Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

You told me she provided them, not that she said she would. Don't make me go back and find all your quotes, because I will. I know you argued that the raw data files were provided. Is this really you or did you forget what you've written in the past?

Obviously I don't remember every word I wrote, but if I remember correctly I was talking about the negative controls.

I also recall that before reading the whole transcripts, a point of reference to me, was Vecchiotti's declarations in court where she said that she had obtained everything she had requested. Which you can read in May 21. testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

What you are failing to address is this:

1) she does not need the EDFs to know that Stefanoni's work was substandard.
2) however, to validate Stefanoni's work, she would have to have access to the EDFs, because otherwise all she could do is repeat Stefanoni's conclusions without know how she got there. Vecchiotti already knew the work was substandard.​

Unless you address both of these issues, Machiavelli your views on this do not make any sense. Your confirmation bias is blinding you to the distinction.

Vecchiotti was not asked to evaluate if Stefanoni's work was "standard" or "substandard".
She was asked to: 1. search for DNA on the bra fastener and on the knife (something she refused to do, causing the anger of the Supreme Court). ;
2. evaluate the DNA profiles found under the aspect of possible contamination (which is something quite different, and also much quite more specific, than search about concept of "standard" of someone's work).

Whatever your spinning mind will try to do to rationalize Vecchiotti's position in a way that "saves" your theories, anyway you are forced to conclude that this implies, at least, that claims that Stefanoni "refused" to turn over raw data are false;
and also, implies that there must be something wrong with Vecchiotti's claim that "negative controls" were missing despite she (according to her) had requested them, since she openly states she is not interested in raw data (and negative controls are recorded there);
and then, despite your spin, yet some poster already pointed out that Vecchiotti would be a "fool" if she stated that the raw data were "not interesting" to search for contamination. Yet this is what she stated.

 

[acbytesla]

Posted by sept79:

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?



Posted by Vixen:

All three questions are truly bonkers.

When did you last beat your wife?


Excuse me. All three questions are pertinent and valid

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of rule 12

I agree. But it will never be answered. Nobody will put Stefanoni's feet to the fire. She was promoted even. Italy is not interested in opening that can of worms. Italy needs major legal reform. And only with that reform will their judges, techs and police be actually be held accountable.

In the meantime, it is business as usual.

 

[Bill Williams]

Vecchiotti was not asked to evaluate if Stefanoni's work was "standard" or "substandard".
She was asked to: 1. search for DNA on the bra fastener and on the knife (something she refused to do, causing the anger of the Supreme Court). ;
2. evaluate the DNA profiles found under the aspect of possible contamination (which is something quite different, and also much quite more specific, than search about concept of "standard" of someone's work).

Whatever your spinning mind will try to do to rationalize Vecchiotti's position in a way that "saves" your theories, anyway you are forced to conclude that this implies, at least, that claims that Stefanoni "refused" to turn over raw data are false;
and also, implies that there must be something wrong with Vecchiotti's claim that "negative controls" were missing despite she (according to her) had requested them, since she openly states she is not interested in raw data (and negative controls are recorded there);
and then, despite your spin, yet some poster already pointed out that Vecchiotti would be a "fool" if she stated that the raw data were "not interesting" to search for contamination. Yet this is what she stated.

Your problem is that you are reading into this what you wish to conclude. You continually want to make people seem to agree with the points as you see them.

No matter. This case is over. This case is over even without the release of the EDFs. One only needs them to verify that the DNA points to guilt. One does not need them to know that Stefanoni's conclusions were junk.

Read the Conti-Vecchiotti report. There is no beneficial reason to even argue this with you. You simply deny the logic of what is what, in what at the end of the day is now an inconsequential point.

Post-innocence, one simply does not need the EDFs. Their only use would be to verify thata guilt finding was found rightly.

Give it up Machiavelli. Try arguing something that even is relevant.

 

[acbytesla]

Vecchiotti is not a fool - she is a fraud. Of course it is possible to quote her own answers.
Seems rather clear, from her words - and those of Hellmann - that she claims she had all what she requested, that she did not request raw data (and she points out "I requested the electropherograms"), and she is not interested in having raw data (those are not data that have an interest to her):

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b568c117256.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_4347455b56932377ef.jpg[/qimg]



Oh no I have not been proven wrong on anything of any relevance, certainly not over the last week.
I don't know why the folks here suffer of this hallucinatory problem.

You amuse me Mach. Of course you feel this way. It's part of your culture and EXACTLY why your country put on this farce. The moment the Perugians held that press conference declaring "case closed" this railroad job was going to steamroll over anyone and everyone.

I've watched you deny the evidence and the facts.in favor of "judicial truths. You've denied science in favor of a system that denies science. Actual truth and justice is secondary to a system that is the rock that you built your church upon.

I have no doubt you have a greater grasp on that system than I do. What's sad is that this has NOTHING to do with the truth and what is right.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well put. In general with the "new" forensics I've suggested that every judicial system needs to reconsider how to handle them. I would suggest that a truly independent consultant be given the data and make an analysis without knowing what case they are working on.

If Mach believes that his judicial system was corrupt in this case, in particular with C&V, I wonder if he would support bringing in experts from Germany or some other country with no dog in the fight. I would welcome having a panel of DNA forensic scientists look into the DNA work done.

(...)

No, I wouldn't accept that.
I have no problem with nationality of experts, I know Costagliola Comodi & Mignini wanted to call a Spanish expert, for instance, they relinquished only as they had a logistic problem having to fly him many times for multiple sessions.
I'm ready to accept experts of all nationalities as witnesses.

What I am not willing to accept, is experts as judges.
Within the Italian system nobody is regarded as "truly independent" and trusted on principle; it's the nature of the system. Experts in this systems are ilke lawyers. They can be excellent. They can convince also through their authority. But they have no right to a "neutrailty pass". Their work is to convince by answering through argumentations. But the only subject who is supposed to understand the real weight of each argumentation is the judge.

Science, like all other techniques and means employed in the trial, is an instrument. Not a value itself. The instrument may be of excellent quality or mediocre, but itself is only an instrument, it's there to serve a purpose, it is not itself the purpose. It's something there to be used, and a witness is not allowed to "know" how he will be used.

It's like having an excellent witness or rather a mediocre one. Like having a beautiful picture taken by an advanced camera, rather than a low quality picture taken with a smartphone. Their quality may have relative importance. What only matters in fact is whether they are sufficient to provide any useful contribution.

Either mediocre instruments or ecxellent ones can be both useful, or non-useful; a mediocre instrument can be good, achieve the goal and serve its purpose. Or an excellent instrument can offer useless output, like an expert providing opinions of the finest quality but off-target and not answering the specific logical point the judge believes is important.

The key concept is that an expert's mind is always "non neutral", even when he/she believes to be unbiases and intellectually honest. An expert is always a witness, and therefore just a "part", has insufficient information and knowledge and no comprehensive overview of trial and evidence, cannot judge any final "meaning" of things.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's point out that also Vecchiotti & Conti declined the option of having raw data. Vecchiotti explicitly stated so in court, explaining that they would be not interesting to her work.

Cite please. Vecchiotti never said the raw data files would not be interesting to her work.

Le's not point that out, because as demonstrated here countlessly Vecchiotti and Conti never had the option you say they declined. As Stefanoni's letter to Micheli indicated, she would only let a review of her work be done in her lab under her terms. Now, this was before C&V, but the point is no one very had the option of reviewing the EDFs, which they subsequently turned down.

Read Sollecito's appeal document to the 2015 ISC panel. Apparently (we'll only know for sure when the motivations report comes out) the Marasca/Bruno panel probably agreed with that point on appeal.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I wouldn't accept that.
I have no problem with nationality of experts, I know Costagliola Comodi & Mignini wanted to call a Spanish expert, for instance, they relinquished only as they had a logistic problem having to fly him many times for multiple sessions.
I'm ready to accept experts of all nationalities as witnesses.

What I am not willing to accept, is experts as judges.
Within the Italian system nobody is regarded as "truly independent" and trusted on principle; it's the nature of the system. Experts in this systems are ilke lawyers. They can be excellent. They can convince also through their authority. But they don't have a right to a "nautrailty pass". Their work is to convince by answering through argumentations. But the only subject who is supposed to understand the real weight of each argumentation is the judge.

Science, like all other techniques and means employed in the trial, is an instrument. Not a value itself. The instrument may be of excellent quality or mediocre, but itself is only an instrument, it's there to serve a purpose, it is not itself the purpose. It's something there to be used, and a witness is not allowed to "know" how he will be used. Either mediocre instruments or ecxellent one can be both useful, or non-useful; a mediocre instrument can be good, achieve the goal and serve its purpose. Or an excellent instrument can offer useless output, like an expert providing opinions of the finest quality but off-target and not answering the specific logical point the judge believes is important.

The key concept is that an expert's mind is always "non neutral", even when he/she believes to be unbiases and intellectually honest. An expert is always a witness, and therefore just a "part", has insufficient information and knowledge and no comprehensive overview of trial and evidence, cannot judge any final "meaning" of things.

What a load of bunk.

 

[Machiavelli]

Your problem is that you are reading into this what you wish to conclude. You continually want to make people seem to agree with the points as you see them.

No matter. This case is over. This case is over even without the release of the EDFs. One only needs them to verify that the DNA points to guilt. One does not need them to know that Stefanoni's conclusions were junk.

Read the Conti-Vecchiotti report. There is no beneficial reason to even argue this with you. You simply deny the logic of what is what, in what at the end of the day is now an inconsequential point.

Post-innocence, one simply does not need the EDFs. Their only use would be to verify thata guilt finding was found rightly.

Give it up Machiavelli. Try arguing something that even is relevant.

I take this as an admission that you have no argument.

Vecchiotti said she didn't want raw data, she was not interested.
I infer from your silence you can see yourself the implication of this.
My understanding is that EDF are collected as "sample data files", each file has all data about a sample processing; each file has profile extraction data, as well as the sample negative control runs.

So if Vecchiotti (whom the Supreme Court called "intellectually dishonest") said she doesn't need raw data, this means she declines to obtain the negative controls included in the file.

Do you understand what this means? Or should I go forward explaining?

*ps. You forgot to concede that this proves - manifestly - Stefanoni did not refuse to hand over raw data (Vechiotti testifies she didn't ask her).

 

[Bill Williams]

I take this as an admission that you have no argument.
Vecchiotti said she didn't want raw data, she was no interested.
I infer from your silence you can see yourself the implication of this.
My understanding is that EDF are collected as "sample data files", each file has all data about a sample processing; each file has profile extraction data, as well as the sample negative control runs.

So if Vecchiotti (whom the Supreme Court called "intellectually dishonest") said she doesn't need raw data, this means she declines to obtain the negative controls included in the file.

Do you understand what this means? Or should I go forward explaining?

*ps. You forgot to concede that this proves - manifestly - Stefanoni did not refuse to hand over raw data (Vechiotti testifies she didn't ask her).

There is no "argument" to be made. It is straight forward. The reason one does not need the raw data is because the DNA "evidence" Stefanoni provided did not prove guilt, even without the raw data in the hands of the court.

The only reason one would need to request the raw data would be if a court ruled that the DNA proved guilt. A court could NOT make that decision safely without the raw data - including the raw data in the hands of the defence to satisfy full disclosure and equality of arms.

You can spin this all you want. You can accuse others of not having an argument all you want. You can go forward explaining all you want.

There was no raw data "included in the file" which Vecchiotti "declined to obtain", whatever that means. (That's one of your more spectacular contortions of logic, trying to twist this into something Vecchiotti did wrong.)

 

[Machiavelli]

Le's not point that out, because as demonstrated here countlessly Vecchiotti and Conti never had the option you say they declined. As Stefanoni's letter to Micheli indicated, she would only let a review of her work be done in her lab under her terms. Now, this was before C&V, but the point is no one very had the option of reviewing the EDFs, which they subsequently turned down.

Read Sollecito's appeal document to the 2015 ISC panel. Apparently (we'll only know for sure when the motivations report comes out) the Marasca/Bruno panel probably agreed with that point on appeal.

It's not "under her terms", it's within sessions where all parties can take part.
Stefanoni cannot dictate "her terms", btw.

The idea that one party should have the right to take away raw data and review them at home, without nobody knowing what they do, what kind of actions or elaboration process, seems to me highly disputable. I'm not saying for sure it isn't right, but I can't say for sure it's right either. In the context of this legal procedure, it's understandable that the request seemed questionable.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is no "argument" to be made. It is straight forward. The reason one does not need the raw data is because the DNA "evidence" Stefanoni provided did not prove guilt, even without the raw data in the hands of the court.
(...)

This is what you say.

But please note that Vecchiotti made a specific reference to negative controls, as a very important element in her conclusions.

You say "who cares" about raw data, because you think it's unimportant to have them in order to argue for contamination. You. But prof. Vecchiotti instead used the issue of absence of negative controls, as a primary argument to support her conclusions.

The absence of negative controls - in accord to Conti & Vecchiotti report - is a key element that - according to her - allows to support her conclusion that laboratory contamination has probably occurred.

Vecchiotti spends pages noting how there was no information about the "procedures employed in the laboratory to reduce probability of contamination" (she lies on this too, btw) and all this talking at lenght, about things like cleaning procedures in laboratory etc, on the part of Vecchiotti in support of a laboratory contamination scenario, is possible because, it is somehow the logical consequence, of the absence of negative controls.
This belongs to the structure of her argumentation.

The absence of negative controls is at the root of an important part of Vecchiotti's conclusions. It's the structural element that allows her to make all those speculations about laboratory malpractice and consequent contamination of samples. (if she had negative control, she could check the possible contamination of the sample directly, if there's direct proof of no contamination due negative control, all those speculations on causes of contamination would be pointless).

But how is it, then, that she asserts she has no interest in raw data, when we know that raw data contain the negative controls?

 

[Bill Williams]

This is what you say.

But please note that Vecchiotti made a specific reference to negative controls, as a very important element in her conclusions.

You say "who cares" about raw data, because you think it's unimportant to have them in order to argue for contamination. You. But prof. Vecchiotti instead used the issue of absence of negative controls, as a primary argument to support her conclusions.

The absence of negative controls - in accord to Conti & Vecchiotti report - is a key element that - according to her - allows to support her conclusion that laboratory contamination has probably occurred.

Vecchiotti spends pages noting how there was no information about the "procedures employed in the laboratory to reduce probability of contamination" (she lies on this too, btw) and all this talking at lenght, about things like cleaning procedures in laboratory etc, on the part of Vecchiotti in support of a laboratory contamination scenario, is possible because, it is somehow the logical consequence, of the absence of negative controls.
This belongs to the structure of her argumentation.

The absence of negative controls is at the root of an important part of Vecchiotti's conclusions. It's the structural element that allows her to make all those speculations about laboratory malpractice and consequent contamination of samples.

But how is it, then, that she asserts she has no interest in raw data, when we know that raw data contain the negative controls?

Machiavelli. Please reread your claim about my argument, as per the highlight above. Please reread it again. You are setting up a strawman argument.

I did not say what you claim. No wonder you are misunderstanding this. I now am struggling to know how to make this simple for you. One does not need the raw data to further prove the unreliability of Stefanoni's work, when we already now it is unreliable. Knowing the raw data, once proven unreliable, will not miraculously make it reliable. You are so set in your own confirmation bias, you cannot even state accurately the statements which oppose you.

I am now, officially, stuck for something to say. I concede that English is your second language and you do remarkably well for a non-native speaker. But I cannot imagine that this is an issue of basic comprehension.

 

[Diocletus]

It's not "under her terms", it's within sessions where all parties can take part.
Stefanoni cannot dictate "her terms", btw.

The idea that one party should have the right to take away raw data and review them at home, without nobody knowing what they do, what kind of actions or elaboration process, seems to me highly disputable. I'm not saying for sure it isn't right, but I can't say for sure it's right either. In the context of this legal procedure, it's understandable that the request seemed questionable.

Yeah, you should check in with the echr on this, because they very definitely say that the defendant can get raw data.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's not "under her terms", it's within sessions where all parties can take part.
Stefanoni cannot dictate "her terms", btw.
The idea that one party should have the right to take away raw data and review them at home, without nobody knowing what they do, what kind of actions or elaboration process, seems to me highly disputable. I'm not saying for sure it isn't right, but I can't say for sure it's right either. In the context of this legal procedure, it's understandable that the request seemed questionable.

She can when a judge illegally supports her.

"Seems to me highly disputable." This is what you say about the ability for a third party to take the raw data home. You therefore do not believe in disclosure or equality of arms.

Enough said. Move on.

 

[Machiavelli]

You amuse me Mach. Of course you feel this way. It's part of your culture and EXACTLY why your country put on this farce. The moment the Perugians held that press conference declaring "case closed" this railroad job was going to steamroll over anyone and everyone.

I've watched you deny the evidence and the facts.in favor of "judicial truths. You've denied science in favor of a system that denies science. Actual truth and justice is secondary to a system that is the rock that you built your church upon.

I have no doubt you have a greater grasp on that system than I do. What's sad is that this has NOTHING to do with the truth and what is right.

I am not the one here who denies evidence and makes up stuff.

I look at and talk about the truth, and the truth alone.

 

[Machiavelli]

She can when a judge illegally supports her.

"Seems to me highly disputable." This is what you say about the ability for a third party to take the raw data home. You therefore do not believe in disclosure or equality of arms.

I'm saying exactly that I'm not sure that would be equality of arms.

 

[Ken Dine]

You told me she provided them, not that she said she would. Don't make me go back and find all your quotes, because I will. I know you argued that the raw data files were provided. Is this really you or did you forget what you've written in the past?

I couldn't find Machiavelli claiming that in this forum, but s/he certainly made that claim in other forums, such as in this 2013 posting:

By Machiavelli » Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:36 pm (Quoting Charlie Wilkes):

charlie_wilkes wrote:

C&V requested this data, formally and in writing. As did the defense, throughout the original trial. For you to say otherwise is ridiculous.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=89791

Machiavelli Yes. And they (C&V) got them (the FDRs).

Not only they got the (FDR) data, but they also declared before Hellmann that they got everything they needed and everything they requested.

The defence did not. In fact, there was no request to access the Rome laboratory by the defence experts - the rule is that they should take an appointment and go physically there - they never did so except once, on request by Vinci, but that was only for the pillowcase.

They never requested to access to other documentation.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=89791

Typically in most sane countries, the FDRs are automatically handed over to the defense prior to trial as a matter of routine discovery.

There should be no need to go to Rome to fetch files that can fit on an 800 mb CD-Rom and can be easily mailed to the defense.

Cite please. Vecchiotti never said the raw data files would not be interesting to her work.

Don't hold your breath waiting on a citation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, you should check in with the echr on this, because they very definitely say that the defendant can get raw data.

It's possible. But that's not a problem.
If the echr rules the defendant should have raw data, then judges will say let the defendant have raw data.

Those who have this issue will submit their complaint to echr, and will settle the question.

I don't see the point.

 

[Machiavelli]

Don't hold your breath waiting on a citation.

Look upthread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10787596#post10787596