Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

Raffaele did not endear himself to the police listening to his phone conversations when his father cautioned him in a phone conversation not to carry his (ever-present) pocket knife into the police station and Raffaele replied "they're too stupid".

The police are both clever and crafty.

-

It was definitely a bad choice of words,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

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.

Well you got part of the way to a retraction but it was more than you could bear to finish it. Your attempt to defame Carla Vecchiotti is entirely predicated upon your obsession with her (and others) belonging to the enemy camp of those whose work has contributed to the widespread acceptance that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito are innocent.

There is nothing to suggest that anything other than the mortuary (obitorio) has been closed at Sapienza. It has, in any case, absolutely nothing to do with Professor Vecchiotti. Furthermore, her position, competencies and activities are clear from her CV and from the subject matter of the scientific papers she has published. She is not a coroner. She does not work in the mortuary. She is Director of a Forensic Laboratory. She is a forensic scientist.

Within the Institute of Forensic Medicine (Istituto di Medicina Legale), there is also a mortuary.

It's not too difficult for you to understand, surely.

 

[Kauffer]

I left out several sentences because I was typing it out. Apparently addressing the jury, Comodi said, "No defense right has been threatened. We decide if documents are necessary or not. I didn't even look at their request of July 30 [for the superwitness]. I opened it and closed it right away. It was so useless. No law says that the scientific police have to produce all that is requested. It's not proof, and we didn't need it to support our case. The prosecutor's office decides what is distraction. You can tell me that Stefanoni has to get another degree, but telling us that not producing the documents warrants tossing out the case is like asking the postal police how they found the hooker on line. The important thing is that they found the hooker!"

The highlighted part is the problem with the Italian Prosecutors in this case, in a nutshell. The arrogance, the hubris, the ignorance of defence rights, indeed, of human rights. It is why we need the ECHR - to tell people like Commodi that she needs to get herself re-educated.

 

[Planigale]

In fact the position "coroner" doesn't exist in Italy meant as a governmental post, but the specialty "Medicina Legale" exists, and means exactly the specialization (and therefore a certification) to the work funcions that are equivalent to a coroner.

This is why I say Vecchiotti is a coroner.

Medicina Legale is codified as "MED 43" (formerly "F 22 B").
It is not pathology; expertise as pathologists equates to scientific-diciplinary academy branches "MED 04" or "05" or "MED 08".
Microbiology instead refers to either fields "MED 07" or "BIO 19", while research in Genetics would refer to either fields "MED 03" or "BIO 18" or "BIO 11".

Vecchiotti has always only held the title of "researcher" in "MED 43", and that field alone.

Moreover, the assertion that Vecchiott's CV would show that throughout her whole history she focused on microbiology, genetics and forensic investigation, and not on cutting and opening bodies, is just false.

Her only training specifically focused on Forensics was a short course she attended in Budapest in 1986.

Between 1983 and 1991 she did her work entirely, and only, at the Struttura Semplice di Medicina Legale within the Dipartimento di Medicina Legale of La Sapienza.

In 1991 she got a promotion, yet even since 1991 and at lest until 2007, she always remained at the S.S. di Medicina Legale, where she was a Medical Doctor working as Medico Legale.

Then in 2007 she became associated professor, this only after having reached the age of 57 and having spent 21 years as a researcher in field "MED 43" (or "F/22B") Medicina Legale working at the autopsy facility known as "S.S. di Medicina Legale".

Her teaching subject was "Medicina Legale" but she tought to students of a post-degree specialization course in Orthopedic Techniques, in the small town of Latina (those who study to become Orthopedists, kind of students who are hardly interested in Forensics).
Orthopedists would be interested in physical anatomy, things about cutting and opening bodies, not in Forensics or DNA.

Carla Vecchiotti has an interest in Forensic Hematology and Haemogenetics, as well as in the general aspects of "Legal Medicine" that she frequently taught.
But that doesn't take away that for decades she has always worked at the S.S. di Medicina Legale, a place where they basically do one thing: autopsies. There they issue papers such as death certificates and authorization to transplantation (and this is what Vecchiotti was doing for about 25 years). To the present day Vecchiotti is still there, not as a physician in the Struttura Semplice but in the same institute always within the same Dipartimento di Medicina Legale.

So she is a coroner, I can say this meaning she is the equivalent of a coroner as for what her work and specialty is (the public position of coroner doesn't exist in Italy).

Institutes of Legal Medicine in Italy investigate bodies, they have developed within them their own DNA/serology/microbiology laboratories dealing with toxicology as well as genetics, because those disciplines are also techniques part of the set tool to perform their tasks by those professionals who investigate bodies, carry on autopsies or deal with other legal things. Think about how the 9/11 victims were identified through DNA for example, you can understand how genetics is nowadays ecessary part of scientific investigation carried on by "coroners" or any equivalent professional in charge to identify or investigate a body.

This is what Vecchiotti does: she investigates bodies. She always did so. Her training is focused on issues of Medicine, not Genetics or biology, nor on practice of biological laboratory work.
And she has always been working in a facility where they store and analyze corpses.
Think about that between 1991 and 2007 Vecchiotti was in charge of the Consulenza Generale Trapianti (counsel to authorize transplant). She was not working on DNA filaments and forensic analysis, but dealing with warm bodies elected for organ transplants.

Within the same facility where autopsies are performed, medical certificates are issued and bodies are checked for transplant, there is a laboratory for DNA analysis. Those laboratories are run by the departments themselves, are built within the facilities of Medicina Legale all over Italy, but they are also kind of self-made, to the present day they don't have certification of sorts, are meant to serve the sole purposes of the depertments they are part of and are ruled by those departments.

It is sure and obvious from her CV that Vecchiotti used to work with bodies and autopsies ad that was her job. She testified in fact on many cases as the equivalent of a coroner: together with Arbarello on the Cucchi case or on the Orlandi case in Rome (those are examples where Vecchiotti was called as an expert not specifically about DNA). It's clear her interest is oriented towards DNA and Haematology Forensics more than on bones and blood spats, but she did testify on bones and blood spats and it's obvious she always worked with bodies at the Medicina Legale facility, both through her work as counsel for transplants as well as during her activities with DNA and blood samples.

Mach this is not the English use of coroner. A coroner is a judge. In fact the most senior judges in precedence as the post has existed from 11th century. They sit in a court, and enquire in to deaths. They may in England be legally or medically qualified (often dually). Unusually coroner's courts are inquisitorial, rather than adversarial. High court judges are by right coroners. Coroner's courts may or may not have a jury (what determines the decision I do not know).

Post mortem examinations are carried out by pathologists (medically qualified), usually in a criminal act forensic pathologists (my medical contacts are somewhat sniffy about forensic pathologists - 'all they look for is a knife in the back' and think non forensic pathologists do better post mortems). Forensic pathologists are usually joint university and home office (government) appointments. A forensic pathologist would give evidence to a coroner in court. They are completely different roles. No one would do both, it would be a conflict of interest.
ETA
OK I see others have made the point. To clarify for Mach

Forensic medicine is medicine practiced in a criminal legal context, in can include examining victims of crime (alive and dead), offenders, and would include forensic psychiatry. Medical jurisprudence is law related to medicine, e.g. consent issues, rights to detain, confidentiality - there is a big overlap with ethics, it is essentially a legal not medical speciality. Legal medicine relates to non criminal aspects, e.g. civil law cases on disability, and liability. This does overlap with forensic medicine, but forensic medicine is limited to criminal aspects in sensu stricto.

 

[platonov]

Frank Sfarzo makes a good point. (Expect detractors to attack Sfarzo and not address the point.)

If Amanda Knox accused Lumumba at interrogation..... why did she not accuse Lumumba at her first appearance before Matteini?

Can the guilters answer that, instead of attacking the messenger?

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-acquitted-then-convicted-what-to-believe/

​

There's more.....

Wow

Because, Bill, she didn't speak before Matteini not even to withdraw her accusation of PL. Which she wrote about in her gift of the 6th.

Frank is quite the source isn't he!

ETA Although when he is selling stuff like this to his ‘audience’ he is not beating up women or biting cops – Will that do

Bill I thought you were linking to an old piece of nonsense. This is current
How stupid is this guy – Frank S. Or how stupid does he think his English speaking audience is?
Not alone does the gift repeat her accusation against PL, she told Mignini on Dec 17 that she ‘thought it might be true' & that’s on tape. Throw in her taped prison conversations on Nov 10th for example and her statements on the stand.

This really is mindboggling stuff.

Tell me – are the groupies still sending this guy money?


No doubt!

 

[Kauffer]

"I follow the law, and for the law, statements without a lawyer don’t exist. They can be used for the investigation, not for a judgment. Cassation also follows the law, and Cassation deemed those statements unusable in the trial. So, I’m in good company: for me and for Cassation, Knox never accused Lumumba. But, as we know, in the trial they used those statements anyway and, since I follow the law, I think that their use was illegal. Yes, by the way, you read right, the court used statements deemed unusable by the Supreme Court of Cassation; it’s unbelievable, but it happened for real (and another time I can explain how that could happen). It’s only one of the unbelievable things happened in this unbelievable case. And if nobody contests such things, the case remains in the error."

Frank Sfarzo

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/a...ito-acquitted-then-convicted-what-to-believe/

 

[platonov]

As this is apparently a matter of great importance would it not be wiser if you all followed Desert Fox's example and emailed the Italian cops (all the branches) instead of depending on Mach.
Half the mails in English - half in google translated Italian.

Lets get to work.

Actually whats the latest petition up to - 500,000 ? Get them all involved.

Oh and copy in the Pope.

My apologies. It wasn’t DF it was Kauffer.
See platonov can make a mistake and admit to it.

& It’s not 500,000 its more like 3k – what was I thinking

 

[Kauffer]

Bill I thought you were linking to an old piece of nonsense. This is current
How stupid is this guy – Frank S. Or how stupid does he think his English speaking audience is?
Not alone does the gift repeat her accusation against PL, she told Mignini on Dec 17 that she ‘thought it might be true' & that’s on tape. Throw in her taped prison conversations on Nov 10th for example and her statements on the stand.

This really is mindboggling stuff.

Tell me – are the groupies still sending this guy money?


No doubt!

Conversations on the 10th? Really? You have those? Which bits are you referring to?

 

[platonov]

"I follow the law, and for the law, statements without a lawyer don’t exist. They can be used for the investigation, not for a judgment. Cassation also follows the law, and Cassation deemed those statements unusable in the trial. So, I’m in good company: for me and for Cassation, Knox never accused Lumumba. But, as we know, in the trial they used those statements anyway and, since I follow the law, I think that their use was illegal. Yes, by the way, you read right, the court used statements deemed unusable by the Supreme Court of Cassation; it’s unbelievable, but it happened for real (and another time I can explain how that could happen). It’s only one of the unbelievable things happened in this unbelievable case. And if nobody contests such things, the case remains in the error."

Frank Sfarzo

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/a...ito-acquitted-then-convicted-what-to-believe/

Frank doesn’t have to follow the law.
IIRC in Italy, Canada, Seattle and Hawaii the law came to Frank.

 

[Samson]

Machiavelli, you know this case so well. I do hope when it is over that you will write two books on this - your critique of the case and your experience debating this case against a large group of (foreign) commentators.

I sometimes envision you as the lion-tamer standing in the middle of a circus ring with a chair for defense on one arm and a whip in the other. . Maybe you gained experience elsewhere with unruly students. Did you ever teach at an all-boys school?

This case is beyond unique, and we all know nothing will engage us again in this manner, in our life times. Machiavelli is sustaining a discussion that has been abandoned by the Kercher family.

 

[platonov]

You pays your money and takes your choice

Conversations on the 10th? Really? You have those? Which bits are you referring to?

Read the thread or platonovs posts or AK’s testimony in open court on this issue (the conversation of the 10th)

Or if you prefer – Read Frank

 

[Kauffer]

Read the thread or platonovs posts or AK’s testimony in open court on this issue (the conversation of the 10th)

Or if you prefer – Read Frank

So you don't have it then? Or can't link to it?

Do we have to make your points for you?

 

[Kauffer]

Frank doesn’t have to follow the law.
IIRC in Italy, Canada, Seattle and Hawaii the law came to Frank.

I see. So the Nencini court defying the Supreme Court with regard to defendants' rights is not something to concern you? How utterly biased you must be.

 

[platonov]

So you don't have it then? Or can't link to it?

Do we have to make your points for you?

You just did

 

[Kauffer]

You just did

Not sure how that could be. You haven't cited the parts of the 10th November prison conversations you seem to think support a contention you have. In fact you haven't cited any of the Nov 10th conversations you refer to.

 

[Wannaknow]

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

Let me think - isn't that the standard of the skeptical communities all over the world, too ?

Greetings

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It was Machiavelli's claim

Let me think - isn't that the standard of the skeptical communities all over the world, too ?

Greetings

Wannaknow,

Some of us provided links showing some of Vecchiotti's publications and her CV. No one has shown that Stefanoni's qualifications are comparable, and some of us have provided evidence (in one case from Comodi's own mouth) that Stefanoni does not have an advanced degree. It was Machiavelli's claim that Stefanoni has a doctorate, but he has not backed this up. IMO the publications on which Stefanoni is listed as a coauthor are meager in both quantity and quality.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. All of the papers and all of the degrees in the world don't guarantee that someone is a good scientist. Based on everything i have seen, I wouldn't trust Stefanoni to do a competent job washing test tubes.

 

[platonov]

Not sure how that could be. You haven't cited the parts of the 10th November prison conversations you seem to think support a contention you have. In fact you haven't cited any of the Nov 10th conversations you refer to.

I have.

Read the thread or platonovs posts or AK’s testimony in open court on this issue (the conversation of the 10th)

Or if you prefer – Read Frank

 

[carbonjam72]

Masons and Satanists, connected how?

Of course there is.

,

Not satanic. Just masonic.



No. He was not involved directly in that (IMO). But he was involved in concealing the implications and ties of the other members of the Narducci family.



In what trial? You mean the Sollecito book trial? Theoretically yes, he is free to do that. But I think Brizioli won't do that, because it would be a move likely to harm his client. Defense attorneys usually don't summon accusation witness to testify.

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
Fascinating background Mach.

Is there any relationship between the kid's gang, the bigger mafia gang, and the masons?

MACH: Of course there is.
Quote:
Do you think Brizioli was part of a satanic or masonic sect
,

MACH: Not satanic. Just masonic.
Quote:
along with the Narducci's, stealing women's body parts in the MOF murders as the 'obscene wafers' for their ritualistic 'black masses'?

MACH: No. He was not involved directly in that (IMO). But he was involved in concealing the implications and ties of the other members of the Narducci family.
Quote:
(...) Will Brizioli have an opportunity to question Mignini on the witness stand? Because I would pay to see that.

MACH: In what trial? You mean the Sollecito book trial? Theoretically yes, he is free to do that. But I think Brizioli won't do that, because it would be a move likely to harm his client. Defense attorneys usually don't summon accusation witness to testify.

You mention both masonic involvement for Brizioli and the youth gang and larger mafia gang, AND, you also seem to suggest that the Narducci family WAS involved in a satanic sect, procuring body parts from the MOF murders for satanic rituals.

Is that in fact your position?

Can you explain what is the connection, if any, between the masonic conspiracy as you see it, and the 'satanic sect' conspiracy in the Narducci trail/MOF cases?

What do Masons have to do with Satanists? And does this in any way relate to Jews (I'm asking because I've seen this connection between Masons and Jews bandied about somewhat sloppily, not by you of course, but I want to know what variety of this theory you endorse).

I appreciate whatever clarity you can bring on the subject. Thanks -

oh, btw, in a US trial at least, I think its unheard of that an accuser would not be put on the witness stand and subjected to cross-examination. But others may know more.

 

[Bill Williams]

Frank doesn’t have to follow the law.

IIRC in Italy, Canada, Seattle and Hawaii the law came to Frank.

I see. So the Nencini court defying the Supreme Court with regard to defendants' rights is not something to concern you? How utterly biased you must be.

When the guilt-folk don't have anything to say about the subject, they play the ad hominem card. Then they arrest the ad homenim card. Then they try to take the conversation from the issue at hand into those four places.

It's all they have, really.