Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[sept79]

Had courts wanted to obtain some type of documentation, they would have obtained it.

So the courts (Massei, Nencini, Chieffi) trusted the evidence presented by Stefanoni even though her work was found to be inaccurate by the court ordered independent study of Vecchiotti and Conti, found to be inaccurate by the defenses' experts, and she refused to release the EDFs to both the court and the defense.

Sort of like 'trust me' . . .

 

[bagels]

I anticipate that I won't follow your reasoning circles, where you will just repeat your theory about some interlocutor again and again.

You may only ask me questions about what I see; and you can ecpect my answer to be consistsnt. I can't answer for what Bill Williams sees.

Among things I see, there is a very simple reality: Vecchiotti is a fraud. She lied. She lied in her report, she lied in court.

Incidentally, it is also evident, to me, that Vecchiotti & Conti did not "demonstrate" anything (not even Stefanoni's purported "incompetence", which is not, and in my opinion on principle should not, ever be a discussion topic in the case; turning a trial into a discussion about Stefanoni's incompetence would be itself a cheating and a fraud: a trial must be focused on the suspect).

But clearly a very shocking element, to me, is the glaring obvious evidence that Vecchiotti is a liar and a fraud.
Just think about my point of view, the point of view of someone who has this evidence before his eyes: this is the first and main thing I would point at.
The evidence of Vecchiotti being a liar and a fraud is something incomparably more glaring and self-evident rather than an assessment on the academic qualifications or quality of some specialized trainings of Stefanoni. It's incomparable. It's like the Sun and the Moon. Evidence of Vecchiotti's fraud is shining and pervasive, was at the center in the history of proceedings like a sun within its solar system.

The people in this thread live in their own world. I don't care if they only see Stefanoni, go on ranting about "incompetence" etc., they may think this is the topic, their rants are void. I don't follow their delusion, I point at what I see.

How lucky was Amanda to get appointed the corrupt lying C&V by the court in her appeal do you think? Seems like 1 in a million IMO.

 

[davefoc]

Your reading is wrong. Not many people in Italy work as "researchers" without a doctorate; in particular, nobody could work for 8 years without a doctorate.
If one works as a researcher and doesn't earn a doctorate within 3 academic years, can say goodbye to their wages.

You may be correct that there is not a reference or piece of paper that states *directly* that Stefanoni has a doctorate. But your question was why I was sure she has a doctorate (I am Machiavelli, a distinct rational entity, not this thread").
I can say Stefanoni has a PhD because that's obvious to me, precisely based on indirect evidence. Because I know the context where Stefanoni is.
(btw, it should be clear to everyone by now that I emphasize the value of inferential evidence; I believe also would be good to other side if they develop some consciousness about parts of reality that they imply and they take for granted, the "contexts" they imagine, what forms their unconscious prejudice).

Why is this an issue for debate? Wouldn't Stefanoni have been required to state her qualifications in open court at the start of her testimony?

I have served on two juries in the US. When expert witnesses were called they spent about five minutes summarizing their qualifications including their schooling, special classes, memberships in professional organizations, etc. Doesn't this happen in an Italian court? If it did happen what did Stefanoni say about her education?

 

[Grinder]

What people don't seem to get is that there was one and only one exhibit on the bra-clasp, a substance known as Exhibit 165. 165A was Merediths and 165B was a composite - he full nature of which was unknown to the Massei court, and not revealed until the Conti-Vecchioti report to the Hellmann court in 2011. The full nature of which showed the presence of other male contributors to 165B, assuming that 165B also contained any of Raffaele's material, and not just someone from a pool of a large number of men from which Raffaele could not be excluded.

from Oct. 2008

Francesco Vinci, a forensic expert hired by Sollecito's legal team, said the DNA of all three suspects and two other unidentified people might be on the bra.

Sollecito's lawyers say this proves their theory that the clasp was contaminated with outside DNA after police mistakenly left it on the floor of Kercher's bedroom for weeks before testing it. "There is a mix of DNA due to contamination and it is not usable as proof," said Sollecito's lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, before entering court today​

.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/27/meredith-kercher-murder-trial-bra

 

[acbytesla]

Had courts wanted to obtain some type of documentation, they would have obtained it.

In the US, probably. Both Massei and Hellman requested the disclosure, but Stefanoni's lab never released them. In the US a judge might issue a contempt citation and actually penalize the offending parties with fines even incarceration. But this doesn't seem to happen in Italy?

 

[Grinder]

Vixen,
so I am supposing that the other guys who left their DNA on Meredith's perhaps clasp pressed down firmly or they were sweating, is this your opinion?

Since Vixen has told us that Amanda's clothes were all dirty and thrown on the floor and that Meredith wouldn't wear her own dirty bra perhaps MK took one of Amanda's that had some of her recent boys' DNA on it.

No DNA should have been there if she had a clean bra on. DNA can easily transfer dry or wet. They got Rudi's DNA from a tooth brush that was unused for three weeks. Might have dried out.

 

[carbonjam72]

I anticipate that I won't follow your reasoning circles, where you will just repeat your theory about some interlocutor again and again.

You may only ask me questions about what I see; and you can ecpect my answer to be consistsnt. I can't answer for what Bill Williams sees.

Among things I see, there is a very simple reality: Vecchiotti is a fraud. She lied. She lied in her report, she lied in court.
Incidentally, it is also evident, to me, that Vecchiotti & Conti did not "demonstrate" anything (not even Stefanoni's purported "incompetence", which is not, and in my opinion on principle should not, ever be a discussion topic in the case; turning a trial into a discussion about Stefanoni's incompetence would be itself a cheating and a fraud: a trial must be focused on the suspect).

But clearly a very shocking element, to me, is the glaring obvious evidence that Vecchiotti is a liar and a fraud.
Just think about my point of view, the point of view of someone who has this evidence before his eyes: this is the first and main thing I would point at.
The evidence of Vecchiotti being a liar and a fraud is something incomparably more glaring and self-evident rather than an assessment on the academic qualifications or quality of some specialized trainings of Stefanoni. It's incomparable. It's like the Sun and the Moon. Evidence of Vecchiotti's fraud is shining and pervasive, was at the center in the history of proceedings like a sun within its solar system.

The people in this thread live in their own world. I don't care if they only see Stefanoni, go on ranting about "incompetence" etc., they may think this is the topic, their rants are void. I don't follow their delusion, I point at what I see.

Could you please tell us why you think Vecchiotti is a fraud, how she lied, and why she is wrong?

I gather the alternative, is that if Vecchiotti is not these things, then Stefanoni is guilty of the same?

 

[carbonjam72]

Had courts wanted to obtain some type of documentation, they would have obtained it.

I think this is true. The fact that the courts still haven't acquired Stefanoni's full data set after 7+ years shows that they don't really want it.

The problem here is systemic.

Even with the acquittals, if Mignini, Commodi, Stefanoni, Napoleone, Ficarra, Zugarini, Giobbi, and all the rest including Maresca, aren't all held accountable and sent to jail for their misdeeds, its not a real system of justice.

I'm rooting for Italy. I truly am.

 

[Grinder]

You flat out don't know what you're talking about. In fact you don't have a clue. NO ONE has a firm grasp on how DNA is transferred. So pulling it out of your backside isn't sufficient. Also, you need to go back and read Occam's Razor again. It states "all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually right". USUALLY. Not always, and since Stefanoni failed miserably to use proper protocols in the collection and testing of LCN DNA well never know if primary transfer is the most likely source.

Wiki has this: The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

I think Occam's is misused often.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a complete misstatement of how things went down and you know it. One of the defence lawyers petitioned the judge of the day, for instance, to get Stefanoni to hand over the EDFs. The judge inexplicably took Stefaoni's side, saying that (instead of this being routine, as it was for the later RIS Carabinieri) that this was tantamount to accusing Stefanoni of a crime.

When Stefanoni offered a compromise, one that still prevented her from handling over the EDFs, the defence backed away at that point because of the judge's (illegal) ruling. There was no point in trying to push this in front of a based judge. The defence risked a defamation lawsuit from Stefanoni because she saw something which is supposed to be routine, and an accusation of criminality.

Either way, she was simply NOT going to hand over the EDFs without a fight. And you know it.

(...)

Another point where would become very tyring to argue with pro-Knoxes conspiracy theorists, as we have to point out that we apparently start from two different viewpoints of the world.

The whole narrative expressed by Bill Williams in the paragraph before is basically false. It appears to me as made by warping the nature of each single piece of reality. It's inconsistent with reality and also makes very little sense (backed away "because" of the judge's "illegal" ruling - what does that mean?)

One of the gems - that reveal Bill's brain at work - in the paragraph above, for example, is the word "inexplicably".

I'm afraid such "inexplicability" lies in part at the bottom of the building of the pro-Knox campaign. It's the quality of being "inexplicable" that you see in a text written in a foreign language you don't know well.

To me, things appear completely differently. There is nothing "inexplicable", everything is in "my language", it's understandable. Has a very readable meaning, to those who are familiar with criminal procedure within the Italian criminal justice system.

The judge himself actually explains part of the issue to the defence lawyers. They are reminded that the scientific tests were made through a certain procedure.

A person who "understands" the trial, at this point knows that witness Stefanoni will not provide any further scientific information within the preliminary hearing. And someone who knows principles of trial debate, and possibly what "incidente probatorio" is, would also know that evidence discussion may not be "re-opened" whenever one party likes, and further information at this point won't be easilly allowed so to re-draw a scientific conclusion.

I urge you to have a look at an Italian source of that time, like this article of Nov. 9. 2007

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2.html

Read a detail by the end:

Servirebbe dell'altro. Eventualmente, gli esiti positivi di altri esami scientifici su ciò che gli è stato sequestrato al momento dell'arresto (dei vestiti, un coltello, le stesse scarpe). Esami che non cominceranno prima di lunedì prossimo e che si svolgeranno nella forma dell'incidente probatorio, aprendo così la porta alla tomba di qualsiasi istruttoria (il duello di perizie di parte).

Something else would be needed. Possibly positive results from further scientific tests on items that were seized from him [Sollecito] at the time of arrest (some clothes, a knife, his own shoes). Such test won't begin before monday, and will be carried on under the form of incidente probatorio, thus opening the grave to any evidentiary court debate (the confrontation between scientific experts)

Contrarily to what many here seem to think, most news sources in Italy provided basically accurate and balanced information on the case. And information had nouances that could be understood by all educated newspaper readers. When Italian readers read an article like this one, they would understand and be familiar with what the journalist Bonini anticipates: the procedure chosen to carry on scientific tests won't allow a subsequent re-opening of a scientific discussion in court.
Thus, so the journalist explains it, indicente probatorio "prepares the grave" to any court debate about the scientific evidence findings.

By the closure of incidente probatorio, basically the scientific discussion will be over. Incidente probatorio is like a court hearing, at the end of which evidence will have the shape of just the information and the findings that are put in the record at the conclusion.

Stefanoni is actually not expected to bring further information to discuss about, such as quantification or else.
You can imagine if, after this procedure, the day before court hearing, Stefanoni won't be perplexed by the demand by a defence expert of having raw data files that he intends to elaborate alone at his own home. To produce maybe evidence (image files or whatever) that is not deposited in the investigation file, that was not produced together with other parties within the incidente probatorio, and that other parties may not even have.

It's logical that Stefanoni tells the judge: something strange with this request, I need your permission, I'll do it on your order and we may need a procedure.

 

[Diocletus]

Had courts wanted to obtain some type of documentation, they would have obtained it.

Of course the courts didn't want it--they don't have a clue what EDFs are. The defendants wanted it. To defend themselves.

 

[Diocletus]

Another point where would become very tyring to argue with pro-Knoxes conspiracy theorists, as we have to point out that we starts from two different viewpoints of the world.

The whole narrative expressed by Bill Williams in the paragraph before, is basically false. It appears to ma as made by warping the nature of each single piece of reality. It's inconsistent with reality and also makes very little sense (backed away "because" of the judge's "illegal" ruling - what does that mean?)

One of the gems - that reveal Bill's brain at work - in the paragraph above, for example, is the word "inexplicably".

I'm afraid such "inexplicability" lies in part at the bottom of the building of the pro-Knox campaign. It's the quality of being "inexplicable" that you see in a text written in a foreign language you don't know well.

To me, things appear completely differently. There is nothing "inexplicable", everything is in "my language", it's understandable. Has a very readable meaning, to those who are familiar with criminal procedure within the Italian criminal justice system.

The judge himself actually explains part of the issue to the defence lawyers. They are reminded that the scientific tests were made through a certain procedure.

A person who "understands" the trial, at this point knows that witness Stefanoni will not provide any further scientific information within the preliminary hearing. And someone who knows principles of trial debate, and possibly what "incidente probatorio" is, would also know that evidence discussion may not be "re-opened" whenever one party likes, and further information at this point won't be easilly allowed so to re-draw a scientific conclusion.

I urge you to have a look at an Italian source of that time, like this article of Nov. 9. 2007

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2.html

Read a detail by the end:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b2da7082ed4.jpg[/qimg]





Contrarily to what many here seem to think, most news sources in Italy provided basically accurate and balanced information on the case. And information had nouances that could be understood by all educated newspaper readers. When Italian readers read an article like this one, they would understand and be familiar with what the jurnalist nticipates: the procedure chosen to carry on scientific tests won't allow a subsequent re-opening of a scientific discussion in court. Thus, indicente probatorio "prepares the grave" of court debate about the scientific evidence findings.

By the closure of incidente probatorio, basically the scientific discussion will be over. Incidente probatorio is like a hearing and at the end evidence will have the shape of just tje information and the findings that are put in the record at the conclusion.

Stefanoni is actually not expected to bring further information to discuss about, such as quantification or else. You can imagine if, after this procedure, the day before court hearing, Stefanoni won't be perplexed by the demand by a defence expert of having raw data files that he intends to elaborate alone at his own home. To produce maybe evidence (image files or whatever) that is not deposited in the investigation file, that was not produced together with other parties within the incidente probatorio, and that other parties may not even have.

It's logical that Stefanoni tells the judge: something strange with this request, I need your permission, I'll do it on your order and we may need a procedure.

Um, yeah, that's illegal.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why is this an issue for debate? Wouldn't Stefanoni have been required to state her qualifications in open court at the start of her testimony?

I have served on two juries in the US. When expert witnesses were called they spent about five minutes summarizing their qualifications including their schooling, special classes, memberships in professional organizations, etc. Doesn't this happen in an Italian court? If it did happen what did Stefanoni say about her education?

If you read the transcripts, not that much. Sometimes happens, but it's not a rule.
Maybe Stefanoni was asked to state some of her qualifications. I don't remembar actually. Anyway it was something very summary.
Moreover, PhD in Italy is not highly regarded. Is not seen as a qualification. This is a matter of Italian culture I suppose. Italians mostly won't write "PhD" in their busness cards nor list them among their titles (those who do, they do it only because they have American clients).

 

[acbytesla]

Wiki has this: The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

I think Occam's is misused often.

If you want to get precise about it. Still, the point is that it isn't an absolute. And two, in the absence of predictive ability...or all things being equal.

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course the courts didn't want it--they don't have a clue what EDFs are. The defendants wanted it. To defend themselves.

Yet, even Bill Williams agrees the defence (Pascali) backtracked from the request, because - we may suppose - wasn't interested in just analyzing the files himself, in Stefanoni's laboratory, under controlled conditions together with parties along with incidente probatorio rules.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could you please tell us why you think Vecchiotti is a fraud, how she lied, and why she is wrong?

Sorry, it's a bit too long to talk about it now.

 

[Machiavelli]

In the US, probably. Both Massei and Hellman requested the disclosure, but Stefanoni's lab never released them. In the US a judge might issue a contempt citation and actually penalize the offending parties with fines even incarceration. But this doesn't seem to happen in Italy?

No. Massei was very generic saying "all documentation" and obtained all papers, while defence clearly failed to explain what they wanted, so some may like to argue about it.
But Hellmann absolutely did not request disclosure of raw data.
Not only that, but at Hellmann trial Vecchiotti repeatedly stated she was not interested in raw data.
Moreover, defence did not make any request about them at Hellmann's court.
The defence could even have requested the Supreme Court if they wanted, but they didn't.

 

[acbytesla]

Another point where would become very tyring to argue with pro-Knoxes conspiracy theorists, as we have to point out that we starts from two different viewpoints of the world.

The whole narrative expressed by Bill Williams in the paragraph before, is basically false. It appears to ma as made by warping the nature of each single piece of reality. It's inconsistent with reality and also makes very little sense (backed away "because" of the judge's "illegal" ruling - what does that mean?)

One of the gems - that reveal Bill's brain at work - in the paragraph above, for example, is the word "inexplicably".

I'm afraid such "inexplicability" lies in part at the bottom of the building of the pro-Knox campaign. It's the quality of being "inexplicable" that you see in a text written in a foreign language you don't know well.

To me, things appear completely differently. There is nothing "inexplicable", everything is in "my language", it's understandable. Has a very readable meaning, to those who are familiar with criminal procedure within the Italian criminal justice system.

The judge himself actually explains part of the issue to the defence lawyers. They are reminded that the scientific tests were made through a certain procedure.

A person who "understands" the trial, at this point knows that witness Stefanoni will not provide any further scientific information within the preliminary hearing. And someone who knows principles of trial debate, and possibly what "incidente probatorio" is, would also know that evidence discussion may not be "re-opened" whenever one party likes, and further information at this point won't be easilly allowed so to re-draw a scientific conclusion.

I urge you to have a look at an Italian source of that time, like this article of Nov. 9. 2007

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2/perugia-uccisa2.html

Read a detail by the end:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b2da7082ed4.jpg[/qimg]





Contrarily to what many here seem to think, most news sources in Italy provided basically accurate and balanced information on the case. And information had nouances that could be understood by all educated newspaper readers. When Italian readers read an article like this one, they would understand and be familiar with what the jurnalist nticipates: the procedure chosen to carry on scientific tests won't allow a subsequent re-opening of a scientific discussion in court. Thus, indicente probatorio "prepares the grave" of court debate about the scientific evidence findings.

By the closure of incidente probatorio, basically the scientific discussion will be over. Incidente probatorio is like a hearing and at the end evidence will have the shape of just tje information and the findings that are put in the record at the conclusion.

Stefanoni is actually not expected to bring further information to discuss about, such as quantification or else. You can imagine if, after this procedure, the day before court hearing, Stefanoni won't be perplexed by the demand by a defence expert of having raw data files that he intends to elaborate alone at his own home. To produce maybe evidence (image files or whatever) that is not deposited in the investigation file, that was not produced together with other parties within the incidente probatorio, and that other parties may not even have.

It's logical that Stefanoni tells the judge: something strange with this request, I need your permission, I'll do it on your order and we may need a procedure.

Such nonsense Mach and you know it. The EDF files were requested by the defense and CV. Hellman told Stefanoni to produce the EDFs and she simply never did. Whereas in the US her ignoring the judge would have resulted in a contempt citation, the judges in Italy simply did not exert their authority. If they have any?

 

[Diocletus]

Yet, even Bill Williams agrees the defence (Pascali) backtracked from the request, because - we may suppose - wasn't interested in just analyzing the files himself, in Stefanoni's laboratory, under controlled conditions together with parties along with incidente probatorio rules.

The data gets copied onto a disk. Not sure what the big deal is.

 

[Diocletus]

No. Massei was very generic saying "all documentation" and obtained all papers,'t.

Lo! A new excuse, no. 203: Massei only ordered all "documentation" to be produced, and therefore stefanoni only had to give up what she happened to have printed out . . . And not "thrown away."