Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Who knows really? We had a taste from an article released shortly after the verdict in March from that Italian lady reporter, whom I think Amanda had sued over disclosures from her diary that the reporter lady had obtained through theft, or as Mach would say, "through proper channels".

In any event, I don't get the sense that they are looking to be diplomatic here. They put an end to a nearly 8 year court process, and reportedly were visibly angry at the absurd arguments being made to them, such as scientifically impossible clean-ups.

I think all they have to do is rely on Conti and Vecchiotti to toss the DNA evidence. And then highlight the farcical parade of tramps, feeble minded, and charlatans that Mignini trotted into a courtroom, and say none are reliable.

Big question for me, is how they come to terms with the calunnia conviction. It's their last chance to own that conviction, before ECHR fixes their wagon. I gone on record saying I believe they will vacate that conviction for calunnia, and I don't mind being wrong, i'm sticking to it.

Anyway, can't be much longer now, can it?

Conti and Vecchiotti are shamed, disgraced, excoriated, debunked, deprecated, disabused, dumped.

 

[bagels]

Conti and Vecchiotti are shamed, disgraced, excoriated, debunked, deprecated, disabused, dumped.

much like the prosecution

 

[Kauffer]

Do you agree the DNA found on the sweater is also therefore suspect, for the same reasons?

The 46 day DNA evidence is probably all unreliable. Makes no difference to the guilt of Guede.

Is that when the sweater was found?

 

[Kauffer]

Conti and Vecchiotti are shamed, disgraced, excoriated, debunked, deprecated, disabused, dumped.

You don't like their work on the case?

Why specifically?

This bit is good:

"It is not explicitly indicated in the report (Stefanoni's) whether the environment where the sampling was carried out (particularly the work bench surfaces as well as all the equipment present) was preemptively decontaminated with suitable substances (e.g. sodium hypochlorite or similar), whether sterilized instruments were used, and the method by which these were sterilized. With regard to the samples taken from the exhibit, it is not specified whether these were performed using sterile swabs, with changes of gloves for each individual sample, and with the wearing of lab coats and masks by the operatives."

 

[Kauffer]

Take your pick.

Ok then. Balding?

 

[TruthCalls]

Do you agree the DNA found on the sweater is also therefore suspect, for the same reasons?

Sure. I say throw everything found on the 18th away. Now we are left with indisputable evidence of Guede, and only Guede, without the nonsensical "items of evidence" such as the bra clasp or Luminol prints that aren't blood and don't contain Meredith's DNA to distract people.

 

[Machiavelli]

You really need to stop parsing little tidbits that no one else in the world cares about, and start focusing on the bigger issues, like: what the Italian justice system can learn from this case and how it can make itself better.

The fact that Vecchiotti is a fraud is a little tidbit?

 

[Bill Williams]

The fact that Vecchiotti is a fraud is a little tidbit?

"The fact"? You are mostly good at expressing things as only your own opinion. Not here. This is simply sloppy on your part, and goes against what you said upthread - that you would refrain from saying directly - that some of the judges are criminals!

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli ends up trashing Judge Nencini, by implying that it doesn't matter if the glove contaminatef the clasp, or if the floor contaminated the clasp, or if the floor contaminated the glove which contaminated the clasp.....

The point for him is as suspect-centric as even the Nencini analysis Machiavelli rejects!!!!!

Machiavelli should return to the big ticket conspiracy where the Masons mediated a hijacking of the Italian courts, using American media money.

Yet he has to accuse Italian judges of crimes to do that. No wonder he's stuck accusing Vecchiotti of things, taken out of context.

Making up what other posters said, misattributing statements to people and building straw men has always been your main activity.
You can wake up now, if 1/100th of the trip you are making up misattributing things to me was true, I would have told three or four stories almost as many as Amanda Knox. But not1/100 of what you attribute to your interlocutors belongs to them. Just like the story of Guede as Knox's pimp. You are trapped into a solipsism. You use my name in your posts where you talk with yourself.
I think you have a very serious problem of inability to listen to other subjects. This is nit specific with me, it includes other subjects, such as Vecchiotti. Evidently you prove yourself unable to acknowledge what is really written in her report.

 

[Diocletus]

The fact that Vecchiotti is a fraud is a little tidbit?

Fraud? She's more like Captain Obvious.

 

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
I think it is exactly the same thing. Insofar as it contains that very implication within itself: that they were not intellectually honest.
However I note that in fact there is a slight difference: if we want to analyze fine implications of the SC wording, in fact the Court says even a bit more than that, since it does not link strictly their not being "fully honest" to the fact of not testing alone. There is a kind of juxtaposition rather than an exclusive causal link expressed. The pointing out that they should have been honest on that decision bu they weren't, by my reading of this passage, does not depend only on the fact that they made an undue decision about not going forward with the testing, but also in more general terms to the way how they took the decision, the non transparent way how they justified and presented their decision through the trial.



I think I did not ignore the premise. But the conclusion cannot be different than pointing out that the experts are not to be regarded as intellectually honest. There isn't really a possible second meaning in this comment by Chieffi court, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise and I can't see an alternative purpose on the part of SC to make this note, but as a pointing out that the experts were dishonest.​

I agree with this. I am constantly in wonder how someone can nitpick words and twist them into desired meaning. On the other hand, I have no doubt that some in his community, accepting the illogic of the premise posed by the ISC, will read it as "dishonesty" when phrased as "should do something in a intellectually honest way" (paraphrased). So they hop from not liking it that scientists exercised scientific judgment, to calling them dishonest. And using that in arguments - often conspiratorial.

Now, to get him to look at the big picture will be kind of difficult in that his eyes are blinded by seeming anger. It seems even more than suspect-centric bias. How do you get them to see the irrationality of finding fault in scientists doing their work in a scientific manner? And then calling them dishonest?

Good luck for the big picture.

If you have a different interpretation about what SC meant to say, then what is it?
If you think judges are not calling C&V "dishonest", then, in you opinion,
why do you think Cassazione makes a comment on what "fully honest" experts would have done? (as opposed of what they did).

And, do you really think the court refers to what they "decided scientifically" (or isn't there maybe something wrong with the way they decided, didn't you check whether they failed to respect an agreement they subscribed to, or falsely attributed their decisions to others...)?

 

[Diocletus]

If you have a different interpretation about what SC meant to say, then what is it?
If you think judges are not calling C&V "dishonest", then, in you opinion,
why do you think Cassazione makes a comment on what "fully honest" experts would have done? (as opposed of what they did).

And, do you really think the court refers to what they "decided scientifically" (or isn't there maybe something wrong with the way they decided, didn't you check whether they failed to respect an agreement they subscribed to, or falsely attributed their decisions to others...)?

I wouldn't worry about it. C&V will be fully rehabilitated when we get the 5th section's opinion.

 

[Machiavelli]

Fraud? She's more like Captain Obvious.

So obvious she doesn't need raw data with negative controls, right?

(the negative controls which are an argument fundamental to a main part of her deductions...)

 

[Machiavelli]

I wouldn't worry about it. C&V will be fully rehabilitated when we get the 5th section's opinion.

Vecchiotti had her laboratory shut down meanwhile, because they kept rotting corpses in the corridors.

The Chieffi sentence is definitive and valid.

 

[Diocletus]

So obvious she doesn't need raw data with negative controls, right?

(the negative controls which are an argument fundamental to a main part of her deductions...)

Turns out she really didn't need them. All she had to do was shown the clown video.

She should have had them, though. For that matter, there would have been no need for C&V if stefanoni and the prosecution had been forthright and honest the first time around.

 

[Diocletus]

Vecchiotti had her laboratory shut down meanwhile, because they kept rotting corpses in the corridors.

The Chieffi sentence is definitive and valid.

Chieffi "sentence"? Are you referring to the callunnia sentence that no one cares about?

Other than that, chieffi didn't decide anything.

 

[zotz]

The fact that Vecchiotti is a fraud is a little tidbit?

The Conti-Vecchiotti report was the turning point of the case and no one on your side has ever been able to discredit it. Your main skill is sophism but that works only sometimes with judges and never with scientists. Stefanoni wanted to hide her raw data and you champion the right of prosecutors to suppress evidence. Putin would probably agree with you. I think your arguments are fascist.

The Allies are in Rome and Il Duce is dead. Our terms are unconditional surrender. Your cause is lost.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fraud? She's more like Captain Obvious.

So obvious she doesn't need raw data with negative controls, right?

(the negative controls which are an argument fundamental to a main part of her deductions...)

So obvious that the Italian Supreme court acquitted the pair.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have no story to tell. It makes no difference to say the gloves picked the dirt from the clasp or from the floor in the room, since the clasp got dirty itself from the floor, so dirt is from the floor anyway. But this goes for DNA too. The gloves picked their dirt from inside the room. There us actually no reason to assume that the DNA was transferred on the metal hook from the gloves, such assumption would be itself not substantiated, but it doesn't change the picture, because that would indicate only son abundant presence of Sollecito's DNA in the room, which would be incriminating.

Machiavelli ends up trashing Judge Nencini, by implying that it doesn't matter if the glove contaminatef the clasp, or if the floor contaminated the clasp, or if the floor contaminated the glove which contaminated the clasp.....

The point for him is as suspect-centric as even the Nencini analysis Machiavelli rejects!!!!!

Machiavelli should return to the big ticket conspiracy where the Masons mediated a hijacking of the Italian courts, using American media money.

Yet he has to accuse Italian judges of crimes to do that. No wonder he's stuck accusing Vecchiotti of things, taken out of context.

Making up what other posters said, misattributing statements to people and building straw men has always been your main activity.
You can wake up now, if 1/100th of the trip you are making up misattributing things to me was true, I would have told three or four stories almost as many as Amanda Knox. But not1/100 of what you attribute to your interlocutors belongs to them. Just like the story of Guede as Knox's pimp. You are trapped into a solipsism. You use my name in your posts where you talk with yourself.
I think you have a very serious problem of inability to listen to other subjects. This is nit specific with me, it includes other subjects, such as Vecchiotti. Evidently you prove yourself unable to acknowledge what is really written in her report.

Read your post Machiavelli, then tell me again that I am making up things about you.

 

[TruthCalls]

So obvious she doesn't need raw data with negative controls, right?

(the negative controls which are an argument fundamental to a main part of her deductions...)

I find this whole line of reasoning interesting if not disingenuous. There is plenty of documentation that C&V requested the raw data files multiple times and yet Stefanoni didn't turn them over. Now you wish to turn the tables and somehow suggest C&V were dishonest and claimed they didn't need the raw data files? It's clear they were eventually able to discredit the DNA "evidence" even without the raw data files because some many other precautions and procedures were violated, but that doesn't mean they didn't want the raw data.

Perhaps the conversation should shift towards why Stefanoni repeated refused to comply with requests from C&V as well as the court to turn over the raw data files, which would include data from the negative controls supposedly run. THAT would be a legitimate discussion. Attempting to discredit C&V, just as the pro-guilt crowd has tried to do to every expert who has weighed in on this case, is dishonest and pointless.