Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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

Then we agree. You are, indeed, saying this. You are wrong.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then we agree. You are, indeed, saying this. You are wrong.

Bear in mind we are not talking about a trial. The indirect exchange between Pascali and Stefanoni took place at the preliminary hearing.
The preliminary hearing is a procedure behind closed doors, and not a place where the parties are allowed to "bring new evidence" besides what they have agreed to discuss with the judge.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bear in mind we are not talking about a trial. The indirect exchange between Pascali and Stefanoni took place at the preliminary hearing.
The preliminary hearing is a procedure behind closed doors, and not a place where the parties are allowed to "bring new evidence" besides what they have agreed to discuss with the judge.

Bear in mind that once a charge is laid, it is incumbent on the prosecution to provide equality of arms. Indeed, before trial if there is the equivalent to an examining magistrate, it is as it says:

One advantage of an examining magistrate evaluating the veracity of evidence is that it provides equality of arms since neither investigators nor defendants at trial can with-hold vital evidence with which to be economical with the truth nor or later produce crucial (but untested) allegations or new material with which to mount the sort of ambush litigation made famous by TV courtroom drama series.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

In fact, you are. I could repeat everything all over again but it would be wasted on your ears. I'm not going to throw pearls to swine. Actual truth is denied by you.

This is over. Even though you are deluding yourself that Knox is going to be convicted for callunia again, I know that deep down inside you know that charge will run out of gas. The only real judicial proceedings that will mean anything is the ECHR.

I'm mildly interested in the motivation. It will be interesting to see you rant about how it will be all wrong. But you will be like the sports fan crying over what you perceive was a bad call that kept your team out of the playoffs.

Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and over time only the crazies will think otherwise.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Sorry, Bill. My knowledge of English might be flawed. But the statement

“One does not need the raw data to further prove the unreliability of Stefanoni's work, when we already now it is unreliable”

really appears to me a circular statement.
It’s obvious that “if we already know it’s unreliable”, we don’t need anything in fact to know it’s unreliable. This is, in fact just re-stating the premise. If you know, you don't need anything to know.
It appears circular, I hope you can see that.

This is something you can say. You are free to make this kind of comments and observations, maybe you write such statements because you may like circular reasoning, or because you may have your good reasons for saying so.
I accept that I may not understand the real meaning of what you are saying about your belif.

But I was encouraging you to just move the scope slightly away from the scope of your own reasoning, whatever that is, and look for a moment at Vechiotti's reasoning instead.

You may notice, prof. Vecchiotti did not use your premise (whatever you believe your own premise is). Vecchiotti doesn't say things like "given that we already know..." or other things like that. No, in order to come to her conclusions, Vecchiotti employed one specific assumption as a key logical element, such assumption is: she wasn't able to see the negative controls.

(btw, for some reasons you also prefer to change the goal of analysis, Vecchiotti’s research should be “in order to know the work is unreliable” instead as “in order to find out DNA, or to assess reliability of finding for what concerns the aspect of contamination”; but all this that doesn’t matter now).

Whatever you think your reasonin is (and you only know), please look at Vecchiotti’s argument: when she draws her conclusions about the knife, you may see how a major part of her conclusion is logically dependant from the premise that Stefanoni failed to present negative controls.

So I urge you to read again and think about what I wrote:

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]

Bear in mind that once a charge is laid, it is incumbent on the prosecution to provide equality of arms. Indeed, before trial if there is the equivalent to an examining magistrate, it is as it says:

The charges in this case were laid by judge Paolo Micheli

 

[Machiavelli]

In fact, you are. I could repeat everything all over again but it would be wasted on your ears. I'm not going to throw pearls to swine. Actual truth is denied by you.

This is over. Even though you are deluding yourself that Knox is going to be convicted for callunia again, I know that deep down inside you know that charge will run out of gas. The only real judicial proceedings that will mean anything is the ECHR.

I'm mildly interested in the motivation. It will be interesting to see you rant about how it will be all wrong. But you will be like the sports fan crying over what you perceive was a bad call that kept your team out of the playoffs.

Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and over time only the crazies will think otherwise.

Rants is not going to change facts.
You won't achieve anything.

 

[bagels]

Rants is not going to change facts.
You won't achieve anything.

What facts? The case was bunk to any rational observer. When Hellmann acquitted, leaked US State Department cables considered the matter closed, as did the rest of the sane world. Nobody expected Italy would pull a rabbit out of the hat and defecate over the concept of burden of proof, reasonable doubt, sound jurisprudence, forensic science, common sense, etc and send the case back to Nencini's sham court because Quintavalle knew Amanda had blue eyes after a years worth of media exposure or w/e. Amanda isn't stepping foot on Italian soil again and nobody else but you, Vixen, the messiah guy at PMF, and the rest of that motley crew cares what retarded crap the Italian legal "system" thinks of next.

 

[Bill Williams]

Sorry, Bill. My knowledge of English might be flawed. But the statement

“One does not need the raw data to further prove the unreliability of Stefanoni's work, when we already now it is unreliable”

really appears to me a circular statement.
It’s obvious that “if we already know it’s unreliable”, we don’t need anything in fact to know it’s unreliable. This is, in fact just re-stating the premise. If you know, you don't need anything to know.
It appears circular, I hope you can see that.

Sigh.

It is up to Stefanoni and the prosecution to prove that the DNA is supportive of a conviction. A side issue to this is that you claim that Vecchiotti stated that she had opportunity but declined to possess the raw data which, according to you, supported guilt. Judicially speaking, it could NOT be deemed as supportive of guilt unless the prosecution made full disclosure.

Read the Conti&Vecchiotti report. Even without the raw data, which is only valuable in sustaining an assumed proof of guilt, C&V said the DNA evidence concerning 36B and 165B was junk. Even before considering raw data as a verification, Stefanoni had proven nothing to begin with - except that she could turn up the dial on all her LCN tests until she was on the lowest level, which measured both something and nothing-there.

So, C&V said, Stefanoni's DNA is junk. It's not circular reasoning. Stefanoni's DNA analyss had to prove something, and there is no forensic expert in the world who said it was anywhere near that threshhold.

The premise in a criminal case is that the defendants are innocent until evidence is presented which proves their guilt. The premise is not that the guilt or innocence of the defendants is unknown. So - if the prosecution does not meet BARD, yes you can restate the original premise.

It's not "circular", it's more than that the prosecution failed to move the needle off of innocent. IMO this is what the 2015 Marasca/Bruno court determined. As an appeal court they did not have have to retry the facts at the case, all they had to to was examine the application of law and procedure of the Nencini court.

And if they did that, then it is obvious. The Stefanoni DNA on 36B and 165B did not prove anything, with or without the raw data.

You need to deal with this reality rather than spinning conspiracies and accusing Vecchiotti of crimes.

 

[acbytesla]

Rants is not going to change facts.
You won't achieve anything.

I couldn't agree more Machiavelli. Nothing is going to change the fact that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and the Italian judicial system has come to that conclusion. Neither Amanda or Raffaele are likely to spend another day behind bars ever.

Sure, some of the guilters are having difficulty getting over it, but eventually even all of you will put this in you rear view mirrors. History will say they were wrongly prosecuted and that they were exonerated. I think even you are realistic enough to know that this is true.

 

[acbytesla]

What facts? The case was bunk to any rational observer. When Hellmann acquitted, leaked US State Department cables considered the matter closed, as did the rest of the sane world. Nobody expected Italy would pull a rabbit out of the hat and defecate over the concept of burden of proof, reasonable doubt, sound jurisprudence, forensic science, common sense, etc and send the case back to Nencini's sham court because Quintavalle knew Amanda had blue eyes after a years worth of media exposure or w/e. Amanda isn't stepping foot on Italian soil again and nobody else but you, Vixen, the messiah guy at PMF, and the rest of that motley crew cares what retarded crap the Italian legal "system" thinks of next.

I'd bet you that Amanda will return to Italy. Not right away but eventually. In time, Italy will not care and they will recognize that ithis was a farce.

 

[zotz]

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.

The point is that the prosecution is supposed to grant full Discovery of all relevant evidence to the defense, without being asked to. You are patiently (not!) explaining the rules of the Italian judicial system. We are telling you that it is a bad system.

Something's gotta give. If you go to the ECHR with this support for the concept of the prosecution's right to suppress evidence, they will denounce you and Italy will lose even more face. Is that what you want?

The only support you can count on is from Putin and maybe Erdogan.

 

[zotz]

What facts? The case was bunk to any rational observer. When Hellmann acquitted, leaked US State Department cables considered the matter closed, as did the rest of the sane world. Nobody expected Italy would pull a rabbit out of the hat and defecate over the concept of burden of proof, reasonable doubt, sound jurisprudence, forensic science, common sense, etc and send the case back to Nencini's sham court because Quintavalle knew Amanda had blue eyes after a years worth of media exposure or w/e. Amanda isn't stepping foot on Italian soil again and nobody else but you, Vixen, the messiah guy at PMF, and the rest of that motley crew cares what retarded crap the Italian legal "system" thinks of next.

Maybe she will visit in 10 or 20 years. I have this scenario of a middle-aged Amanda visiting Perugia to place a red rose on the grave of Mignini (as a gesture of forgiveness).

Wouldn't that be touching?

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe she will visit in 10 or 20 years. I have this scenario of a middle-aged Amanda visiting Perugia to place a red rose on the grave of Mignini (as a gesture of forgiveness).

Wouldn't that be touching?

I can't imagine Amanda EVER forgiving Mignini. If she did, she is a better person than me. I keep wondering if they might publish her book in Italian and Amanda visiting as part of a book tour.

 

[moije2]

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).

I would be interested to know where the hilited part was stated. In the Supreme Court decisions. I would be curious to read it if someone could direct me with a link to that.

 

[Antony]

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.

Even I, without the detailed knowledge of others here about the ins and outs of DNA testing, can see the nonsense and contradiction in this assertion. Of course, the exclusive right of the prosecution to the raw data, so they can generate whatever results suit their claims, is exactly what Machiavelli is defending.

I.e. "one party (the prosecution) should have the right ... to review (the raw data) ... without nobody (sic) knowing what they do".

 

[Bill Williams]

Even I, without the detailed knowledge of others here about the ins and outs of DNA testing, can see the nonsense and contradiction in this assertion. Of course, the exclusive right of the prosecution to the raw data, so they can generate whatever results suit their claims, is exactly what Machiavelli is defending.

I.e. "one party (the prosecution) should have the right ... to review (the raw data) ... without nobody (sic) knowing what they do".

Why would you want defendants to have the ability to mount a defence. The defendants should simply sit there and be grateful that they are being prosecuted.

 

[Planigale]

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.

This is the problem. Stefanoni is an employee of the police. She presents a prosecution interpretation. But she is the only one with access to all the results. There are results she (or perhaps more broadly the prosecution) decided not to present to the court. But the missing results might aid the defence, the defence should have access to all the results, and decide which are relevant for themselves.

The electropherograms are not the results produced by the machine. They are a graphical representation produced by manipuating the results as such they are an interpretation. By allowing only the EPG from Stefanoni in the record one allows only the prosecution interpretation. (See for instance the difference between the EPG in the original record and that on the CD provided to C&V.) To stetch an analogy, this is a bit like allowing a description of a photograph, and limiting discussion to the description, but not allowing the defence to see the photograph.

The comment about not allowing the defence access to the data 'at home' to manipulate is a bit like saying that the defence are allowed to look at a photograph but not allowed to use a magnifying glass in case they see something the prosecution did not. The data is not single use. Any number of copies can be produced and the defence should have opportunity to scrutinise as closely as they wish (in a non destructive manner), any evidence and not just trust the police to have found exonerating information.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

One of the points is, that an ECHR ruling on this would be as a finding of an Article 6 violation. It renders the whole trial unfair in the event of a guilty verdict. Which means the guilty verdict cannot stand.

 

[Kauffer]

This is the problem. Stefanoni is an employee of the police. She presents a prosecution interpretation. But she is the only one with access to all the results. There are results she (or perhaps more broadly the prosecution) decided not to present to the court. But the missing results might aid the defence, the defence should have access to all the results, and decide which are relevant for themselves.

The electropherograms are not the results produced by the machine. They are a graphical representation produced by manipuating the results as such they are an interpretation. By allowing only the EPG from Stefanoni in the record one allows only the prosecution interpretation. (See for instance the difference between the EPG in the original record and that on the CD provided to C&V.) To stetch an analogy, this is a bit like allowing a description of a photograph, and limiting discussion to the description, but not allowing the defence to see the photograph.

The comment about not allowing the defence access to the data 'at home' to manipulate is a bit like saying that the defence are allowed to look at a photograph but not allowed to use a magnifying glass in case they see something the prosecution did not. The data is not single use. Any number of copies can be produced and the defence should have opportunity to scrutinise as closely as they wish (in a non destructive manner), any evidence and not just trust the police to have found exonerating information.

This is eloquent. It is precisely what Berti the Carabinieri DNA expert testified to in this trial.