Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli.

I am so tired of this incessant mantra of yours, regarding the raw data and its "was needed, wasn't needed" nonsense.

Let's get it straight, and hopefully put this non sequitur logic to rest.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that V did NOT need the raw data to demonstrate to HERSELF that the interpolation of the data was JUNK.

V needed the data to demonstrate to THE COURT why the interpolation was junk. In court cases experts often need to get nonsense data revealed not because the expert needs the data but because the expert needs to discredit the evidence in the most conclusive of ways to the layman, one of whom is the Judge.

Yet you still don't seem to get it. I couldn't care less about why Vecchiotti could need or not need the data, or why she thought she wouldn't need the data.

(btw, what I think is there was no scientific reason for her to need or not need the data, she didn't need the data because she actually didn't need any information at all, her work was just fake, it was a fraud; I also think she didn't want the raw data, simply for the same reason why the defence didn't request them during the Hellmann trial; but let aside my interpretation of events for a moment, and let's focus on facts).

The reason why Vecchiotti doesn't want the data is a non-topic to me, I start from a non-assumption about that, I set aside speculations on that first, they are not part of the assumption.

What I am interested into, instead, is the fact that Vecchiotti's report has an assumption about negative controls as a key structural element to draw some conclusions, which is a reasoning in spectacular contradiction with the assumption that the raw data would be of no interest for her conclusions.

This is not the only one, it is just one of the elements from which we can deduce that Vecchiotti's work was manifestly fraudulent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, since you're mesmerized by the negative control issue that you have fabricated, I suggest that you forget the whole thing.

In that case, Stefanoni's results are still bunk, because of 1) clown-like crime scene processing, 2) failure to quantify or conduct morphology on a sample before amplifying, and 3) failure to generate a consensus profile of an LCN sample.

The negative control issue proves to the rest of the world that Stefanoni is a crook, but you're free to continue believing that it's fine to hide data from defendants.

The negative controls were deposited during the hearing of Oct. 8. 2008, and are in the records at the preliminary judge chancellery in Perugia.

Stefanoni didn't hide any data.

Your suggestion to "forget the whole thing" about Vecchiotti's use of negative controls is just delightful.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yet you still don't seem to get it. I couldn't care less about why Vecchiotti could need or not need the data, or why she thought she wouldn't need the data.

(btw, what I think is there was no scientific reason for her to need or not need the data, she didn't need the data because she actually didn't need any information at all, her work was just fake, it was a fraud; I also think she didn't want the raw data, simply for the same reason why the defence didn't request them during the Hellmann trial; but let aside my interpretation of events for a moment, and let's focus on facts).

The reason why Vecchiotti doesn't want the data is a non-topic to me, I start from a non-assumption about that, I set aside speculations on that first, they are not part of the assumption.

What I am interested into, instead, is the fact that Vecchiotti's report has an assumption about negative controls as a key structural element to draw some conclusions, which is a reasoning in spectacular contradiction with the assumption that the raw data would be of no interest for her conclusions.

This is not the only one, it is just one of the elements from which we can deduce that Vecchiotti's work was manifestly fraudulent.

Truly, you must have everyone on ignore. This has been refuted time and time again. I do agree with one thing though.....

but let aside my interpretation of events for a moment, and let's focus on facts​

I agree.... your interpretation of events needs to be set aside so that facts can be talked about.

You are not following this thread, not engaging in dialogue. You are simply demanding that people accept what your say is true.

 

[Bill Williams]

The negative controls were deposited during the hearing of Oct. 8. 2008, and are in the records at the preliminary judge chancellery in Perugia.

Stefanoni didn't hide any data.

Your suggestion to "forget the whole thing" about Vecchiotti's use of negative controls is just delightful.

For heavens sake, Machiavelli, you have Stefanoni's own testimony (upthread) in 2011 that she did not do that. Why are you stuck in rewind?

 

[Machiavelli]

Why do you feel the need to lie, Mach?

(...)

I don't lie, I already attached quotes that show the truth.
Your quotes are well known documents, they don't change that.

 

[Numbers]

The economist seems to agree with you.

http://www.economist.com/news/europ...laws-italys-criminal-justice-system-innocente

Planigale,

Thanks for posting this link. The Economist article provides a good explanation of the mess the Italian authorities made of the prosecution of the case, with massive violations of the human rights of the defendants. But the article omits some of the violations and is incomplete in some aspects.

For example, IIUC, the calunnia conviction was based on evidence that was admitted to the criminal trial, although evidence obtained contrary to Italian procedural law is not to be used, according to CPP Article 191.

The entire issue of the violations of Italian law, including European Convention Articles, by the authorities in this case, cries out for an objective judicial review. Whether this review will be provided by the Marasca CSC panel or the ECHR remains to be seen.

ETA: Italian CPP Articles violated in obtaining the coerced false statements regarding Lumumba from Amanda Knox include, but are not necessarily limited to, CPP Articles 63, 64, and 188.

 

[Machiavelli]

For heavens sake, Machiavelli, you have Stefanoni's own testimony (upthread) in 2011 that she did not do that. Why are you stuck in rewind?

You are getting confused again (negative controls are contained in raw data, but they can also be extrapolated, recorded and printed themselves alone).
I make reference to precise information.

 

[Machiavelli]

The only remaining issue. Why would Machiavelli lie about this on this forum? We are now waiting for Machiavelli to tell us why this does not say what it says. Why defend Stefanoni when she won't even defend herself? (At least she did not lie under oath, giver her that.)

Lie?
I quoted Vecchiotti herself testifying she had obtained from Stefanoni all what she had requested, saying Stefanoni provided "complete" cooperation and provided "ever more" documentation than what she was requested.
We also saw Vecchiotti's words saying she was not interested in raw data (something you admit yourself - albeit adding your own interpretation as you speculata about the reason why she wasn't interested).

What evidence do you need more tha Stefanoni didn't refuse anything?
(you even say Stefanoni's letter saying "yes" she would turn over raw data to Maori if the judge thinks so).

Does this evidence disturb you so much?
Given that you feel the need to deny it, to lie about it?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

Machiavelli, you have lost this argument.

I won it.

Actually, it is more than won: there was no fight to start with. You can't win the argument, but you can't even fight: your possibility to respons amounts to zero from the start. In fact, what you did was merely half-heartedly confirm what I said. Only you repeated it without noting the logical consequence, and adding some your interpretation about it.
Vecchiotti's inconsistency is glaring and annihilating every possible argumentation. All your rhetroric sorts out the only effect of emphasizing her fraud. The fraud is manifest. It's self-evident. There is in fact no argument that is needed if you have eyes.
There is simply nothig you can do to pick up Vecchiotti from the pit where she is stuck. She is a cheater.

 

[bagels]

I won it.

Actually, it is more than won: there was no fight to start with. You can't win the argument, but you can't even fight: your possibility to respons amounts to zero from the start. In fact, what you did was merely half-heartedly confirm what I said. Only you repeated it without noting the logical consequence, and adding some your interpretation about it.
Vecchiotti's inconsistency is glaring and annihilating every possible argumentation. All your rhetroric sorts out the only effect of emphasizing her fraud. The fraud is manifest. It's self-evident. There is in fact no argument that is needed if you have eyes.
There is simply nothig you can do to pick up Vecchiotti from the pit where she is stuck. She is a cheater.

Is it a common problem in Italy for corrupt officials working for the state to influence a wrongful verdict?

 

[carbonjam72]

I won it.

Actually, it is more than won: there was no fight to start with. You can't win the argument, but you can't even fight: your possibility to respons amounts to zero from the start. In fact, what you did was merely half-heartedly confirm what I said. Only you repeated it without noting the logical consequence, and adding some your interpretation about it.
Vecchiotti's inconsistency is glaring and annihilating every possible argumentation. All your rhetroric sorts out the only effect of emphasizing her fraud. The fraud is manifest. It's self-evident. There is in fact no argument that is needed if you have eyes.
There is simply nothig you can do to pick up Vecchiotti from the pit where she is stuck. She is a cheater.

Hi Mach, hoping you'll get a chance to respond to my question below, thanks -

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
Mach, if I recall correctly, you had some theory as to why Hellman acquitted Amanda and Raf, and that it had something to do with the masons? You had expressed your belief that a senior judge somehow pulled some strings and used 'machiavellian' maneuvers to insure Judge Hellman got the case. In short, that the acquittal was in the cards before the appeal trial even started, and was the result of a corrupted trial process.

You had also expressed that Spezi had been doing the mason's bidding since the early 1970s, in his covering of the MOF murders.

Is the Marasca/Bruno final acquittal also the result of the same mason related corruption? Is the March 2015 acquittal also the work of the Masons?

Or, perhaps the 2015 acquittals are the result of political pressure?

I understand you don't agree with Marasca's final acquittal verdict, but I'm curious what you think happened to achieve this result.

 

[Machiavelli]

Lol!

Vechiotti is Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine and Director of the laboratory of Forensic Genetics at Sapienza.

It really is about time you stopped making absurd fabricated statements about subjects you know nothing about.

Oh, I know very well what I am talking about.
Vecchiotti is also an employee of S.S. (struttura semplice) of Medicina Legale of La Sapienza (the place where autopsies are done).

The "laboratory of Forensic Genetics" is within the Department of Medicina Legale, in fact since 2008 she works at that Department (in 2007 she used to teach at another Department, a minor courts to college students of Orthopedic Techniques, in Latina, a little city south of Rome)

Since 2008 she belongs to Dipartimento di Medicina Legale (actually called Dipartimento di Scienze anatomiche, istologiche, medico-legale e dell’apparato locomotore – Sezione di Medicina Legale) of Università degli Studi “La Sapienza” of Rome.

The department of Medicina Legale consists in four buildings, that is four "sections". One of them is located at the Istituto di Medicina Legale, which was shut down entirely.
My recent information is that, as a consequence of this, the entire Department of Medicina Legale functionally doesn't exist any more as a unity, its structures at the moment have been split between other departments.

 

[Machiavelli]

What contradiction? Produce statements - actual statements - made by Vechiotti that are contradictory. You can't can you?

I did already.
Her court statements contradict her report.

I've quoted some of the court statements. You don't need someone to quote for you the report, do you?

 

[Kauffer]

The negative controls were deposited during the hearing of Oct. 8. 2008, and are in the records at the preliminary judge chancellery in Perugia.

Stefanoni didn't hide any data.

Your suggestion to "forget the whole thing" about Vecchiotti's use of negative controls is just delightful.

You mean Vechiotti could have consulted them? She only had to ask? Can we see them? Where are the 8th October 2008 records?

Vechiotti simply noted that the controls were not with the epgs and noted in testimony that they they should have been supplied. She further noted that she had asked for them more than once. The conclusions that she came to did not depend on them.

If you think her conclusions did depend on them, then cite directly from the Cand V report to identify the statements made that you believe are unsustainable through lack of evidence?

 

[Kauffer]

I did already.
Her court statements contradict her report.

I've quoted some of the court statements. You don't need someone to quote for you the report, do you?

Yes! Side by side, please.

Take a statement from testimony and put it up against a statement in the report to demonstrate the contradiction.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is what I have said many times - the discredited DNA results would not indicate guilt even if genuine. Mach, Vixen and the other faith-based posters are fond of claiming "there is no innocent explanation!" but this is another of their deluded claims.

Lol!

It's the other way around. The fact is that there is would be enough evidence of guilt beyond reasonabe doubt even without any DNA evidence.
Pieces of DNA evidence however also exist. They are not perfect, like all pieces of circumstantial evidence, but they are valid, genuine, working piece of evidence that contribute drawing a logical conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Kauffer]

Oh, I know very well what I am talking about.
Vecchiotti is also an employee of S.S. (struttura semplice) of Medicina Legale of La Sapienza (the place where autopsies are done).

The "laboratory of Forensic Genetics" is within the Department of Medicina Legale, in fact since 2008 she works at that Department (in 2007 she used to teach at another Department, a minor courts to college students of Orthopedic Techniques, in Latina, a little city south of Rome)

Since 2008 she belongs to Dipartimento di Medicina Legale (actually called Dipartimento di Scienze anatomiche, istologiche, medico-legale e dell’apparato locomotore – Sezione di Medicina Legale) of Università degli Studi “La Sapienza” of Rome.

The department of Medicina Legale consists in four buildings, that is four "sections". One of them is located at the Istituto di Medicina Legale, which was shut down entirely.
My recent information is that, as a consequence of this, the entire Department of Medicina Legale functionally doesn't exist any more as a unity, its structures at the moment have been split between other departments.

From wiki: the Italian entry is the same:

"Medical jurisprudence or legal medicine is the branch of science and medicine involving the study and application of scientific and medical knowledge to legal problems, such as inquests, and in the field of law. As modern medicine is a legal creation, regulated by the state, and medicolegal cases involving death, rape, paternity, etc. require a medical practitioner to produce evidence and appear as an expert witness, these two fields have traditionally been interdependent.

Forensic medicine, which includes forensic pathology, is a narrower field that involves collection and analysis of medical evidence (samples) to produce objective information for use in the legal system."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_medicine

Vechiotti is Professor of Forensic Medicine
Got it?

 

[bagels]

Lol!

The fact is that there is would be enough evidence of guilt beyond reasonabe doubt even without any DNA evidence.

Let me put this one together

1. Burglar's shoeprints surround murdered girl
2. Burglar's bloody handprint on pillow she was dragged onto
3. Burglar tells friend "I was there on a date then while on the toilet a left handed stranger came in and killed her"
4. Break-in involved a second story window climb above a climbable steel grate, with the window smashed by a large rock - Burglar previously found with stolen property from a burglary involving a second story window climb above a climbable steel grate, with the glass smashed by a large rock
5. ...? (mystery evidence here)
6. Therefore an American student is guilty.

 

[Kauffer]

Lol!

It's the other way around. The fact is that there is would be enough evidence of guilt beyond reasonabe doubt even without any DNA evidence.
Pieces of DNA evidence however also exist. They are not perfect, like all pieces of circumstantial evidence, but they are valid, genuine, working piece of evidence that contribute drawing a logical conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

When I asked you once why there is no evidence at all of Amanda in Kercher's room and why there are no shoeprints in blood belonging to Sollecito in the room proving that he walked out of the room after tearing off the bra, your ludicrous answer was that they both ran away immediately after the murder, presumably before Kercher had a chance to bleed all over them!

And that bizarro explanation was supposed to embrace your assertion that Amanda stabbed Kercher to death at close quarters.

They took no evidence away with them either - not the tiniest drop of blood.

Boy did those two run fast, eh?

 

[Bill Williams]

I won it.

Actually, it is more than won: there was no fight to start with. You can't win the argument, but you can't even fight: your possibility to respons amounts to zero from the start. In fact, what you did was merely half-heartedly confirm what I said. Only you repeated it without noting the logical consequence, and adding some your interpretation about it.
Vecchiotti's inconsistency is glaring and annihilating every possible argumentation. All your rhetroric sorts out the only effect of emphasizing her fraud. The fraud is manifest. It's self-evident. There is in fact no argument that is needed if you have eyes.
There is simply nothig you can do to pick up Vecchiotti from the pit where she is stuck. She is a cheater.

Wow. Why didn't you say all this to begin with.

You won because, well.... you won.

It's self-evident because it is, well.... self-evident.

She's a cheater because, well.... she cheated.

Stellar logic. I'm switching sides.