Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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

I think you may understand what the problem is.

Incidente probatorio requires that the parties discuss on the same piece of information, and that such piece of documentation is produced under procedures that everyone can control.

If the files allow to change settings, produce new charts, change scales or magnify details, for example, those procedures must be done during the incidente probatorio, all parties must be sure of how they were obtained and all parties should agree to the framework of what information and document will be in the file for the parties to be discussed.

If the defence uses the files to produce a chart image, for example, that prosecution and other parties don't have and don't know about, that would be a violation of the basic principles of the procedure.

 

[Machiavelli]

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. (..)

It's false.

Tell me where he did.

 

[Diocletus]

I think you may understand what the problem is.

Incidente probatorio requires that the parties discuss on the same piece of information, and that such piece of documentation is produced under procedures that everyone can control.

If the files allow to change settings, produce new charts, change scales or magnify details, for example, those procedures must be done during the incidente probatorio, all parties must be sure of how they were obtained and all parties should agree to the framework of what information and document will be in the file for the parties to be discussed.

If the defence uses the files to produce a chart image, for example, that prosecution and other parties don't have and don't know about, that would be a violation of the basic principles of the procedure.

So lets see if I understand. According to you, the prosecution shouldn't have been able to use the raw data to generate charts after-the-fact, say in June 2008, right?

 

[acbytesla]

It's false.

Tell me where he did.

I've done it dozens of times previously Mach. There is no need. The kids are innocent. It's all over.

 

[Machiavelli]

So lets see if I understand. According to you, the prosecution shouldn't have been able to use the raw data to generate charts after-the-fact, say in June 2008, right?

Date itself doesn't matter.

What matters is, for that evidence that is generated through the incidente probatorio procedure, work must be done following the law and principles along due procedure (summon the parties, provide option of legal objection, put in records).

Pieces of evidence can also be investigated through other procedures, however. So nothing prevents investigators from performing, say, DNA tests on samples without following the procedure.

June 2008 anyway seems still before the formal closure of investigation, so probably even still before the closure of incidente probatorio sessions.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you may understand what the problem is.

Incidente probatorio requires that the parties discuss on the same piece of information, and that such piece of documentation is produced under procedures that everyone can control.

If the files allow to change settings, produce new charts, change scales or magnify details, for example, those procedures must be done during the incidente probatorio, all parties must be sure of how they were obtained and all parties should agree to the framework of what information and document will be in the file for the parties to be discussed.

If the defence uses the files to produce a chart image, for example, that prosecution and other parties don't have and don't know about, that would be a violation of the basic principles of the procedure.

The fact that you want to make this seem complicated, or that there's some nuanced and highly specialized aspect of law at stake here, says all anyone needs to know.

This is not complicated, Machiavelli. Stefanoni had to make full disclosure - both to the Massei and to the Hellmann courts. She did not.

The RIS Carabinieri had to make full disclosure to the Nencini court. They did.

It is only you who would call this potentially leading to, "a violation of the basic principles of the procedure," that the nasty deceitful defence might engage in. LOL!

Full disclosure is supposed to benefit the defence, giving them access to the same information that the prosecution had, and in the case of the Mignini prosecution, that they tried to hide! LOL!

 

[Machiavelli]

I've done it dozens of times previously Mach. There is no need. The kids are innocent. It's all over.

If it's over then go away from this thread.

You are lying. Hellmann never ordered any raw data disclosure.

 

[Bill Williams]

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. (..)

It's false.

Tell me where he did.

Thank you, acbytesla. Machiavelli is still arguing as if there is any question. There have been exonerations. That happened four months ago. Four months.

Machiavelli, do something else. This case is over.

 

[Bill Williams]

If it's over then go away from this thread.
You are lying. Hellmann never ordered any raw data disclosure.

Why go away? There are still posters who come with trivialities, in the vain hope that somehow the Marasca court engaged in a conspiracy.

You haven't demonstrated anything. The proof belongs to you, Machiavelli, since this case is over.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Then there is nothing to your stupid, and criminal allegation defaming Vecchiotti. Why make such an allegation if you're not willing to demonstrate it?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Please do not speak for me. You are incompetent to do so. That's not what I said, and this proves you have to lie to make your conspiracy work. What you "suppose" is just that, you trying to put words in my mouth. Stop it.

Come up with a detailed theory and present it here or quite wasting our time.

 

[Machiavelli]

The fact that you want to make this seem complicated, or that there's some nuanced and highly specialized aspect of law at stake here, says all anyone needs to know.

This is not complicated, Machiavelli. Stefanoni had to make full disclosure - both to the Massei and to the Hellmann courts. She did not.

The RIS Carabinieri had to make full disclosure to the Nencini court. They did.

It is only you who would call this potentially leading to, "a violation of the basic principles of the procedure," that the nasty deceitful defence might engage in. LOL!

Full disclosure is supposed to benefit the defence, giving them access to the same information that the prosecution had, and in the case of the Mignini prosecution, that they tried to hide! LOL!

It's not complicated. It's simple.

Stefanoni did make full disclosure.

Your intellectual dishonesty is quite disconcerting to me I have to say.
You even had to admit yourself that it was the judge's decision in the end, not Stefanoni's. And even that Pascali backtracked from the possibility of accessing to all files.

Full disclosure means defence experts come at laboratory and access documentation, as the procedure provides, as they were invited to do for eight months.

After that, it comes to decide what evidence is, what's the information to be discusse, and that is.

Full disclosure does not mean coming after closing time and whine, or ask after closure to have the data themselves at home, so they could produce new things outside the previous trial procedure, without nobody controlling what they do, so that they could maybe find something new they could spin their way (and maybe not in the trial but elsewhere, on TV or in the US).

 

[Diocletus]

Date itself doesn't matter.

What matters is, for that evidence that is generated through the incidente probatorio procedure, work must be done following the law and principles along due procedure (summon the parties, provide option of legal objection, put in records).

Pieces of evidence can also be investigated through other procedures, however. So nothing prevents investigators from performing, say, DNA tests on samples without following the procedure.

June 2008 anyway seems still before the formal closure of investigation, so probably even still before the closure of incidente probatorio sessions.

So now you're saying that stefanoni's printing if 200 egrams in June 2008 was incidents probatorio? I don't think so. Instead, I think what happened is that unbeknownst to the defendants she went into the computer and generated the charts from stored data.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then there is nothing to your stupid, and criminal allegation defaming Vecchiotti. Why make such an allegation if you're not willing to demonstrate it?

I have already demonstrated here on this forum long time ago.

I am not willing to demonstrate it now, here, again.

I will demonstrate it again in other venues, obviously.

 

[Bill Williams]

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).

Suspect-centred investigation and trial. Stefanoni, acc. to Machiavelli, is immune from crticism because she's, "not on trial here".

LOL! It makes one wonder why Italian courts allow cross-examination!

Of all the stupid things that have plagued this case, this is perhaps the stupidest.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have already demonstrated here on this forum long time ago.

I am not willing to demonstrate it now, here, again.

I will demonstrate it again in other venues, obviously.

Yawn.

 

[acbytesla]

If it's over then go away from this thread.

You are lying. Hellmann never ordered any raw data disclosure.

No, and yes he he did. But as I said earlier. I'm not going to jump through hoops to present evidence that you'll dismiss or ignore. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. A couple of young good kids will be able to live their lives without the fear of the corrupt Italian judiciary persecuting them any longer.

 

[Machiavelli]

So now you're saying that stefanoni's printing if 200 egrams in June 2008 was incidents probatorio? I don't think so. Instead, I think what happened is that unbeknownst to the defendants she went into the computer and generated the charts from stored data.

Just a moment. If we talk about incidente probatorio, we talk about findings and activities that are in the records and are deposited within the investigation files. There is a clear track of the sessions. Otherwise it's another kind of investigation.
It may be within incident probatorio or may not. Both possibilities would be legitimate and there would be nothing strange in them.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, and yes he he did. But as I said earlier. I'm not going to jump through hoops to present evidence that you'll dismiss or ignore. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. A couple of young good kids will be able to live their lives without the fear of the corrupt Italian judiciary persecuting them any longer.

You are lying repeatedly. Besides being blatantly inconsistent.
You can't answer and you deflect to rhetoric.

Hellmann did not order any raw data disclosure.
And the defence didn't ask them during his whole trial.

I just caught you. Don't you see?

 

[Bill Williams]

You are lying repeatedly. Besides being blatantly inconsistent.
You can't answer and you deflect to rhetoric.

Hellmann did not order any raw data disclosure.
And the defence didn't ask them during his whole trial.

I just caught you. Don't you see?

What can it possibly matter? Further, what could it possibly matter to you?

The case is over and cannot be reopened. Even the Kercher lawyer, Maresca conceded that.

You should be moving on with your life instead of spinning wild conspiracy theories.