of the judge itself. Any "offer" or "decision" by Stefanoni would be conditional to a decision by the judge. There won't be anything such as a decision that bypasses the judge's decision. The judge reserved his decision until Oct. 4., when he spoke again with the parties altogether.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink . . .