Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point is that Italy should comply with the echr. It's the law.
 
Diocletus said:
The point is that Italy should comply with the echr. It's the law.
Click to expand...

It's amusing how seriously Americans take the ECHR. To Europeans, it is somewhat of a joke, albeit an idealistic one.

AIUI They haven't even opened the envelope yet.

I'm gonna take my problem to the United Nations ~ Eddie Cochrane 'Summer Time Blues'
 
zotz said:
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?
Click to expand...

I forsee 20 men who were falsely accused by Mignini in the Monster of Florence case assembling together at Mignini's grave and sprinkling fine Italian wine over the grave. After first straining it through their kidneys. :mad:
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no "can of worms". The idea Stefanoni "fiddled" the DNA results is a fantasy. Does that mean the results for Rudy are also invalid? The sweater was also not collected until 18th December 2007. Rudy's DNA was found on the cuffs.

I guess that was due to corruption, and contamination from dirty gloves and DNA transfer from the door knob, too.
 
acbytesla said:
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

No, the real world according to Dr Tesla is the railroad one, as on tv.

Casey Jones, driver of the engine
Casey Jones, driver at the wheel
When you hear the tootin' of the engine
It's AC at the throttle of the Cannonball Express
Toot! Toot!
 
Machiavelli said:
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:
Click to expand...

Yes, Vecchiotti was a complete and utter crook, determined to pervert the course of justice.

No surprise Vecchiotti and Conti's laboratories were forcibly closed down. It had to happen sooner or later.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, Vecchiotti was a complete and utter crook, determined to pervert the course of justice.

No surprise Vecchiotti and Conti's laboratories were forcibly closed down. It had to happen sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Equal Opportunity Provocateur. Any response is titillating, no?
 
zotz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not so. As Dr. Stefanoni pointed out to the court, it was a most irregular request and would have set a precedent.

As an analogy, say you have a medical practitioner who certifies a defendant suffers from an ingrowing toe nail. Dr X submits his medical report and w/s; gives evidence from the stand. However, the other side, who had been there at the medical examination, decide after the event they want to see Dr X's notes.

Do you see how peripheral and off the wall the fixation is, say the court directs it is not necessary?
 
So just out of curiosity, Vixen. What evidence would convince you that Raf and Amanda were innocent?
 
Vixen said:
Not so. As Dr. Stefanoni pointed out to the court, it was a most irregular request and would have set a precedent.

As an analogy, say you have a medical practitioner who certifies a defendant suffers from an ingrowing toe nail. Dr X submits his medical report and w/s; gives evidence from the stand. However, the other side, who had been there at the medical examination, decide after the event they want to see Dr X's notes.

Do you see how peripheral and off the wall the fixation is, say the court directs it is not necessary?
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is about a defendant suffering from an ingrown toenail. Fact is, that it is perfectly normal for a defendant in a murder case to obtain the ME's notes.
 
Vixen said:
It's amusing how seriously Americans take the ECHR. To Europeans, it is somewhat of a joke, albeit an idealistic one.

AIUI They haven't even opened the envelope yet.

I'm gonna take my problem to the United Nations ~ Eddie Cochrane 'Summer Time Blues'
Click to expand...

So the echr doesn't count, is that what you think?

They have opened the envelope, and you can bet that if Knox's appeal was so easy to dispose of, then it would already have been dismissed along with thousands of other 2013 filings against Italy that have already been thrown out. Instead, it sits in a very small pile of 2013 applications that are still alive, most of which will result in some form of relief in favor of the petitioner.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It's amusing how seriously Americans take the ECHR. To Europeans, it is somewhat of a joke, albeit an idealistic one.

AIUI They haven't even opened the envelope yet.

I'm gonna take my problem to the United Nations ~ Eddie Cochrane 'Summer Time Blues'
Click to expand...

What's amusing is how seriously people take Mensa given the intellectual capacity of some of its members.

The ECHR has transformed the legal landscape of all Member States in both civil and criminal law. To take the example of the UK, the convention has become the essential focus for all Parliamentary legislation, the deliberations of courts, the policies and procedures of human resources departments with regard to conditions of employment and the policies and procedures of all local and national government agencies. It is one of the most important sources upon which the equality and fairness of treatment of all citizens is based.

You personally have benefitted from the convention at least to the extent that it provides a shield against discriminatory practices and ensures that anyone who must deal with you from an institutional perspective must be mindful of your human rights.

The convention, a joke for you but a vital component of society for everyone, caused the urgent re-evaluation of procedural law in the UK in the Cadder v HM Advocate case before the Supreme Court.

Of particular relevance to our case, the "post-Salduz" world is one in which every citizen of every member state lives in and every visitor is embraced by. Slowly but surely each legal system with a hangover judicial culture still leaning upon a pre rights based interpretation of justice, is being challenged, dismantled and rebuilt. Italy, for example has been compelled to adjust its constitution, pass new law and provide for the re-opening of cases, which previously were not permitted to be re-opened, as a result of the convention's influence, which has now acquired constitutional status. All Italian courts are under an obligation to interpret domestic law in a convention compliant manner. Egregiously, in our case, this did not happen, otherwise it would have been ended by Judge Matteini, but there is no question at all that the ECHR will side with Amanda Knox in the evaluation of her application.

Interestingly, because the murder case has resulted in an eventual acquittal, a more direct assault on the lack of convention compliance in Italy, despite the legal basis of the convention in that country will not now be made by the ECHR from our case, however, once the callunia application has been decided, I doubt very much whether there will be much scope left for police and prosecutors to conduct rogue interrogations again.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Not so. As Dr. Stefanoni pointed out to the court, it was a most irregular request and would have set a precedent.

As an analogy, say you have a medical practitioner who certifies a defendant suffers from an ingrowing toe nail. Dr X submits his medical report and w/s; gives evidence from the stand. However, the other side, who had been there at the medical examination, decide after the event they want to see Dr X's notes.

Do you see how peripheral and off the wall the fixation is, say the court directs it is not necessary?
Click to expand...

Can you point to a recent criminal case in the UK where there was similar denied discovery? What's the most recent case you can find? What is our procedure?
 
Vixen said:
There is no "can of worms". The idea Stefanoni "fiddled" the DNA results is a fantasy. Does that mean the results for Rudy are also invalid? The sweater was also not collected until 18th December 2007. Rudy's DNA was found on the cuffs.

I guess that was due to corruption, and contamination from dirty gloves and DNA transfer from the door knob, too.
Click to expand...

Really?

"On the other hand, it is not possible to comprehend the criteria adopted in the assessment of the positive quantification result for sample B and the negative result for sample C, given that the same result, “too low”, was obtained for both samples: that is, a value which must be considered not only below the sensitivity threshold of the Fluorimeter indicated by the manual (DNA concentrations equal to 0.2 ng/μl), but below 0.08 ng/μl, a value which the Fluorimeter detected for sample A."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom