Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

deontology and guidelines and authorities

Deontology is a code. This:



Codice Professionale di Deontologia Medica

In Italy it is issued by the Federazione Ordini dei Medici (FNOMCeO), which is an institution with a status acknowledged by the law and constitution:

Fnomceo

There is a document definded as "guidelines" also released by this organ, this is on publicity of medical information, which contains specifications concerning the application of some articles of the deontology code:

http://portale.fnomceo.it/PortaleFnomceo/downloadFile.dwn?id=60485&version=0

But the term "gudelines" is meant to be technical, not legal nor ethical, and in general "gudelines" means the series of protocols issued by medical societies. For example, by the Italian Society of Nephrology:


http://www.sin-italy.org/Governo_Clinico/2a_edizione.asp

or the European Society of Cardiology

http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/Pages/GuidelinesList.aspx

The term "gudelines" indicates something technical, not moral nor legal. Even in the use referred to the application of law articles (only two "guidelines"document including deontology content exist in Italy), as you see, the term "gudelines" expresses the primary technical aspect of the application derived by jurisprudence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Deontology is a code. This:



Codice Professionale di Deontologia Medica

In Italy it is issued by the Federazione Ordini dei Medici (FNOMCeO), which is an institution with a status acknowledged by the law and constitution:

Fnomceo

There is a document definded as "guidelines" also released by this organ, this is on publicity of medical information, which contains specifications concerning the application of some articles of the deontology code:

http://portale.fnomceo.it/PortaleFnomceo/downloadFile.dwn?id=60485&version=0

But the term "gudelines" is meant to be technical, not legal nor ethical, and in general "gudelines" means the series of protocols issued by medical societies. For example, by the Italian Society of Nephrology:


http://www.sin-italy.org/Governo_Clinico/2a_edizione.asp

or the European Society of Cardiology

http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/Pages/GuidelinesList.aspx

The term "gudelines" indicates something technical, not moral nor legal. Even in the use referred to the application of law articles (only two "guidelines"document including deontology content exist in Italy), as you see, the term "gudelines" expresses the primary technical aspect of the application derived by jurisprudence.

Do you acknowledge that Amanda successfully sued over the release of this information?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A propos of nothing.......

Knox and Sollecito were NOT "cokeheads". They were not regular cocaine users, let alone addicts. There is apparently some evidence that Sollecito used cocaine once, but no more than that. There is no evidence that Knox ever used cocaine. No evidence of cocaine use was presented in the trial, and no evidence of cocaine use was found by the police or prosecutors during the investigation.

Anyone who says otherwise is either dissembling to suit an agenda, or is somehow honestly mistaken (although I'll go with the former explanation in this respect...).

I'd even go further and say that since the guilt or innocence of Knox and Sollecito hinges on hard data like the time of death and the computer evidence, attacking their character by making up slurs like that doesn't even have the excuse of being relevant if it were true.

It's ethically suspect to say the least, and it isn't even an intelligent argument to try in the first place.

 

[Supernaut]

Coming from a family containing a judge in its ranks as well as having a partner who will likely be one some day as well as having his and his peers character and powers of considered reason to draw upon ....

Wow! I'm impressed. You don't need to resort to appeal to authority after all - you are authority! And modest with it!

I've changed my mind - the Italian courts are a model for the world to follow, and Amanda and Raff are guilty! Guilty! GUILTY!.

 

[RoseMontague]

A propos of nothing.......

Knox and Sollecito were NOT "cokeheads". They were not regular cocaine users, let alone addicts. There is apparently some evidence that Sollecito used cocaine once, but no more than that. There is no evidence that Knox ever used cocaine. No evidence of cocaine use was presented in the trial, and no evidence of cocaine use was found by the police or prosecutors during the investigation.

Anyone who says otherwise is either dissembling to suit an agenda, or is somehow honestly mistaken (although I'll go with the former explanation in this respect...).

I guess I was under the impression that calling somebody like Amanda who has had no history of cocaine use a cokehead was acceptable in certain quarters. Just don't call a lady with miraculous hearing the "miracle ear lady" or a park bench bum well, a "park bench bum".

 

[Katody Matrass]

a bit of Quintavalle OT

Returning after weekend I see Quintavalle was brought up, I'm delighted

From the reaction in certain circles it's obvious how touchy that subject is.
And rightfully so. Massei's treatment of that story is very symptomatic - by clever omission of Volturno and selective treatment of the worker's testimony he arrives at a nice and believable narrative. Just from reading the report you would never spot any inconsistency (I guess it is not the only place he uses such a tactic).
Yet anyone aware of Volturno's testimony spots serious problems instantly (even when he can't admit seeing them )

It's a touchy subject for some because Massei opened a clear vulnerability in his verdict by including Quintavalle. It's an interesting question, why he decided o do it anyway;
He needed him badly because of total lack of clean-up evidence, thats one.
He also needed him to get at least a sole instance of Amanda's lie "proven" - she said she was sleeping.
Last thing that comes to my mind is that maybe it was a better prospect then having half of the main witnesses shot down for obvious mis-truths. With Kokomani out, Quintavalle out, what his left with is an impressionable old lady and homeless serial witness Toto - not a very reliable crew.

Anyway, the explanation for Quintavalle's inconsistencies we've seen yesterday still can't hold, as katy_did and others have clearly shown.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I guess I was under the impression that calling somebody like Amanda who has had no history of cocaine use a cokehead was acceptable in certain quarters. Just don't call a lady with miraculous hearing the "miracle ear lady" or a park bench bum well, a "park bench bum".

Vilification of the defendants is a psychological reaction for the intense cognitive dissonance -the belief in guilt is very strong yet lack of strong evidence is jarring.
They are already guilty because they are drug addicted, promiscuous, lying, manga reading, herpes infected, cartwheel spinning narcissists. Believing that way it's much easier to accept the shabby evidence as sound and unconvincing witnesses as rock solid.

 

[RoseMontague]

Returning after weekend I see Quintavalle was brought up, I'm delighted

From the reaction in certain circles it's obvious how touchy that subject is.
And rightfully so. Massei's treatment of that story is very symptomatic - by clever omission of Volturno and selective treatment of the worker's testimony he arrives at a nice and believable narrative. Just from reading the report you would never spot any inconsistency (I guess it is not the only place he uses such a tactic).
Yet anyone aware of Volturno's testimony spots serious problems instantly (even when he can't admit seeing them )

It's a touchy subject for some because Massei opened a clear vulnerability in his verdict by including Quintavalle. It's an interesting question, why he decided o do it anyway;
He needed him badly because of total lack of clean-up evidence, thats one.
He also needed him to get at least a sole instance of Amanda's lie "proven" - she said she was sleeping.
Last thing that comes to my mind is that maybe it was a better prospect then having half of the main witnesses shot down for obvious mis-truths. With Kokomani out, Quintavalle out, what his left with is an impressionable old lady and homeless serial witness Toto - not a very reliable crew.

Anyway, the explanation for Quintavalle's inconsistencies we've seen yesterday still can't hold, as katy_did and others have clearly shown.

You may be correct in your analysis, Katody. One way to approach a problem is to pretend it does not exist. However, if I were still leaning towards guilt, I would prefer to address such issues with an at least somewhat possible counter argument. Now that this particular issue is outlined in great detail in the appeals it just does not seem reasonable to pretend it is not there.

 

[LondonJohn]

I guess I was under the impression that calling somebody like Amanda who has had no history of cocaine use a cokehead was acceptable in certain quarters. Just don't call a lady with miraculous hearing the "miracle ear lady" or a park bench bum well, a "park bench bum".

I won't have that!! Toto Curatolo is a fine, upstanding citizen of Perugia, who made a sensible and informed decision to have no fixed abode, to sleep on park benches for the previous eight years, to grow an enormous matted beard, and to spend his days and evenings wandering around a square and a basketball court where drugs were frequently dealt.

He was going above and beyond the call of civic duty in coming forward, and the fact that he claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito at the basketball court between 9.30pm and around midnight (which directly conflicts with the prosecution's narrative of the case) is surely just a small and insignificant issue. What's important is that this reliable and upstanding man says he saw Knox and Sollecito near the basketball court that night, and they claim they were in Sollecito's apartment that night. Therefore Toto is right and Knox and Sollecito are lying. Surely it's obvious!

 

[Justinian2]

I'd be tempted to let it rain 40 days and 40 nights, were I Poseidon or God.

There are, however, a couple of good things in favor of holding back the rain. The Massei report didn't disguise the truth, which should alone be enough to set AK and RS free. Also, there is a minority, albeit too small, that rails about the injustice, thinks for themselves, and tries to take it in their hands to let the truth be known.

I think the false evidence of the knife is the primary reason people aren't sure AK and RS are innocent. Also, people don't know that the Tod is actually about 9:30 +/- :30

Too many cop shows on TV that make the cops, lawyers and judges always right. Ha!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

A propos of nothing.......

Knox and Sollecito were NOT "cokeheads". They were not regular cocaine users, let alone addicts. There is apparently some evidence that Sollecito used cocaine once, but no more than that. There is no evidence that Knox ever used cocaine. No evidence of cocaine use was presented in the trial, and no evidence of cocaine use was found by the police or prosecutors during the investigation.

Anyone who says otherwise is either dissembling to suit an agenda, or is somehow honestly mistaken (although I'll go with the former explanation in this respect...).

This is slander from a source that is not considered important enough to warrant a response.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the conad store

I am doubtful that the conad store in question was even the closest one to Raffaele's apartment. I also find it odd that Amanda would supposedly go there with her boyfriend of only six days so often that the store owner would recognize them.

 

[Dan O.]

I saw from Google a Conad store was on the road between Amanda's and Raffaele's places. I don't know for sure if this was Qunitavalle's store but the testimony talks about the Conad store being on Raffaele's street.. The address of the store Raffaele frequented may be visible on one of the receipts found in his apartment.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I am doubtful that the conad store in question was even the closest one to Raffaele's apartment. I also find it odd that Amanda would supposedly go there with her boyfriend of only six days so often that the store owner would recognize them.

IIRC the store was on the way between his and her place. But at the time the inspectors visited it Amanda and Raffaele were all over the media already for almost two weeks. Perhaps it helped the owner recognize her in the police photos. Unfortunately it also makes his later story unbelievable.

 

[Justinian2]

Coming from a family containing a judge in its ranks as well as having a partner who will likely be one some day as well as having his and his peers character and powers of considered reason to draw upon, my "conjecture and opinion" is that you and Chris are blowing nothing but smoke.

(eek)

 

[Danceme]

Here's something interesting... according to Chris Mellas, Amanda does not know the Brazilian woman who has written a book called "Walking with Amanda" in which she claims to have befriended Amanda in prison.

That's pretty crazy, sounds like someone trying to cash in by using her name.

Wow! I'm impressed. You don't need to resort to appeal to authority after all - you are authority! And modest with it!

I've changed my mind - the Italian courts are a model for the world to follow, and Amanda and Raff are guilty! Guilty! GUILTY!.

Wow Supernaut, you sound so flabbergasted at what I said you must have really ***t your pants then when Chris C wrote this whopper,

"1 judge in your family? I come from a monster sized family. 17 aunts and uncles. I have one Judge and one PD amongst my Uncles and atleast 2 lawyers amongst my 60+ first cousins."

But hey, you must have missed that one.

You have my sympathies and condolences.

That is a classic appeal to authority.

I descended, on both sides of my family, from the fat bastard himself (William the Conqueror) - the guy that started the court system. So take that! My appeal to authority is bigger (and fatter) than your appeal!

I feel completely shot down now, wow just wow Justinian

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you acknowledge that Amanda successfully sued over the release of this information?

Amanda sued Fiorenza Sarzanini for publishing her personal diary containing private information in a book without permission.
Amanda was successful in obtaining a damage award, but was not successful in preventng the book from being be printed and sold on the publisher's catalogue. The book is still on bookstores shelves.
You can purchase it here:
http://www.ibs.it/code/9788845262180/sarzanini-fiorenza/amanda-gli-altri.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The HIV information was leaked

I spoke with several physicians about the HIV testing incident. One who was familiar with Italy’s medical system pointed out that there were likely to be differences between the United States and Italy. However, the consensus was that it would be quite unusual to inform a patient about a positive ELISA test and that if this were done, the patient would be counseled about it and told that there was a chance that it was a false positive. The reason that the results of the ELISA are generally not disclosed is that it only takes about a week or two to obtain the follow-up results. No one at this board or any other has documented (as opposed to asserted without proof) that Amanda was counseled.

Moreover, to allow this information to become public is unconscionable. Three reporters, John Hooper, Jonathan Martin, and Barbie Nadeau describe this information as a “leak” and one indicates that the leak came from an investigator. ILE apparently avoided being prosecuted, but I still think that ILE has some explaining to do.

 

[Machiavelli]

The lawsuit for Sarzanini's book has zero relation with medical ethics.

 

[Machiavelli]

However, the consensus was that it would be quite unusual to inform a patient about a positive ELISA test and that if this were done, the patient would be counseled about it and told that there was a chance that it was a false positive.

This is precisely what was done, as Amanda herself says. Nobody told her she was "HIV-positive" as far as what she reports. She was told that she had to do a second kind of test because the first was positive.

The reason that the results of the ELISA are generally not disclosed is that it only takes about a week or two to obtain the follow-up results. No one at this board or any other has documented (as opposed to asserted without proof) that Amanda was counseled.

It is not possible to keep a test result undiclosed to the patient by the Italian law, whatever the test is.
I don't know if you are clinging entirely on "consuelling". You must understand that a public health counsel session may last six minutes.
If you want to assert that something was done wrongly, its you who have to bring documentation. As far as things are known there is no reason to assume nothing less then regular took place.

Moreover, to allow this information to become public is unconscionable.

Who is the person who "allows"? There is only one person who wrote of this story, Amanda on her diary.
Then, Fiorenza Sarzanini accessed the investigation file and published her diary.

Three reporters, John Hooper, Jonathan Martin, and Barbie Nadeau describe this information as a “leak” and one indicates that the leak came from an investigator.

Oh well if John, Martin and Barbie say that ("an investigator" - anonymous), you can take it as a proof, can't you? Aren't you a scientist?

One person published Amanda's text, this person is Fiorenza Sarzanini. She - with shared responsabilito of her newspaper - is the only person who made the diary page public, the only who may have committed a kind of violation.