Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
What, they have a bunch of rotting corpses lying around waiting for the zombie apocalypse?
Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter Diocletus
- Start date
- Status
What, they have a bunch of rotting corpses lying around waiting for the zombie apocalypse?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Bill Williams said:
You and I are "confirmation biased" in the same general direction - so it makes it even more interesting that I had a different thought about this. We must both get separate memos from conspiracy-central, in this Mafia-controlled conspiracy to free Amanda and Raffaele - the Dreyfuss Affair of the 21st Century......
I thought, "budget cuts finally take their toll." Hospitals here have contracted out their cleaning services, all for the sake of budget. The theory was (a theory conceived by bureaucrats, and not hygienists!) was that a cleaner was a cleaner was a cleaner was a cleaner.
Turned out hospital cleaners cleaned to a different standard than a hotel cleaner, and infection rates are on the rise. Moral of story, if you want to avoid infection - stay out of hospital.
My way of viewing it has precedent in Italy. Mignini cited budget problems in not recording the interrogations for Knox, Sollecito, Lumumba, and perhaps even Rudy Guede. Imagine the wealth of info, first-day info, there would have been otherwise?
Last edited:
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
Groundhog day all over again.
Oh LJ
It seems I didn’t get my point across with sufficient clarity, yet again.
I explained the reasoning behind ‘Britney’ to you on the occasion of its first usage. Have you forgotten? In fact IIRC I have since linked to the original posts on more than one occasion.
I am starting to get a feel for the differences between myself (and other posters) versus those who readily accept the stunning memory lapses of Britney and Stabby.
You seem to find these memory lapses quite normal. I and many others including cops/ judges/jurists do not.
And it appears this difference in recall may account for much including the length of these threads.
I often wondered why the same groupie arguments are made over and over again as if they had not previously been explained / refuted. This might explain it.
Oh LJ
It seems I didn’t get my point across with sufficient clarity, yet again.
I explained the reasoning behind ‘Britney’ to you on the occasion of its first usage. Have you forgotten? In fact IIRC I have since linked to the original posts on more than one occasion.
I am starting to get a feel for the differences between myself (and other posters) versus those who readily accept the stunning memory lapses of Britney and Stabby.
You seem to find these memory lapses quite normal. I and many others including cops/ judges/jurists do not.
And it appears this difference in recall may account for much including the length of these threads.
I often wondered why the same groupie arguments are made over and over again as if they had not previously been explained / refuted. This might explain it.
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
Finally.
No I'm not getting into that. I think we have achieved as much as we are going to for the moment.
Complicated stuff like what I think RS thinks and the reasons behind his non alibi – well that might be overreaching.
You are now aware that I am of the opinion that RS and AK are both guilty of murder.
Let’s leave it at that. We have done some good work here today and it would be no crime if we were to rest on our laurels awhile.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
This is from Yummi, over at PMF right?
I don't think this has got anything at all to do with Carla Vecchiotti or her lab or her and its conduct. What's been closed down, it seems, is "L' Istituto di medicina legale della Sapienza di Roma" and Vecchiotti's lab, it would appear, comes under its auspices.
Vecchiotti is, according to her CV, Director of the Laboratory of Forensic Genetics. Of course, Yummi refers to "Vecchiotti's institute", which is highly misleading. Of course, it may well be that they've closed the whole institute including her lab for a time while this issue of corpse handling is resolved, or it may be that the press reports have overly dramatised what's happened and her lab was never closed.
In any case, I have not found one reference to Vecchiotti in connection with this story. Think she's an innocent bystander.
This is a sceptics forum right?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Oh LJ
It seems I didn’t get my point across with sufficient clarity, yet again.
I explained the reasoning behind ‘Britney’ to you on the occasion of its first usage. Have you forgotten? In fact IIRC I have since linked to the original posts on more than one occasion.
I am starting to get a feel for the differences between myself (and other posters) versus those who readily accept the stunning memory lapses of Britney and Stabby.
You seem to find these memory lapses quite normal. I and many others including cops/ judges/jurists do not.
And it appears this difference in recall may account for much including the length of these threads.
I often wondered why the same groupie arguments are made over and over again as if they had not previously been explained / refuted. This might explain it.
Oh you got your point across with more than enough clarity - don't worry about that
See, I consider that using nomenclatures such as "Britney" and "Stabby" to describe two of the individuals in this case is puerile, pathetic, wantonly biased and derogatory, and unworthy of a debate that is supposed to be based on critical thinking. But then, as da kidz say: YMMV.
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
On the subject of memory lapses, here is Stefanoni giving testimony:
GB
You are able, nonetheless, to produce the quantity?
PS:
Yes, the quantity, yes.
GB:
So you will be able to tell us how much trace there was?[110]
PS:
How much total DNA there was. Because there was a mixture there. I do not distinguish the DNA of the victim quantitatively from the DNA of Sollecito. I can distinguish it ... indeed, I can draw a quantitative relationship between the two DNAs solely [from] seeing the electropherogram. So, when seeing the electropherograph, I estimated there was a ratio of 1 to 6, that is, the victim is 6 times more DNA than Sollecito. However, ....
GB:
Let's begin [by] saying this, so in the area [NdT: also "with regard to"] the trace found on the little hook, we have a quantity of DNA attributed to the victim [which is] 6 times greater than that of Sollecito?
PS:
Yes.
GB:
The quantity, however, the number. You can't tell me that?
PS:
Total, no. I don't have it here.
I don't suppose you will be able to account for this or the rest of her dire performance.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
In this testimony there are references to documents or events that should be documented. Do we have the newspaper article that the journalist Fois wrote? And do we have any of the documents from when Alessa was first questioned by the police.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I believe you may be right, Kauffer.
There are dozens of factoids in this case, which are of interest only to those of us who follow this online- guilter or innocentisti. And there's a subset of this (like with what Yummi/Machiavelli found) which guilters use to cast aspersions on folk like Vecchiotti. So far, the ONLY source of information of this is what Machiavelli/Yummi has passed on. So far it is completely unclear how this relates to ANYTHING to do with this case, but when has that stopped any of us?
Guilters have been known to make things like this part of their indisputable canon of factoids - just on things like this alone.
However, if, indeed, Vecchiotti is caught up in this, then that needs to be admitted up front. So far, nothing connects Vecchiotti with the improper keeping/storage of corpses.... so everyone's mileage will vary.
But this is a skeptics forum, and stuff that potentially is erosive of one's own position needs to be dealt with - even in theory. Note though, guilters rarely do this.
Witness platonov's latest, paraphrase: "I've already dealt with that upthread." I fall for that every time, clicking on the back-arrows of quoted posts and, sure enough, nothing is there.
Last edited:
platonov
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,339
... and again
‘Stabby’ was just a test which you passed with flying colours. I wondered would it produce claims of bewilderment as to who I could possibly be referring to. Well done.
However your argument that to refer to a convicted sex killer as ‘Britney’ is derogatory indicates to me that I haven’t got the point across with sufficient clarity or that you have forgotten the reason for its usage. The term references the emotional nature of the arguments put forward by AK’s fans and has nothing to do with the character of the killer herself. Your ‘derogatory’ argument being a perfect example of this whilst also underlining the whole ‘frailty of human memory’ aspect of cartwheel world.
Do you see?
I really don’t think I can simplify it any further. I didn’t necessarily think that you would accept my argument but I had hoped that it was comprehensible to you.
I shall leave it at that – till the next time you ask ‘Who’s Britney
’
Oh you got your point across with more than enough clarity - don't worry about that
See, I consider that using nomenclatures such as "Britney" and "Stabby" to describe two of the individuals in this case is puerile, pathetic, wantonly biased and derogatory, and unworthy of a debate that is supposed to be based on critical thinking. But then, as da kidz say: YMMV.
‘Stabby’ was just a test which you passed with flying colours. I wondered would it produce claims of bewilderment as to who I could possibly be referring to. Well done.
However your argument that to refer to a convicted sex killer as ‘Britney’ is derogatory indicates to me that I haven’t got the point across with sufficient clarity or that you have forgotten the reason for its usage. The term references the emotional nature of the arguments put forward by AK’s fans and has nothing to do with the character of the killer herself. Your ‘derogatory’ argument being a perfect example of this whilst also underlining the whole ‘frailty of human memory’ aspect of cartwheel world.
Do you see?
I really don’t think I can simplify it any further. I didn’t necessarily think that you would accept my argument but I had hoped that it was comprehensible to you.
I shall leave it at that – till the next time you ask ‘Who’s Britney
’
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
As I said, platonov's mileage does vary. It's a very useful indicator of sincerity in debate and general intellect & objectivity though. So, as the man himself would say: well done.
Back to the actual topic of the thread though...... I had wondered what connection Vecchiotti - being a microbiologist and geneticist type - would possibly have with the storage of dead bodies (as opposed to tissue samples and blood/DNA samples). Once again, it seems that certain pro-guilt commentators may be all too keen to spread guilt by association......
Back to the actual topic of the thread though...... I had wondered what connection Vecchiotti - being a microbiologist and geneticist type - would possibly have with the storage of dead bodies (as opposed to tissue samples and blood/DNA samples). Once again, it seems that certain pro-guilt commentators may be all too keen to spread guilt by association......
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Oh you got your point across with more than enough clarity - don't worry about that
See, I consider that using nomenclatures such as "Britney" and "Stabby" to describe two of the individuals in this case is puerile, pathetic, wantonly biased and derogatory, and unworthy of a debate that is supposed to be based on critical thinking. But then, as da kidz say: YMMV.
If you're curious as to why he calls her 'Britney,' he's referring to a video that went viral some ten years ago or so where a guy named Chris Crocker tearfully asks people to 'leave Britney (Spears) alone.'
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Oh yes, I knew.
It's just that I don't think that employing the name "Britney" to refer to Knox is appropriate at any level in a critical thinking forum. It was interesting that platonov wasn't prepared to explain his use of it directly again though.
If any serious, credible commentator wants to make claims that certain people have been hysterical in this manner in defence of Knox, then those accusations can reasonably be set out with direct reference to the people and emotions concerned. What's not acceptable in my view, however, is to appropriate the name "Britney" for Knox on that basis, and nor is it in any way appropriate to insinuate that such an emotional approach is the default position for anyone who believes that Knox (erm.... and Sollecito) should be acquitted.
But as I said above, it's interesting and useful when one gets a good peek behind the curtain - it makes it so much easier to assess the sincerity, quality and intellectual horsepower underpinning certain arguments. And then to be able to dismiss them pretty much out-of-hand for those reasons
RoseMontague
Published Author
Some things have not changed since I was a regular here. Has anyone changed their mind or had doubt cast on their opinion on the case recently?
A dictionary, yes (even a Japanese one!), but unfortunately not much legal common sense (well, either that or a blinkered, biased determination to take a particular position regardless of the facts...).
This "esteemed" fellow, after all, recently embarrassed himself rather deliciously with a bogus and incorrect attempt to show how the Scottish (or "Scots", to use his unintentionally-disparaging adjective) criminal justice system is just like the Italian one. His contention was that the two different forms of trial in Scotland - solemn procedure and summary procedure - are analogous to the systems of full trial and fast-track trial in Italy. In fact this is a laughably incorrect contention. The two different sorts of trial in Scotland are intended to deal with differing levels of criminal charges: minor charges are heard (usually in a Sheriff's court) in a summary procedure, while serious offences are tried (usually in the High Court) under the solemn procedure.
In fact, pretty much the identical system is used in the courts of England and Wales: minor criminal cases are heard in the magistrates' court, usually before a single magistrate, while more serious cases are heard in the crown court, before a jury (although a defendant has the right to have the case decided by a single judge instead).
And neither of these systems is in any way comparable to the Italian "fast-track" vs full trial system. In Scotland or England/Wales, a person on trial for (e.g.) murder cannot opt for a short-form magistrates' (or sheriffs') court trial - a full crown court (or high court) trial is mandatory. Whereas in Italy, a person on trial for any offence, however serious, can opt for the short-form "fast-track" trial before a single judge.
The highly amusing coda to this is our "esteemed" friend's closing salvo, which implies that others (pro-acquittal others, obviously) would not have the intellectual firepower to understand that (per his bogus and incorrect contention) Scotland operates the same system as the Italian system that has come under such criticism from those ignorant pro-acquittal peeps. Oh the irony
I hate to say it but I think you have misunderstood what the fast track trial in Italy is. As I understand it (and I am not an Italian / lawyer), the defendant (and prosecution) agree to accept the evidence and to go to court with the evidence as is. The judges remain the same (2 professional and 5 amateur), the first level judgement is reviewed by an appeal court, and has to be confirmed by cassation. There is not a clear equivalent in common law jurisdictions for criminal cases, though there is in civil cases.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Oh yes, I knew.
It's just that I don't think that employing the name "Britney" to refer to Knox is appropriate at any level in a critical thinking forum. It was interesting that platonov wasn't prepared to explain his use of it directly again though.
If any serious, credible commentator wants to make claims that certain people have been hysterical in this manner in defence of Knox, then those accusations can reasonably be set out with direct reference to the people and emotions concerned. What's not acceptable in my view, however, is to appropriate the name "Britney" for Knox on that basis, and nor is it in any way appropriate to insinuate that such an emotional approach is the default position for anyone who believes that Knox (erm.... and Sollecito) should be acquitted.
But as I said above, it's interesting and useful when one gets a good peek behind the curtain - it makes it so much easier to assess the sincerity, quality and intellectual horsepower underpinning certain arguments. And then to be able to dismiss them pretty much out-of-hand for those reasons
Ah, OK, I wasn't certain everyone remembered that video or not.
There's plenty of hysteria surrounding this case, but it's the witch-hunting kind and the blind faith that no matter how stupid it sounds, the Italians must have been right when they convicted them and couldn't have been right when they acquitted them.
I guess NO. Science has caught up with the case in that tertiary transfer of DNA has been demonstrated - not that I think this will alter anyone's opinion. A number of leading labs have published on the inevitability of contamination, and how to address the issue, rather than denying it. Stefanoni's practice seems no worse than in some US commercial forensic labs (damning though that is).
Mach has announced that the prosecution (Kercher family) lawyers are sharing documents with the pro-guilt web sites (though whether this is at the instigation of the Kercher family is unclear - though likely).
A lot more documents are appearing on various web sites - some in translation.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
The simplest explanation of a "Fast Track" trial I heard, was it was exactly the same three step process as ordinary trials, but with the evidence phase missing in the first two steps.
I likened this to proceeding with enough evidence simply stipulated that would satisfy a judge-panel that a reasonable determination of guilt - or innocence - could be made. The catch is that presumably a PM would not proceed to trial if the agreed stipulated evidence supported innocence.
It presents special problems, when others are being charged with the same crime. It's one thing when cross-examinable evidence has been tested atone trial, and viewed as "judicial truth" at another.
The injustice comes when stipulated, unexamined "judicial truth" is allowed to migrate over. This is why it is simply unjust to face "judicial truths" where you've not been allowed to question your accuser.
Guilters never address this.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
No no, I know what a fast track trial in Italy is! (And I believe you've described it accurately in many respects, except for the important part that it is the preliminary judge sitting alone who decides the case in the first instance). And that's the point. My post was exactly to indicate that there's no parallel between the Italian fast-track trial and anything in the Scottish (or E/W) criminal justice system.
It had been erroneously argued by a pro-guilt commentator that the Scottish summary procedure was in essence equivalent to the Italian fast-track trial (and that therefore people criticising the Italian fast-track trial system ought to know that the same thing happens in Scotland). But there's no equivalence whatsoever. The Italian fast-track trial is an option available to any defendant, even those on trial for murder (viz. Guede). It's a form of summary justice which is usually only chosen by those who know they have no chance of not being found not-guilty, since it attracts an automatic sentence reduction. If it does, therefore, have any parallel in Scottish (or E/W) criminal justice, it would be the practice of an early guilty plea (which also attracts an automatic sentence reduction in return for not having the case tested in full trial).
In contrast, the Scottish law summary procedure is in no way analogous to the Italian fast-track trial (and that's the point!). The summary procedure is an abbreviated (and far less costly) way of dealing with very minor criminal offences (driving offences, minor assaults, minor frauds, etc) by hearing them in a lower court in front of (usually) a single sheriff. The same thing exists in E/W, in the form of a trial in a magistrate's court. It's important also to note that in such trials, the defence are allowed to challenge the evidence against the accused and call witnesses and experts (within limits). Anyone in Scotland (or E/W) who is charged with a serious criminal offence (known as an "indictable offence") has no choice but to have a full trial in a high court (Scotland) or crown court (E/W).
So if Guede had been charged with murder in Scotland (or in E/W), he would have had no option of having any sort of abbreviated process - his alleged crimes would have been way too severe for this ever to be an option. He would have only had three options: 1) jury trial in a high court or crown court with a senior judge presiding; 2) judge-only trial in high court or crown court (exactly the same trial as in (1), but with no jury sitting and only the (high-level) judge deciding the case); or 3) Pleading guilty prior to (or during) a trial, in which case the proceedings would move directly to sentencing (with the appropriate sentence reduction to be applied).
This is a good explanation.
- Status