Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fine said:
__________________

Rose,

We know Stefanoni doesn't want to be there. Sometimes a court will accept a signed DECLARATION from a witness in lieu of in-person testimony. I wonder whether Judge Hellmann will accept a statement from Stefanoni in which she accepts the conclusions of the Expert Report. Period. In would be a gracious and charitable means for Stefanoni to escape the predictable, and shameful, I see London, I see France that she'll endure on the witness stand.

///
Click to expand...

She would have to be smart and her boss and the judge would have to let her take that option. I'll have to think about this one.
 
Kaosium said:
That's where Maresca will come in, I bet. The prosecution will stand back and let attack-dog Francesco do the dirty work, like they have for Alessi and then the 'very credible' sex-change bribery charges.
Click to expand...

Yes, great point. It could happen that the prosecution has Maresca do the dirty work.
 
RoseMontague said:
They are going to throw Stefanoni under the bus, platonov. That is my opinion and it has been my opinion from the beginning of the appeal. I also said that they would let Stefanoni defend her work on the stand. It is the attacking of Hellmann's experts that they will avoid, again my opinion. We shall see in a few weeks.
Click to expand...


She does deserve to be under that bus. I don't know if throwing her there is required. She was as RandyN noted fully involved and complicit. I guess the throwing comes when they say she is to blame and, hey, we're not scientists; how would we know her work was not correct?

When wrongful convictions occur it is very rare for the prosectors to either admit they were mistaken or be punished. That is likely to be the case here. Stefanoni and Mignini are in the most danger of facing punishment of some sort. I wish they all would face charges, at least have to return their merit badges! :p
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Yes, great point. It could happen that the prosecution has Maresca do the dirty work.
Click to expand...

I do agree that this is a possibility, based on past behavior. But this in itself raises an interesting issue, because in order to be effective Maresca would have to have substantial cooperation in advance from Stefanoni and likely the prosecution. I question whether this would happen. So, maybe the way this breaks out is that Maresca attacks the credentials of the experts, and the prosecution simply defends Stefanoni against the 10,000 arrows that have been launched her way. Maresca is the sword, and the prosecution the shield.

It seems perverse that Maresca would behave in this way given what has transpired, and you would think that at some point the Kerchers would wake up to the fact that they are trying to hurt innocent people.
 
Consistency in conspiracy theories.

Draca said:
She does deserve to be under that bus. I don't know if throwing her there is required. She was as RandyN noted fully involved and complicit. I guess the throwing comes when they say she is to blame and, hey, we're not scientists; how would we know her work was not correct?

When wrongful convictions occur it is very rare for the prosectors to either admit they were mistaken or be punished. That is likely to be the case here. Stefanoni and Mignini are in the most danger of facing punishment of some sort. I wish they all would all face charges, at least have to return their merit badges! :p
Click to expand...


Now I'm confused.

Frank S [the Oracle] said the cops planted the evidence - Randy N and others say its down to Stefanoni.

Many/most posters here made both claims at different times.

Now one might accept 2 + 2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 6 but please, pretty please .... pick one.
 
Kaosium said:
That's where Maresca will come in, I bet. The prosecution will stand back and let attack-dog Francesco do the dirty work, like they have for Alessi and then the 'very credible' sex-change bribery charges.
Click to expand...

Why would Maresca have the right to question Stefanoni on the stand? What would he ask her?
 
Rolfe said:
Oh wow. I've been reading that thread in the past few days, and I saw you come into it. I realised you were new, and giving these people some rational counter-arguments to their entrenched position. I also saw you were perfectly polite about it (if mildly snarky with the middle name thing).

So I wondered, as an observer, what would happen. Any open-minded forum should welcome such contributions, and be able to debate them rationally. But I'd heard that the PMF isn't like that, and bans dissenting voices on sight. In my book, any debate that does that is automatically lost (guess how many times I've been banned from homoeopathy forums....).

I also noticed posters on the PMF criticising this JREF thread for being nothing but a "FOAK" love-in, after a series of mass bannings. I wasn't paying much attention when the bannings occurred, but I know nobody on JREF gets banned for the opinions they present, or at least certainly not for arguing guilt in the Kercher murder case! I also note that there are quite a few "guilters" able to post here, it's just that they seldom do and when they do they don't have much of substance to contribute.

So if you've been banned from there, after what I read, then that to me is a huge confirmation of the position that the pro-guilt lobby is based on woo and prejudice, and can't stand up to reasoned debate.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I registered there last week (again, under another new alias) I did an innocous post that I put in here about the guilty attitudes of members of the prosecution, when faced with a more honest analysis of their evidence in the appeal.

And got banned forever...again...instantly

Anyway that's it for now, I think I'll toddle off and murder a vegetable. Anyone have any good tips for a weapon to use ???
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
Now I'm confused.

Frank S [the Oracle] said the cops planted the evidence - Randy N and others say its down to Stefanoni.

Many/most posters here made both claims at different times.

Now one might accept 2 + 2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 6 but please, pretty please .... pick one.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I asked you to do in this post?
 
Mary_H said:
Isn't that what I asked you to do in this post?
Click to expand...


(If you provide a link [I already had - platonov] to your previous questions, then I will know your answer is no.)
Click to expand...

How is it that recognizing or clicking on links is so difficult on this thread.

DNA analysis is a piece of cake but reading text or spotting links is a problem ?
 
Last edited:
It is truly something to watch the smear campaign being launched against Conti and Vecchiotti by the "idiots" (LJ's nickname for them is sticking in my mind!).

Where were these people before the results came out? Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention, but I don't seem to recall any wild protestations about the inadequacy of Conti and Vecchiotti's credentials back when Hellmann appointed them in December/January (formally in January, but IIRC it was known who they were going to be in December). That would have been the time to complain about the experts' "lack of experience", "library card" methods (since when did libraries become an instrument of derision?), "unworldly academic" nature, and so forth; as opposed to waiting until after you get a result you don't like, and thereby exposing the thoroughly disingenuous nature of your pretensions.

And observe the curious paradox the guilters have boxed themselves into: they claim that Conti and Vecchiotti are advocating standards of forensic work that are excessively high -- and to support this contention they argue that Conti and Vecchiotti's citations are somehow not rigorous enough. This sort of contradiction is such a transparent demonstration of motivated skepticism that it's almost pitiful.

Here, by the way, is The Machine on Carlo Torre:

I wonder if Andrea Vogt is implying that Vecchito is another Professor Torre e.g. an unworldly academic who is hired by defence lawyers to defend people who are clearly guilty.

Professor Torre is an amoral medical expert who has made money from playing devil's advocate in the courtroom. Apart from defending Sollecito, he has testified before on behalf of people who are clearly guilty of murder. For example, in the Cogne and the Erba murder cases. Fortunately, his testimony was rejected and the killers were convicted."
Click to expand...


I'll let pass that The Machine means "i.e." instead of "e.g." and "Knox" instead of "Sollecito" to concentrate on the more salient aspect of this comment, which is that, according to the psychology underlying it, anything and everything about people who disagree is bad. Carlo Torre can't just be an internationally respected scientist who, for some subtle reason that The Machine in Its wisdom could coherently explain, is mistaken in his opinion about how many people killed Meredith; no, he must be an intellectual prostitute so cynical in his avarice that he has no compunction about helping evil people to get away with horrendous crimes.

We see another example of the same mentality from Ganong, who wants to make sure we know that Le Journal du Dimanche is "fairly close to tabloid journalism" after it published an innocent little article about the negative effect of the Knox affair on Perugia tourism. An article that, mind you, took no position on the merits of the case, or even whether the dropoff was due more to fear of the "evil" students or of the overzealous authorities. So what was so objectionable about it? It was recommended by Candace Dempsey, a known innocence supporter.

So, just for fun, would anyone care to predict what these people will say in the event that the Hellmann court decides to acquit Knox and Sollecito? They've already been laying the groundwork: it was a Mafia conspiracy involving bribes by rich Seattlites of incompetent scientists and judges, and aided by amoral profiteers masquerading as prestigious pathologists, that just proved too much for even the most valiant efforts of the true heroes in this story, Patrizia Stefanoni, Edgardo Giobbi, and Giuliano Mignini.
 
Last edited:
'Lionel Hutz in a bonnet' - redux

komponisto said:
It is truly something to watch the smear campaign being launched against Conti and Vecchiotti by the "idiots" (LJ's nickname for them is sticking in my mind!).

Where were these people before the results came out? Maybe I just didn't pay enough attention, but I don't seem to recall any wild protestations about the inadequacy of Conti and Vecchiotti's credentials back when Hellmann appointed them in December/January (formally in January, but IIRC it was known who they were going to be in December). That would have been the time to complain about the experts' "lack of experience", "library card" methods (since when did libraries become an instrument of derision?), "unworldly academic" nature, and so forth; as opposed to waiting until after you get a result you don't like, and thereby exposing the thoroughly disingenuous nature of your pretensions.

And observe the curious paradox the guilters have boxed themselves into: they claim that Conti and Vecchiotti are advocating standards of forensic work that are excessively high -- and to support this contention they argue that Conti and Vecchiotti's citations are somehow not rigorous enough. This sort of contradiction is such a transparent demonstration of motivated skepticism that it's almost pitiful.

Here, by the way, is The Machine on Carlo Torre:




I'll let pass that The Machine means "i.e." instead of "e.g." and "Knox" instead of "Sollecito" to concentrate on the more salient aspect of this comment, which is that, according to the psychology underlying it, anything and everything about people who disagree is bad. Carlo Torre can't just be an internationally respected scientist who, for some subtle reason that The Machine in Its wisdom could coherently explain, is mistaken in his opinion about how many people killed Meredith; no, he must be an intellectual prostitute so cynical in his avarice that he has no compunction about helping evil people to get away with horrendous crimes.

We see another example of the same mentality from Ganong, who wants to make sure we know that Le Journal du Dimanche is "fairly close to tabloid journalism" after it published an innocent little article about the negative effect of the Knox affair on Perugia tourism. An article that, mind you, took no position on the merits of the case, or even whether the dropoff was due more to fear of the "evil" students or of the overzealous authorities. So what was so objectionable about it? It was recommended by Candace Dempsey, a known innocence supporter.

So, just for fun, would anyone care to predict what these people will say in the event that the Hellmann court decides to acquit Knox and Sollecito? They've already been laying the groundwork: it was a Mafia conspiracy involving bribes by rich Seattlites of incompetent scientists and judges, and aided by amoral profiteers masquerading as prestigious pathologists, that just proved too much for even the most valiant efforts of the true heroes in this story, Patrizia Stefanoni, Edgardo Giobbi, and Giuliano Mignini.
Click to expand...


I will just post this link.

You do know that PMF or Wiki or the cheerleader or S Moore or the baby Jesus don't get to judge the case & also that this is JREF and the thread subject is the Knox trial.

Seriously this fixation with another site is 'interesting' but if these guys bother you so much why not mask your IP and sign up over there. Like most sites I guess you will have to abide by the MA


Speaking of links - heres a post I made a long time ago on this issue :)
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
I will just post this link.

You do know that PMF or Wiki or the cheerleader or S Moore or the baby Jesus don't get to judge the case & also that this is JREF and the thread subject is the Knox trial.

Seriously this fixation with another site is 'interesting' but if these guys bother you so much why not mask your IP and sign up over there. Like most sites I guess you will have to abide by the MA


Speaking of links - heres a post I made a long time ago on this issue :)
Click to expand...

So Platonov, what would make you accept reasonable doubt?
 
komponisto said:
<snip>So, just for fun, would anyone care to predict what these people will say in the event that the Hellmann court decides to acquit Knox and Sollecito? They've already been laying the groundwork: it was a Mafia conspiracy involving bribes by rich Seattlites of incompetent scientists and judges, and aided by amoral profiteers masquerading as prestigious pathologists, that just proved too much for even the most valiant efforts of the true heroes in this story, Patrizia Stefanoni, Edgardo Giobbi, and Giuliano Mignini.
Click to expand...

I think they will say it's a testament to the juggernaut of a PR campaign that bought the minds of the some of the leading journalists in the media today. 'Tis pity, but it happens. Sigh.
 
I was wondering if the prosecution or defense were asked if there were any objections to the appointments of the independent experts.
 
Like St Peter eh ?

Mary_H said:
And the third.
Click to expand...



OK Mary H - here is the actual LINK.

Just click on it :)

But London John, Kaosium, halides1, Rolfe or komponisto wont thank you for it as their lack of response has been very conspicuous ;)
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
OK Mary H - here is the actual LINK.

Just click on it :)

But London John, Kaosium, halides1, Rolfe or komponisto wont thank you for it as their lack of response has been very conspicuous ;)
Click to expand...

I don't want the link. I want the questions. If you want people to answer your questions, you have to make it simple and specific. No one is going to do any extra work in order to answer somebody else's questions.

In the meantime, I asked you some questions. Specifically, I was hoping you would give your opinion about how the lab reports for the bra clasp and the knife ended up being essentially inadmissible as evidence against the defendants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom