Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - Hellmann, Zanetti, and the Marasca/Bruno court are examples of non-corruption in the Italian system. You simply cannot make a case that people like de Nunzio were anything but proper.

You simply have no case about the other than Mason conspiracies. Face it.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
I could go on and on about Stefanoni's obvious incompetence, but let's end this with Stefanoni's failure to turn over the Electronic Data Files (EDFs) to the defense. Massei ordered Stefanoni to turn over the EDFs, but she never complied.

Hellmann likewise ordered Stefanoni to turn over the EDFs, and again she didn't comply.

By international standards, the EDFs should be automatically given to the defense during the discovery phase (the EDFs are typically burned to a CD).

From the Hellmann trial we have this exchange between the prosecutor and Vecchiotti & Conti:

Prosecutor: In a moment let’s have a look at the delivery note. But even if you didn’t find them didn’t you feel the need to ask Stefanoni for them?

Vecchiotti: I asked Dr. Stefanoni twice for the electropherograms taking for granted that she would have included them.

Prosecutor: That she would have included the electropherograms for the negative controls?

Vecchiotti: No that she would have… that in the electropherograms there would be the samples, there would be the negative controls, because why shouldn’t they be there?

Prosecutor: Yes but when did you notice that they weren’t there…

Conti S: We asked for them again.

Prosecutor: Because then you’d have noticed that they weren’t there, right?

Vecchiotti: It’s obvious but it’s her responsibility to attach them, because why do they need to be asked for? It shouldn’t be necessary to ask for them.

Prosecutor: You’re the expert Doctor.

Vecchiotti: Look they don’t need to be requested in that case, they [NEGATIVE CONTROLS] should be produced by those who have them.

Prosecutor: Is this also an international rule, universally recognized?

Vecchiotti: That the negative controls are included, yes.

Prosecutor: Whatever, they should be included, and one time they forget to include them but they exist…

Conti S: They were requested twice.

Prosecutor: …it’s good practice for the expert to ask for them…

Conti S: In fact we asked for them twice.

It seems to me that there are only a few remaining questions to be answered:

Did Stefanoni manufacture fraudulent evidence against Knox/Sollecito on her own or was she pressured into manufacturing evidence in order for 'Italian Justice' to convict the two defendants?

In either case, why is Stefanoni not being prosecuted? Maybe it's an attempt to save some Italian face?

 

[Kauffer]

Not doubting but would be nice to see a translation of that hearing. What else did she lie about say?

Gee! You don't want much do you?!

Have this snippet for now: Berti is of course one of the Carabinieri scientists who did 36i

Bongiorno - Another thing. You have then given to consultants so-called negative controls, positive and raw data. Are important data elements?

EXPERT BERTI - Well, let's say ...

Bongiorno - What are they?

EXPERT BERTI - are used to verify that the analysis conducted has problems due to ... for example, the negative control is that there is no DNA contamination during the reaction, so there were already elements ... elements on which we have already DNA prior to the reaction. Positive controls allow us to verify the goodness of the analysis was conducted properly. The raw data are the raw data that allow even in a subsequent, to anyone who has the software allows you to analyze these samples, analyze them as many times as he wants, in an even remotely.

Bongiorno - So also serve to consultants, to make their controls these elements?

EXPERT BERTI - Yes.

So, the Carabinieri scientist is saying that the controls verify the efficacy of the results - that they are contamination free and the raw data permits re- analysis of the samples.

Barni and Berti disclosed their data; Stefanoni did not. Barni and Berti disclosed their data routinely, without being asked for it. It came with their report.

Perhaps Machiavelli would disagree with him (ha)

But it is extraordinary that you have two labs operating in the same case where one does not disclose the data and the other says it is essential.

Here is the original Italian:

AVV. BONGIORNO – Un’altra cosa. Voi avete poi dato ai Consulenti i cosiddetti controlli negativi, positivi e i raw data. Sono dei dati importanti questi elementi?
PERITO BERTI – Beh, diciamo...
AVV. BONGIORNO – A cosa servono?
PERITO BERTI – Servono a verificare che l’analisi condotta non abbia problemi dovuti a... ad esempio, il controllo negativo è che non vi sia Dna contaminante durante la reazione, quindi non siano stati elementi già... elementi sui quali abbiamo già Dna prima della reazione. I controlli positivi ci permettono di verificare che la bontà dell’analisi è stata condotta correttamente. I raw data sono i dati grezzi che permettono anche in maniera successiva, a chiunque abbia il software che permette di analizzare questi campioni, di analizzarli quante volte vuole, in maniera anche remota.
AVV. BONGIORNO – Quindi servono anche per i Consulenti, per fare i loro controlli questi elementi?
PERITO BERTI – Sì.

It's quoted on p 255 of Raffaele's 2014 appeal.

 

[moije2]

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I want to thank all of you who posted the evidence regarding the requests made for the raw data and Hellman requesting that Stefanoni produce them. It was bothersome having Machiavelli committing callunia or is it calumny against me.

I refuse to call him a liar as he has called me. He lost and truth and humanity won out. All that is left for him is slander...that is until his hero Mignini finds another innocent victim to put behind bars. How many is it now Mach? About 20 in the MOF case and 2 in this one? The real monsters are Mignini and the cabal of sycophants that enable him.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Is that all you got Mach? Liar, liar, pants on fire?
What we've seen in this case over and over again is prosecution witnesses that were either totally incompetent or willing to say whatever the prosecution wanted.

But it's over and the good guys won.

​

Short term memory loss?

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. And it is nice also that I don't see, for the most part, others lowering themselves to excessive use of the "L" word. Machiavelli seems to make a profession of using that word and reveals something other than high thought patterns. Perhaps it is frustration at having lost his battle to put the kids away for decades? Although he has been consistent through these threads in his use of the "liar" word. He does not frequently fail to remind us that Amanda Knox is a convicted malicious lying liar and such. I will enjoy watching the evolution (devolution?) of the conversation when the ECHR passes judgment on the process.

 

[sept79]

.
.
.
So, the Carabinieri scientist is saying that the controls verify the efficacy of the results - that they are contamination free and the raw data permits re- analysis of the samples.

Barni and Berti disclosed their data; Stefanoni did not. Barni and Berti disclosed their data routinely, without being asked for it. It came with their report.

Perhaps Machiavelli would disagree with him (ha)

But it is extraordinary that you have two labs operating in the same case where one does not disclose the data and the other says it is essential.

Why did this lack of discovery of Stefanoni's data not concern the courts of Massei, Nencini, and Chieffi? Was the delivery of justice not of primary importance to Massei, Nencini, and Chieffi?

 

[zotz]

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. And it is nice also that I don't see, for the most part, others lowering themselves to excessive use of the "L" word. Machiavelli seems to make a profession of using that word and reveals something other than high thought patterns. Perhaps it is frustration at having lost his battle to put the kids away for decades? Although he has been consistent through these threads in his use of the "liar" word. He does not frequently fail to remind us that Amanda Knox is a convicted malicious lying liar and such. I will enjoy watching the evolution (devolution?) of the conversation when the ECHR passes judgment on the process.

Let's be civilized and call it "prevarication". Mach uses anger as a prosecution tactic as we saw so many times in the prosecution's closing arguments.

The contrary is true.
Truth is, under the procedure, prosecution cannot present documentation from such data to the court.
And in fact, they didn't do so.

To just give raw data to the defence after the session is closed, and basically after defence stance was already defeated on the point, would be fact a patent violation of the principle of equality of arms.

...and the sky is green and water runs uphill! LOL!!!

I have rarely never seen any poster make such an angry attack on another and then get shot down in flames so dramatically. Mach may be a master at "prevarication" (I didn't say liar) but that tactic only works when the facts are muddled, which certainly is not the case here.

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I want to thank all of you who posted the evidence regarding the requests made for the raw data and Hellman requesting that Stefanoni produce them. It was bothersome having Machiavelli committing callunia or is it calumny against me.

I refuse to call him a liar as he has called me. He lost and truth and humanity won out. All that is left for him is slander...that is until his hero Mignini finds another innocent victim to put behind bars. How many is it now Mach? About 20 in the MOF case and 2 in this one? The real monsters are Mignini and the cabal of sycophants that enable him.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Is that all you got Mach? Liar, liar, pants on fire?
What we've seen in this case over and over again is prosecution witnesses that were either totally incompetent or willing to say whatever the prosecution wanted.

But it's over and the good guys won.

​

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. And it is nice also that I don't see, for the most part, others lowering themselves to excessive use of the "L" word. Machiavelli seems to make a profession of using that word and reveals something other than high thought patterns. Perhaps it is frustration at having lost his battle to put the kids away for decades? Although he has been consistent through these threads in his use of the "liar" word. He does not frequently fail to remind us that Amanda Knox is a convicted malicious lying liar and such. I will enjoy watching the evolution (devolution?) of the conversation when the ECHR passes judgment on the process.

Yes that's probably what he was saying.

 

[moije2]

Let's be civilized and call it "prevarication". Mach uses anger as a prosecution tactic as we saw so many times in the prosecution's closing arguments.

Machiavelli: ...To just give raw data to the defence after the session is closed, and basically after defence stance was already defeated on the point, would be fact a patent violation of the principle of equality of arms.​

...and the sky is green and water runs uphill! LOL!!!

I have rarely never seen any poster make such an angry attack on another and then get shot down in flames so dramatically. Mach may be a master at "prevarication" (I didn't say liar) but that tactic only works when the facts are muddled, which certainly is not the case here.

Yes, and the highlited sentence was a true marvel!

 

[Kauffer]

Interestingly, for legal junkies at least, is this document:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/HRMF/hrmf-chapter-8.pdf

..which covers ECHR Article 6 related issues for the operation of the Human Rights Act in the UK which in turn ensures the ECHR is interpreted directly in the UK by domestic courts, towards reducing the number of UK based applications to the Strasbourg Court.

Numbers and I, in particular, go on about the groundbreaking Salduz case at the ECHR and how, by effectively extending fair trial rights to pre trial matters, it revolutionised the interpretation of human rights in domestic courts across Europe.

In Scotland the watershed case which saw the UK Supreme Court embrace the Salduz principle was Cadder v HM Advocate.

From the link above:

Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43387 – The Supreme Court found that
an accused person’s rights are breached if the prosecution leads and relies on evidence from the accused’s interview by police, if a solicitor was not present at that interview.
Salduz v Turkey (GC) no. 36391/02 [2008] ECHR388 – The European Court of Human Rights determined ‘that, even if the primary purpose of Article 6, as far as criminal proceedings are concerned, is to ensure a fair trial by a ‘tribunal’ competent to determine ‘any criminal charge’, it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings. Thus, Article 6 – especially paragraph 3 – may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions’. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3.

And from Wiki on Cadder:

The Supreme Court held that Cadder's rights under Article 6(1) of the ECHR had been breached because he had been denied access to a solicitor before he was interviewed by the police. Therefore Scottish police can no longer question suspects without offering the suspect a private consultation with a lawyer, not only before an interview but also at any time during the interview at the suspect's request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadder_v_HM_Advocate

The Salduz judgement will come into play in the ECHR's consideration of Amanda's application in respect of her Callunia conviction. As we can see, the jurisprudence is rather clear on one of the matters undoubtedly before the court.

 

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I want to thank all of you who posted the evidence regarding the requests made for the raw data and Hellman requesting that Stefanoni produce them. It was bothersome having Machiavelli committing callunia or is it calumny against me.

I refuse to call him a liar as he has called me. He lost and truth and humanity won out. All that is left for him is slander...that is until his hero Mignini finds another innocent victim to put behind bars. How many is it now Mach? About 20 in the MOF case and 2 in this one? The real monsters are Mignini and the cabal of sycophants that enable him.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Is that all you got Mach? Liar, liar, pants on fire?
What we've seen in this case over and over again is prosecution witnesses that were either totally incompetent or willing to say whatever the prosecution wanted.

But it's over and the good guys won.

​

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. And it is nice also that I don't see, for the most part, others lowering themselves to excessive use of the "L" word. Machiavelli seems to make a profession of using that word and reveals something other than high thought patterns. Perhaps it is frustration at having lost his battle to put the kids away for decades? Although he has been consistent through these threads in his use of the "liar" word. He does not frequently fail to remind us that Amanda Knox is a convicted malicious lying liar and such. I will enjoy watching the evolution (devolution?) of the conversation when the ECHR passes judgment on the process.

Oh, I've called Mach a liar before. But it's been a very long time. Not short term. But that of course is a subjective term.

I really feel sorry for Mach. It's incredibly clear that Amanda and Raffaele are not only innocent but good people. I don't think they are perfect but who is? His suggestion that they aren't is born out of ignorance and stubborn confirmation bias. The police don't come to their homes for domestic violence or drunk and disorderly. No one has ever complained that either of them are violent in any way.

Both completed their studies. Both speak multiple languages.

While I do agree with Grinder that this alone doesn't make them innocent. The evidence does. Nevertheless it shows that they are good people.

 

[Antony]

It seems to me that there are only a few remaining questions to be answered:

Did Stefanoni manufacture fraudulent evidence against Knox/Sollecito on her own or was she pressured into manufacturing evidence in order for 'Italian Justice' to convict the two defendants?

In either case, why is Stefanoni not being prosecuted? Maybe it's an attempt to save some Italian face?

Maybe this question (and similar ones regarding other players in the farce) is relevant to why the final motivations report has over-run.

 

[Machiavelli]

Let's be civilized and call it "prevarication". Mach uses anger as a prosecution tactic as we saw so many times in the prosecution's closing arguments.

...and the sky is green and water runs uphill! LOL!!!

I have rarely never seen any poster make such an angry attack on another and then get shot down in flames so dramatically. Mach may be a master at "prevarication" (I didn't say liar) but that tactic only works when the facts are muddled, which certainly is not the case here.

And you didn't see it now.
I have just shown I have the truth on my side. No delusional pro-Knox "shot" anything down.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - Hellmann, Zanetti, and the Marasca/Bruno court are examples of non-corruption in the Italian system. You simply cannot make a case that people like de Nunzio were anything but proper.

You simply have no case about the other than Mason conspiracies. Face it.

*yawn*

 

[carbonjam72]

Maybe this question (and similar ones regarding other players in the farce) is relevant to why the final motivations report has over-run.

As much as some of the case has been astoundingly incompetent, dishonest and corrupt, I don't believe it is thoroughly representative of the Italian system as a whole, but rather persistent problems among a significant portion of the practitioners.

Italian scientists are just as capable of solid work as any others, and I think the judiciary has solid judges as capable as any legal scholars from any other country, and are fully capable of writing first class judicial motivation reports.

That's what I think is happening now. I think they wanted to make real sure they put forward a solid analysis and justification for closing out the process without requiring another trial.

I'm guessing they will put out a report that Italy can be proud of. And I think this is what has Mach in a lather. Its almost as if Mach is empathically linked to the judiciary, and can sense that the motivation report will be released on July 30th or so, just before the Italians break for the summer, avoiding a media scrum and giving people a chance to digest over the break.

Mach has to get in his last hysterical comments before the fever breaks, and every one of the false claims over the years is dismantled, bit by bit, by Marasca and Bruno.

And when ECHR forces Italy to vacate the calunnia conviction, Mach will probably blame it on "racism" against Italy in Europe, or something of the kind. Anything, but admit to making a mistake.

 

[Machiavelli]

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. (...)

Isn't it rather critical, that AC stated a series of made up false allegations (four false statements within a page), ad shrugged "who cares" about falsehood on the part of the pro-Knoxes, while Machiavelli (myself) reported true facts?

Acbytesla said that:
Hellmann ordered disclosure of raw data files, and that's false;
that the defence requested raw data at the Hellmann trial, and that's false (it's spectacularly false);
that Stefanoni refused to with Hellmann and Vecchiotti, and refused to provide raw data, and that's egregiously false;
that Vecchiotti requested raw data, and that's most clearly false being denied by Vecchiotti herself (on May 21. hearing).

Acbytesla spews accusations of lying against magistrates and witnesses without a spit of evidence.
And he, himself was caught making up at least four false statements in one page.

 

[Bill Williams]

Isn't it rather critical, that AC stated a series of made up false allegations (four false statements within a page), ad shrugged "who cares" about falsehood on the part of the pro-Knoxes, while Machiavelli (myself) reported true facts?

Acbytesla said that:
Hellmann ordered disclosure of raw data files, and that's false;
that the defence requested raw data at the Hellmann trial, and that's false (it's spectacularly false);
that Stefanoni refused to with Hellmann and Vecchiotti, and refused to provide raw data, and that's egregiously false;
that Vecchiotti requested raw data, and that's most clearly false being denied by Vecchiotti herself (on May 21. hearing).

Acbytesla spews accusations of lying against magistrates and witnesses without a spit of evidence.
And he, himself was caught making up at least four false statements in one page.

Machiavelli calls people liars on the basis of his own assertions. He refuses to back up his assertions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - Hellmann, Zanetti, and the Marasca/Bruno court are examples of non-corruption in the Italian system. You simply cannot make a case that people like de Nunzio were anything but proper.

You simply have no case about the other than Mason conspiracies. Face it.

*yawn*

At the very core of your conspiracy theory is the corruption of these judges, at least as you have stated. Now it seems to bore you.

You are the one required to prove this. So far you have only asserted it. You have asserted that de Nunzio manipulated his office to appoint Hellmann. You have asserted that Hellmann was corrupted by an international Masonic plot, financed by American media interests.

Now you refuse to defend your assertions. Readers here can now discern for themselves that you simply advance conspiracy theories.

 

[Bill Williams]

And you didn't see it now.
I have just shown I have the truth on my side. No delusional pro-Knox "shot" anything down.

No you haven't. What you did in the body of the post referred to was assert that truth was on your side.

Most certainly judicial-truth in Italy is not on your side.

 

[acbytesla]

Isn't it rather critical, that AC stated a series of made up false allegations (four false statements within a page), ad shrugged "who cares" about falsehood on the part of the pro-Knoxes, while Machiavelli (myself) reported true facts?

Acbytesla said that:
Hellmann ordered disclosure of raw data files, and that's false;
that the defence requested raw data at the Hellmann trial, and that's false (it's spectacularly false);
that Stefanoni refused to with Hellmann and Vecchiotti, and refused to provide raw data, and that's egregiously false;
that Vecchiotti requested raw data, and that's most clearly false being denied by Vecchiotti herself (on May 21. hearing).

Acbytesla spews accusations of lying against magistrates and witnesses without a spit of evidence.
And he, himself was caught making up at least four false statements in one page.

What's really bizarre Machiavelli is that after a barrage of evidence posted by others that clearly confirm EXACTLY what I said, you are back at square one calling me the liar. Is there something wrong with you?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I'll let the world decide who is telling the truth. It's clear that you'll never recognize the truth. But the good thing is that the truth won out. The kids are innocent, the kids are innocent, the kids are innocent!!

AND NOTHING EVER EVER EVER WILL CHANGE THAT.

Get use to it.

 

[moije2]

Originally Posted by moije2 View Post

I allow for the possibility of short term memory loss - for a few of us - but isn't that clearly critical of Machiavelli for calling AC a liar? And not AC calling Machiavelli a liar? I give AC credit for consistency here. (...)​

Isn't it rather critical, that AC stated a series of made up false allegations (four false statements within a page), ad shrugged "who cares" about falsehood on the part of the pro-Knoxes, while Machiavelli (myself) reported true facts?

Acbytesla said that:
Hellmann ordered disclosure of raw data files, and that's false;
that the defence requested raw data at the Hellmann trial, and that's false (it's spectacularly false);
that Stefanoni refused to with Hellmann and Vecchiotti, and refused to provide raw data, and that's egregiously false;
that Vecchiotti requested raw data, and that's most clearly false being denied by Vecchiotti herself (on May 21. hearing).

Acbytesla spews accusations of lying against magistrates and witnesses without a spit of evidence.
And he, himself was caught making up at least four false statements in one page.

You did get my point, in that I see you have avoided use of the word "liar" in this response. My comment was directed at AC refraining from lowering himself to call you a lair in his response to you. In English language usage the use of that word is packed with emotion and anger and thus your writings come off as emotional, and thus are not taken as seriously as they might. For that reason English speakers often hold that word in reserve.

With respect to your comments about raw data requests, my reading of your responses is that you are parsing words and not looking at the over all context and purposes. I will let you argue that the "defense" did not request data, and at what point of proceedings, and tell me/us that justice was or was not served.

Why would an honest person of science show any resistance - whatsoever - in turning over every darn thing in his/her possession? The obvious conclusion - sum of all the circumstantial and contextual information - is that Stefanoni in this case was not acting as a person of science, but as a player in the prosecution of this case. Was this an example of teleological ethics? A concept you say is commonly employed by your community? (I don't say "Italians" because your prior comments may not have intended the broader Italian society. Maybe just the academics?)

Anyway, maybe you could help me with that concept, if you think it is applicable there.