Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Just in case my ETA above was missed, to correct Mach's "translation" of:

Medicina Legale as "coroner", Google Translate gives this translation:

Forensic Medicine.

I leave it to readers here which translation makes more sense for the academic department that hosts Professor Carla Vecchiotti.

Well, the Italian Wikipedia entry "Medicina Legale" points to Forensic Pathology. I used to think a forensic pathologist would be called "coroner", I thought they were the same thing, but it appears this is due to my insufficient familiarity with English (if a coroner is just a public officer and may have no medical expertise, then they are defeinitely not the same thing). I used to think a coroner was an expert medical examiner.

Anyway what Forensic Pathologists do in their job do remains the same: they examine corpses.

And this is what I said Vecchiotti does: she works in a facility where they examine corpses to investigate the cause of death.

(English appears to also have the entries legal medicine, medical jurisprudence and forensic medicine, all three apparently indicating the same thing according to Wikipedia).

So anyway - as it is evident from her CV where he worked decades in charge of counsel for translpants, Vecchiotti's job had to do with examining corpses and she was always working in the facility where they examined an stored corpses. The very same facility and institute that was shut down on grounds of gross hygiene and reliability issues.

The point of the whole argument is an answer to those who claimed that Vecchiotti could have nothing to do with the dreadful activities performed in the infamous Medicina Legale institute of Rome. Such claim would be nonsense. Vecchiotti worked exactly there. Whether she pears responsabilities for how the institute is run is another matter, but certainly she was involved in their activities and that filthy institute was her working place.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no duty to produce anything: I am not the person who put forward an argument about an alleged Stefanoni's lesser qualification compared to Vecchiotti, and the innocentisti are those who stated that Stefanoni has only a BA degree. This "lesser qualification" is an original pro-Knox supporters argument, it was was their argument and that about the BA was their statement.
They just have a duty to verify their statement before making them. I don't have to provide anything beyond stating what is self-evident to an Italian who reads the public sources.

No one says you have a duty to do it. You just look foolish when you go on and on, then take the lazy way out by reversing things.

Stefanoni is a "Doctor" only in the Italian sense.....

The first university of Western civilization, the University of Bologna, is located in Italy, where until modern times the only degree granted was that of the doctorate, and all other Italian universities followed that model. During the 20th century Italian universities introduced more advanced research degrees, such as the Ph.D., and now that it is part of the E.U. Bologna Process, a new three-year first degree, or “laurea” (equivalent to a B.A. of other countries), has been introduced. The old-style "laurea" is now known as "laurea magistrale/specialistica" (ISCED Level 6). For historical reasons, even to this day, the title of "dottore/dottoressa" (abbrev. both as dott/dott.ssa or as dr./dr.ssa ) is awarded even to those who have attended a "laurea". Upper levels of degree are anyway shown in the title, as those who obtain a master's degree can be referred to as "dottore/dottoressa magistrale" (masterly doctor) while those who achieve the relatively new program of "dottorato di ricerca" (research doctorate, equivalent of a Ph.D.), carry the title of "dottore/dottoressa di ricerca" (research doctor), which can be abbreviated as "Dott. Ric.", "Dr." or "Ph.D."​

If Stefanoni was "dottorato di ricerca", it would be readily findable. That you take the position you do, is all anyone needs to hear.

She's not a Ph.D.

 

[christianahannah]

Are you uncertain? Is your memory faulty? When you entered the cottage that morning, was Filomena's door closed or slightly ajar?

Not any more (uncertain, memory faulty). I remember where I read this information about Maresca, it was a post by Machiavelli in December 2013 (of course, the search function helped my memory).

Now I have homework to do and read transcripts to see if this is contained within.

 

[Machiavelli]

"According to Italian newspapers yesterday, Mr Lumumba's testimony has also taken a knock following the questioning of a Swiss professor who Mr Lumumba claimed would provide him with an alibi. The bar owner said the professor was drinking in Le Chic from 8pm to 10pm and would be able to confirm Mr Lumumba's presence there. But police investigators, who questioned the Swiss national in secrecy away from the media glare after he flew into Italy on Sunday, have revealed that he could not confirm that the Congolese national was present the whole time. Police claim that at 8.38pm Mr Lumumba's mobile phone placed him in the vicinity of Ms Kercher's house. Last week a leak from the forensic scientists investigating the crime revealed that none of the 140 finger and palm prints inside the room belong to Mr Lumumba." link

What is that supposed to mean?

I am talking about the absence of any reference to my quotes in your post.

Does the quote above mean the Italian press sources of Nov. 11. don't exist?

 

[platonov]

The gift Bill, the gift.

This is better than the RS statement argument

Bill.

Have you read the 'gift' penned in AK's own hand.
Are you not going to defend Frank S' argument - it didn't come cheap you know

Or perhaps it is an English-English translation issue?
We have a lot of those around here.

 

[Dougm]

I know it's bad of me, but I got a chuckle out of the degree model, under which Stefanoni got her degree, emanating from the University of Bologna.

 

[Machiavelli]

If Stefanoni was "dottorato di ricerca", it would be readily findable. That you take the position you do, is all anyone needs to hear.

She's not a Ph.D.

I have already quoted sources reporteing that she was a researcher for at least 8 years, you make a defamatory statement against this without checking it, therefore by Italian standards you are lying.

 

[JREF2010]

If Stefanoni was "dottorato di ricerca", it would be readily findable. That you take the position you do, is all anyone needs to hear.

She's not a Ph.D.

Of course they would have paraded the proof around , honking the horns, if she really was one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not what the book says. Is the book wrong then?

There is no contradiction between Il Corriere and Russell's book.

 

[Machiavelli]

There was a partial accounting (in quotes) of Raffaele's November 5/6 statement in Corriere della Sera I think date November 7 (and where I think the Telegraph's article comes from); his full statement is now included in the documents on The Meredith Wiki. The partial statement is somewhere on these many threads.

As for the images, I think while it is true that Maresca showed the images in court I remember reading somewhere that he did inform the court of what he intended to do and asked for it to be closed to public view but that did not happen. If I find where I read this I will post here. And it is possible I am mistaken and placing two different events into one.

You are correct, in fact this is what happened in the courtroom in the 2011 trial. So we could say it was Hellmann's sloppiness releasing the photos to the public.
Hellmann was a sloppy judge not just on that, he was inprecise and careless throughout his conduct at every joint of the procedure.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I was thinking about the control room discussion that's been going on and off the last few days, and I just realized that unless the Perugia police only have one phone line going in and out, and no computers, there must be one room where all that electronics comes together. Chances are there's a computer in there monitoring things. And, if they have an IT guy, chances are her/his office will more than likely be where all that electronics will be.

That would be my idea of a "control room".

Also, does anyone know if the rooms where Raffaele and Amanda were interrogated had a two-way mirror in them. Most of the time, these rooms have a one-way speaker system in them so people watching through the two-way mirror can hear what's being said on the other side of the mirror.

And if you think about it, even if you're tag teaming a suspect, it's better if everyone can at least hear what's going on when they're not in the room itself.

And finally, why would any police organization tag team a witness? I would think they'd only do that with suspects,

d

-

 

[JREF2010]

Just read the translation of Rudy G's interrogation with Mignini and police on March 26, 2008 here: http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RG-Transcript.pdf

I'm confused, I thought Migninni said there were budget problems and thats why interrogations arent documented, translated and/or recorded.

Maybe he meant they only had budget cut issues during the night of Nov5 into Nov 6, then the budget cuts disappeared.

Or else maybe hes lying about the budget cuts and covering something up?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach,
How do you explain these variances in interpretation or translation between your Italian to English and http://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/urlate?

Should we be writing to those responsible for reverso.net and request that they contact you for the true English equivalents of Italian words in context?

You may contribute to improve the quality of online two-language dictionaries if you like, but I suggest it's better if you don't, because you don't have the competence. You need to know the language in order to suggest enhancements of dictionary entries.
I suggest you to leave that job to professional translators, while if you want to better understand some statement you'd better believe Italian speakers.

 

[christianahannah]

You are correct, in fact this is what happened in the courtroom in the 2011 trial. So we could say it was Hellmann's sloppiness releasing the photos to the public.
Hellmann was a sloppy judge not just on that, he was inprecise and careless throughout his conduct at every joint of the procedure.

I knew I wasn't imagining this. I did eventually find it was you who provided this information.

Do you know whether this discussion occurred publicly? Would searching that day's transcripts show the discussion taking place in court?

 

[Machiavelli]

-

I was thinking about the control room discussion that's been going on and off the last few days, and I just realized that unless the Perugia police only have one phone line going in and out, and no computers, there must be one room where all that electronics comes together. Chances are there's a computer in there monitoring things. And, if they have an IT guy, chances are her/his office will more than likely be where all that electronics will be.

That would be my idea of a "control room".

(...)

There might well be, but sure no witness mentions it.

 

[Machiavelli]

I knew I wasn't imagining this. I did eventually find it was you who provided this information.

Do you know whether this discussion occurred publicly? Would searching that day's transcripts show the discussion taking place in court?

The second time - when Maresca showed the photos for the second time - maybe there is nothing recorded by the microphone, because as far as I remember the judge simply remained silent ignored the fact that the people didn't leave the room.
On the first time, before the photos were shown I remember Maresca requested the judge to order journalists and public to leave the room, and Hellmann was reluctant (he said basically "who cares"), but anyway he reluctantly said ok and waited for the people to walk out. His answer should be recorded on transcripts but I don't find it in this moment. We don't have an OCR of all transcripts yet by now, which complicates the search.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have already quoted sources reporteing that she was a researcher for at least 8 years, you make a defamatory statement against this without checking it, therefore by Italian standards you are lying.

I have no doubt you quoted from them. What you have not done is pointed to them, so that people can verify your quotes.

So she's still not a Ph.D. There have been many people here who have given a search a go. No one has found verification of what you claim. Even you now say you are not searching. There are 172 references to "Dr. Stefanoni" in the Massei motivations report, none of which refer to her with the Ph.D. extension, so that it would be clear that the "Dr." she's being honoured with, is not just the "laurea" version.

So by logical standards, it is you who are lying. By Italian standards, "proof" is simply the ability to assert something and have a judge believe you.

 

[christianahannah]

The second time - when Maresca showed the photos for the second time - maybe there is nothing recorded by the microphone, because as far as I remember the judge simply remained silent ignored the fact that the people didn't leave the room.
On the first time, before the photos were shown I remember Maresca requested the judge to order journalists and public to leave the room, and Hellmann was reluctant (he said basically "who cares"), but anyway he reluctantly said ok and waited for the people to walk out. His answer should be recorded on transcripts but I don't find it in this moment. We don't have an OCR of all transcripts yet by now, which complicates the search.

Thank you for this recollection.

I will search also. I did try searching the September transcript but quit after a time (gosh all that type runs together). I will continue later.

 

[Strozzi]

I repeat this because you skimmed over the point: the police found several witnesses, two or three testified that the bar was open, only one said it was closed, albeit at an earlier hour, that didn't fit the police "need".

Did you understand? This point says that your claim is false: the truth is the witness claiming the bar was closed did not fit what you allege was the police "need".

How many hours the police questioned the professor has no importance, insofar the police had found several witnesses, some testified that the bar was open at later hours but they were not able to say for sure Lumumba was there, while one said it was closed but that was only at an hour too early for the police.

So the truth is the police had not obtained anything the needed from the witnesses.

Seems to you on the basis of what? What kind of argument is that? It's superficial and silly.
There is one thing more: the Swiss witness didn't just "come", he was called by Mignini to testify. After hearing Lumumba's memories the police actively sought him in Switzerland and found him.
It is something obvious that, if the Swiss professor was completely reliable this would blow apart the investigation scenario against Lumumba, and in fact this is the obvious reason why the police needed to be absolutely sure he was a reliable person, that's why they interrogated him for several hours. But I repeat this is just plain obvious. His importance as an informant, given the implication on the course of the investigation, obviously justifies the lenght of police checks on him.
This is just plain obvious. It would be obvious in the best and most honest police scenario. It is also obvious that it has absolutely no implication of anything "orchestrated". An investigation scenario agaisnt Lumumba was set, formally and transparently decided (upon evidence that shortly later was proven to be false), not "orchstrated".

Machiavelli, do you know how the police learned of the Swiss professor? Did they learn of him from Lumumba and then identify and locate him? Or did the professor, having heard of Lumumba's arrest from news coverage, initiate communication with the Perugia police or prosecutor or with Lumumba's lawyer, and from that come to the attention of Mignini who then sought to invite him to appear in Perugia to testify what he knew of Le Chic and Lumumba on that fateful evening?

These are small details, of course, but I am trying to understand this in order to understand who initiated what. I realize there is plenty of information circulating that encourages one side or the other to gloss over or distort what one party or the other did or did not do.

I did learn from your first response to my comment that there were 3 or 4 or more witnesses who were questioned by the police whether or not Le Chic was open and Lumumba was present throughout that evening/night, and that each witness could speak of specific (limited) timeframes. No single witness could speak for the entire evening/night or vouch for Lumumba's presence throughout.

Myths can be created by either side in this case from incorrect interpretations and bias. I can be guilty of propagating nuanced interpretations and myths, too.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have no doubt you quoted from them. What you have not done is pointed to them, so that people can verify your quotes.

It's a lie. I linked the quotes, and I explained them. Then, I provided all necessary and sufficient means to verify the content, including the way to find Stefanoni's email.

So she's still not a Ph.D.

This is an unverified defamatory statement. To all effects this is a lie.
You have no justification for making this arbitrary statement, neither logical or moral, and the pro-Knox argument that Stefanoni is "less qualified" stands out as made up.

There have been many people here who have given a search a go. No one has found verification of what you claim.

The sources I quoted don't require any "verification", because I did not "say" things, I quoted them. I pasted references with links.

Even you now say you are not searching. There are 172 references to "Dr. Stefanoni" in the Massei motivations report, none of which refer to her with the Ph.D. extension, so that it would be clear that the "Dr." she's being honoured with, is not just the "laurea" version.

And this is obvious, because - as I have already explained - Italians do not use the the Ph.D. extension as a honur title. Some individuals (rare) may write it on their on buisness card, but no one calls someone else with that title. It does not belong to the Italian use.
The title used by Italians is ricercatore (researcher), and if you know how this is used, you can draw your inferences.

So by logical standards, it is you who are lying. By Italian standards, "proof" is simply the ability to assert something and have a judge believe you.

No, the standard is onus probandi incumbit qui dicit: you say Stefanoni is less qualified than Vecchiotti - it's your argument - you prove it.