Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Caper]

Mach you sound a bit like a 9/11 truther arguing that planes never hit the WTC, drolling over the minutia of every little news clip and word that was said...... while never stepping back to see just how stupid what you believe actually is.

Girl meets African drifter and decides to rape girls roommate. Completely unprecedented. We could post you 10 links of different proven false confessions... given in high pressure situations... and even low pressure situations.

You want innocent people that got themselves in trouble for getting details in their alibi wrong............. We got them too.

What do you have as far as precedence for what you believe? Nothing. I'm sure it's never happened in the history of the world.

Girl and new boyfriend, with no criminal history, spontaneously meet African drifter and decide to rape and murder girls roommate.

How completely and utterly stupid that is on it's face.

I don't know if it's hatred or a sense of Patriotism that allows you to cling to such a stupid belief. But it really is ridiculous.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey Machiavelli,
Thanks for giving the other point of view.
You write a lot about this case, have strong opinions, and always seem up for debate.

Why don't you start a blog as Mr. Sfarzo did and become a public figure promoting the pro-guilt side? I'd enjoy reading it, and I'm sure others would too...
L8, RW

Thant you. That might be a nice idea. But even here for today I son't have the time to write answers to the main topics brought.

I don't like very much blogs. But I maybe if I feel like and have time, it is possible I will found other means to communicate on the topic. I thought about videos (yes, putting my face on them!) and maybe some kind of written material. I'f worked already on a similar task on the Aldrovandi case. By now I don't have a plan and still don't know if that would be something worth doing. If I do something more, I certainly won't be autarchic and alone, I will organize work with other people.

 

[komponisto]

The formulas mentioned in the first comma are always valid for the whole 530 article. They must be always mentioned. The 530.2 paragraph depends entirely from the word "anche": it is a condition, saying that the same formulas, the same sentenza di assoluzione, must be pronounced also when there is doubt or contradictory evidence that the fact was committed, ot that the fact took place.
The 530.2 specifies that the formulas of 530 are valid also under the conditions of 530.2, as long as these conditions are specified and motivated. They are extended to 530.2.
Thus there cannot be a 530.2 acquittal without a formula mentioned in the 530.1 like "per non avere commesso il fatto" or "perché il fatto non sussiste".

Yes, this is surely right. However, Hellmann specifically said that they didn't use 530.2. So unless La Stampa put words into his mouth, the matter is pretty clearly settled.

The other statements are devoid of any real meaning. Hellmann is simply being diplomatic when he distinguishes the "verità processuale" from the "verità reale", and goes on about how the prosecutors did nothing wrong. It's a politeness formula, similar to the way people apparently always have to say that they "respect" a court decision no matter how stupid they think it is.

(Personally, I think this is kind of cowardly, but it appears to be the norm.)

It is evidently Hellmann's position that the "verità processuale" is that the evidence shows that Knox and Sollecito are innocent (530.1); if it makes you feel better, Hellmann has allowed you to cling to the possibility that the "verità reale" could be different (a sort of "real life 530.2" despite the legal 530.1).

 

[Caper]

Hey Machiavelli,
Thanks for giving the other point of view.
You write a lot about this case, have strong opinions, and always seem up for debate.

Why don't you start a blog as Mr. Sfarzo did and become a public figure promoting the pro-guilt side? I'd enjoy reading it, and I'm sure others would too...
L8, RW

Really you would like to read Machiavelli's blog?

Here it is.

Machiavelli:

Amanda lie. Amanda proven liar, she lie. She tell lie so I know she murder because she tell lie. She is proven to lie, so it is impossible she did not kill because she is proven to lie.

What a great blog that will be.

 

[Dougm]

Really you would like to read Machiavelli's blog?

Here it is.

Machiavelli:

Amanda lie. Amanda proven liar, she lie. She tell lie so I know she murder because she tell lie. She is proven to lie, so it is impossible she did not kill because she is proven to lie.

What a great blog that will be.

You already wrote it! It's done. What a time saver for him.

 

[Kaosium]

Why do you say "another"?
(which was the first?)

I do not suggest. As much as I do not predict.

It is a fact that Vecchiotti is not an impartial carachter;

It is a supposition and we're going to see how you support it. It might just be you're a conspiracy theorist too!

it is demonstrated that she stated false things in her report and her main "scientifical" arguments were specious or legally unacceptable;

Obviously not on the latter, being as they were accepted by the court; as for the former, let's hear them. What 'false things' were in the report? What main 'scientific' arguments did you find specious?

it is a fact she has a history of "not finding" DNA and letting suspects on the run who were proven murderers.

So in other words there's more than one court in Italy that attempted to use bogus DNA 'evidence?' Why does that not surprise me given that the prosecution is basically the sole arbiter of evidence standards?

It is also a fact that she has no relevant international publications and her only presence as an author in one scientific textbook is due to the fact the textbook was directed by Tagliabracci.

Halides1 gave a list of her publications above. I can't speak to the 'internationality' of the list, however she seems to be well published regarding DNA analysis, with experience especially germane to a rape-murder. How does that compare to Stefanoni's list of publications anywhere?

It is also a fact that most her co-authors in international works are the co-authors of Pascali and Tagliabracci.

There's a half-dozen to two dozen people listed as co-authors for each paper in Halides1's list, it would seem unlikely for her not to have second degree associations in that list in her field, which is not as well populated as some. How many are you relying on, and who are they?

It is also a fact that Vecchiotti and Pascali often appear together in little scientific conferences organized in Rome by Vatican organizations.

Waitaminnit! Now the Vatican is involved? Are they not the sworn enemy of the Masons?

How unusual would it be for DNA scientists in the Rome area to be at a scientific conference in Rome? Perhaps the organizers of the event invited the top people in their field to be at the conference? Did Stefanoni go uninvited? That might mean she's just a boot-licking hack!

It is a fact that Stefanoni - acting in Potenza as a court-appointed expert - fiercely accused Pascali of "not finding DNA" and thus producing a report favourable to the defendant DAnilo Restivo, a serial killer.

So in other words this isn't the first time Stefanoni was caught 'finding' DNA for the prosecution?

Incidentally, how many people were prosecuted and jailed for being the 'Monster of Florence' in Italy? Do you think any of them were actually guilty?

Stefanoni is actually in first place the "enemy" of Pascali; she destroyed his scientific report and cast worst possible light on his reputation.

You mean she got away with it that time?

Pascali, Tagliabracci and Vecchiotti are friends.

Based solely on the above?

The prosecution of Potenza, expecially the Procura Generale, who was infiltrated by masonic/mafious elements, and who appointed Pascali, did not earn the trust of the judges of Potenza themselves (there are long stories on each of these points). Currently the prosecution of Potenza are accused of having set a large conspiracy involving secret agents against other judges and magistrates.

The conspiracy widens! What exactly do you mean by any of that?

It is also a fact that Vecchioti, about 12 years ago was involved in another case where she was accused of being "not impartial" on the DNA identification of the (alleged) body of Andrea Ghira. She stated Andrea Ghira was dead, but it seems there are many who still doubt it. Ghira was a fascist terrorist and is the nephew of Vecchiotti's boss, the lady to whom Vecchiotti owes her place at Sapienza university, in the environment where she grew.

So twelve years later Ghira is still dead? So she got it right, despite the fact he was the nephew of someone she knew?

So I do not suggest specific things, but the word "impartial" (or "independent") and "Vecchiotti" do not fit in my mind.

The Bunny and Kitten Smear Machine has been working overtime! However, how is any of this even suspicious or relevant to her work for the Hellmann Court? Her report with Conti is pretty straightforward, and jibes with other literature in the field and the opinions of other forensic DNA experts. That's not something that can be said for Stefanoni's work, which didn't even approach the standards expected by the promoters of LCN/LT DNA analysis. You remember me telling you months before the release of the report that the DNA experts would be damning of Stefanoni's work? That wasn't because of my 'connections' to the Vatican or Freemasonry (I have both! ) but because it was science and I could look it up.

 

[TruthCalls]

They can bot be true.
There are in fact - red above - two possible moments for recording: the interrogation, 01:45, and the spontaneous statement at 05:54
They willfully did not tape it due to budged connstraints, this is true for the 05:54 and for the habitual praxis.
They forgot, or bttern did focus/ not worry about setting a recording because they (expecially Mignini) were concerned with other priorities, this is a further reason that only applies to the second one, the 05:54 recording.

So I see them as both true and consistent. Don't you?

Please let us know when you are pulling out leg and when you are serious... I actually thought you were serious for a moment.

Did not record due to budget constraints? How much does it cost to place a tape in the camera and hit record? And budget constraints didn't seem to be a factor when it came to recording phone conversations of Amanda, Raffaele and their families. I guess it's only a budget constraint when it suits them.

 

[RandyN]

So....... are you suggesting that, because of all this alleged behaviour, the Conti/Vecchiotti report is neither accurate nor reliable? Is that what you're actually suggesting? Because otherwise, everything you've written here is totally irrelevant. Yet if it is what you're suggesting, then you're basically accusing Vecchiotti in particular (and Conti by association) of fundamental perversion of justice and gross malpractice. Interesting.......

Oh, and remind me once again how this juicy theory of yours dovetails in with the wider conspiracy theory you're developing regarding Hellmann and Zanetti. I can't wait to hear this one - it seems like it will give the 9/11 truthers a run for their money.....

Oh...you don’t know this one?

It seems Zanetti likes to fly but he needs Conti or is it Vecchiotti to renew his physical certificate in order to be able to do so. This favor is repaid by employing C/V for every case where Zanetti presides. Or maybe its just that he trusts them to do an honest review???

Whereas theses 2 PhD’s yummymac lists... Novelli and to a lesser degree Garafano (I think he only helped write a book) have now stained whatever reputations they may have had by signing on and making ridiculous "conclusions" in this instant case. Novelli especially embarrasses himself ( and the whole scientific world noticed it ) by claiming tests he personally did that proved no contamination. But someone forgot to ask him if he remembered to turn up the machine to the same over clocked and never designed for level that Stefanoni used to find her magical data. The scientific community finds fault in his ability at confirming anything in Stefanonis one off methods. And to simply agree that her methods are sound shows either an agenda to sustain an illogical and non scientific finding or an ignorance of basic scientific method.

There remains the possibility that Novelli was also working with data never supplied to the defense.

Finally it was Garafano who called Stefanonis work "sloppy" especially during the crime scene collection and investigation part. Since he was not directly involved in the case I don’t really trust his opinion even in the book. I do not understand how anyone could use him to pin up the failed DNA work of this case.

Its a good thing Rudy was as sloppy and careless as he was. His conviction can be confirmed without the burden of relying on any of this careless DNA work.

That Novelli ever regains any reliable reputation in science again is about as likely as his being struck down by a meteorite straight to the head.

 

[RandyN]

Please let us know when you are pulling out leg and when you are serious... I actually thought you were serious for a moment.

Did not record due to budget constraints? How much does it cost to place a tape in the camera and hit record? And budget constraints didn't seem to be a factor when it came to recording phone conversations of Amanda, Raffaele and their families. I guess it's only a budget constraint when it suits them.

Psssst...ask how they were able to afford 30 thousand plus wire tapped phone conversations (that resulted in zero results btw) just in this case.

30 THOUSAND! Why Italy must be the richest country in the world....errrrr????Huh?

 

[LondonJohn]

.

Ok. This is false.
This can be demonstrated. Ask an Italian lawyer.

"per non avere commesso il fatto" does not mean 530.1, because the same formula is shared with 530.2 acquittals; there is no 530.2 acquittal that does not have also one of the two formulas "per non avere commesso il fatto" or "perchè il fatto non sussiste".

You've totally missed my point. When "per non avere commesso il fatto" is used with no qualifying factor, it then means that the acquittals are 530.1. Why, incidentally, do you think that the entire Italian media (who collectively are far better informed and more experienced than you - or I - in this matter) are in no doubt that these are 530.1 acquittals? Or maybe you could dig out a report from a reputable media source which is equivocal about whether the acquittals are 530.1 or 530.2.........

I have properly read. In fact he gave more than ne interview. Moreover, also the other judges of the court ave interviews.

http://www3.lastampa.it/cronache/sezioni/articolo/lstp/423553/

How do you see a newspaper title like this:

"Rudy sa chi ha ucciso e forse lo sanno anche i due ragazzi"

"I dubbi del presidente della Corte: «Prove contraddittorie.
Mi spiace, credo che l’omicidio Meredith resterà irrisolto».


How would you translate the word "dubbio" and the sentence "sorry, I think the murder will remain unsolved".
"unsolved" with 530.1?
And how do you put together "prove contraddittorie" (conflicting evidence) with "no evidence"? (conflicting evidence = 530.2)
And how do you see "the truth can be different", and "maybe they know what happened?"

Seriously?! Are you really being serious here?! You can't see how a 530.1 acquittal is entirely compatible with Hellmann stating that the murder may remain forever unsolved or that Knox/Sollecito might know what happened?! Are you not aware that Hellmann's court had the sole remit of examining the evidence against Knox and Sollecito, and to determine whether there was sufficient evidence against them (and them alone) to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Are you still working under the impression that Italian criminal courts are inquisitorial in nature, and are tasked with determining "the truth" behind a crime?

And how do you translate the sentence:
"Se fossi stato il pm avrei agito come hanno agito i pm del processo. Nessun errore da parte loro. Solo che abbiamo valutato diversamente le prove. Il codice stabilisce che basta un piccolo dubbio, purché ragionevole, per assolvere".

"If I were the public minister I would have acted just like the public ministers acted in the trial. There was no mistake by them. It's just that we assessed the evidence in a different way. The code establishes that a small doubt, albeit reasonable, shall be enough to acquit".

How do you see the mentioning of a "small doubt" if it's a 530.1 acquittal?

Ummmmm.....again, seriously?! Hellmann is saying that it's not the fault of the PM to have brought the case. And of course at one level (i.e. assuming that the PM in this case had total honesty and integrity...) this is absolutely true. In Italy (unlike in the UK or US for example) the prosecutor is not responsible for evaluating the evidence and weighing whether a case should be brought to court. Instead, the PM is essentially acting as an enhanced extension of the police. Thus it's entirely incumbent upon the various judges - GIP, GUP and others - to evaluate the case and determine whether there's a case to answer.

Ironically, Hellmann's statement about the PM is implicitly very critical of these judges. And that's clearly why he makes the barbed comment about his court looking at the evidence in a different way, and that only a small amount of doubt is required for acquittal. He is, in fact, suggesting that various courts before his should have thrown out the case, since it was abundantly clear that there was at the very least some reasonable doubt in this case almost from the very start. I'm sorry that you're not able to properly interpret Hellmann's words.

Maybe it is a 530.1 acquittal (or maybe on some of the charges, or maybe on only one of the defendants and 530.2 on the other, obviously possible). But I don't know. And you can't know.
However I don't see an evidence that it is a 530.1 based on the above interview which is describing something quite opposite.

I do know. They are 530.1.

I don't have any story to stick to.
You just don't know tha law, and I do.

It's you who are embarassing yourself with your ignorance and your boasting of a knowledge you don't have.

Oh right. Glad we sorted that out

Tell you what: let's park this topic until Hellmann's motivations report comes out. Then we'll all see who was right and who was wrong. I know I'm right, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.


PS: I'm somewhat intrigued as to your job or your lifestyle, since you often tend to post here from around midnight Italy time through til well after 3am (today your last post of the night was at 4.30am Italy time). Please not that this is not a criticism, just a point of intrigue. Maybe you're one of these people like Baroness Thatcher who only need one or two hours of sleep per night.....

 

[Diocletus]

That argument is quite pathetic and damages the appearence of your intellectual honesty. You are saying Stefanoni should not have spoken badly about Pascali because you think she has less academic titles?
I think Giuseppe Novelli and Luciano Garofano have a PhD, and they did find DNA too saying Stafanoni's findings were correct. I recall Novelli - who has credentials by which Vecchiotti is insignificant - saying he wished he could have in his laboratory the same working quality they had in Stefanoni's HQ.

No. I'm saying that maybe Stephanoni would have known what the hell she was doing if she was a real Dr. instead of a phony.

And as far as I know, Novelli and Garofano never looked for DNA anyway. They just looked at the lab procedures. All this tells us is that Novelli will say anything for a buck.

But guess what. Stephanoni's findings are useless, even if you can pay off ten experts to say nice things about her. The knife isn't the murder weapon because it wasn't washed (rye) and there is no blood on it. The clasp sat on the floor for 46 days and is, in fact, contaminated by innumerable DNA profiles. Any specific profiles said to be on these items is irrelevant.

Hellmann won't even have to use the C&V DNA discussion as the main reason for disposing of the phony DNA findings.

 

[Diocletus]

No. The Conti/Vecchiotti report is not accurate nor reliable itself, for intrinsic reasons. The report has several major flaws which appear even before having Vecchiotti and Conti as witnesses; the report contains reasonings on main points that are based on false data/assumptions, reasonings based on unacceptable logical/legal premises, huge logical holes, unsupported logical reasonings/conclusions, unacceptable arguments, and it also states findings that are contradictory with its further arguments and conclusions.

Wow. That sounds terrible. Did they also fake the tape that made the court laugh? Because this was what killed the prosecution's case.

Any detail you could add about your concerns with the report would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'm afraid that all you have is a bunch of nondescript, unsubstantiated charges.

 

[Didaktylos]

Machiavelli's latest lunatic ravings have caused my estimation of Judge Hellmann's competence and integrity to be raised even higher. Reading between the lines of what Mach said, it would seem that the Polizia Scientifica, particularly in very high profile cases, has a habit of finding DNA that was never there and that Vecchiotti has an exemplary track record of catching them out. Any objective observer could see full well that the DNA evidence against AK and RS stank like garum (which is why the defense requested a review at the first instance trial and renewed it for the appeal) - so when Hellmann agreed to the review and appointed Conti and Vechiotti to conduct it he had a very shrewd idea of what was going to be found.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. I'm saying that maybe Stephanoni would have known what the hell she was doing if she was a real Dr. instead of a phony.

She perfectly knew what she was doing.

And as far as I know, Novelli and Garofano never looked for DNA anyway. They just looked at the lab procedures. All this tells us is that Novelli will say anything for a buck.

This is another gratuitous offense that you make up against people just bcause you don't like what they say.

But guess what. Stephanoni's findings are useless, even if you can pay off ten experts to say nice things about her. The knife isn't the murder weapon because it wasn't washed (rye)

Nonsense. There is no rye, there is starch, which is in fact powder from lactice gloves.
Moreover, a kitchen knife is expected to be used again after being washed.

and there is no blood on it.

And this means nothing, there is no need for blood to have a piece of evidence. Meredith's DNA should not be found in Sollecito's apartment, especially not on objects that are possible involved in a crime or in the subsequent activities such cleaning.

The clasp sat on the floor for 46 days and is, in fact, contaminated by innumerable DNA profiles.

This is false. And it is plain nonsense.

Any specific profiles said to be on these items is irrelevant.

This is plain nonsense.

Hellmann won't even have to use the C&V DNA discussion as the main reason for disposing of the phony DNA findings.

If Hellmann didn't need Vecchiotti and Conti as expert witnesses, his verdict would be invalid, on a major procedural flaw. It is absolutely forbidden for a judge to order new evidence on appeal without needing it. In order to justify the appointing of a new report, the court have to show they absolutely needed it.

 

[Matthew Best]

Black is white.

Up is down.

Day is night.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli's latest lunatic ravings have caused my estimation of Judge Hellmann's competence and integrity to be raised even higher. Reading between the lines of what Mach said, it would seem that the Polizia Scientifica, particularly in very high profile cases, has a habit of finding DNA that was never there and that Vecchiotti has an exemplary track record of catching them out. ....

On what ground do you state "it was never there"?

I guess you know nothing about these cases.

 

[Diocletus]

Nonsense. There is no rye, there is starch, which is in fact powder from lactice gloves.
Moreover, a kitchen knife is expected to be used again after being washed.

My recollection is that there was testimony that the substance was rye starch. What is your proof that it is the same as what was on the gloves? Why would they have been rubbing their gloved fingers on the knife blade? So you think the knife was used to murder, then they washed it (sort of), and then used it to cut toast in the morning? Ridiculous.

And this means nothing, there is no need for blood to have a piece of evidence. Meredith's DNA should not be found in Sollecito's apartment, especially not on objects that are possible involved in a crime or in the subsequent activities such cleaning.

Assuming it was actually there, which I doubt, then nevertheless, there are innocent paths for small amounts of Kercher's DNA to get to Sollecito's. Now, if you had blood on the knife that would be different. But you don't.

If Hellmann didn't need Vecchiotti and Conti as expert witnesses, his verdict would be invalid, on a major procedural flaw. It is absolutely forbidden for a judge to order new evidence on appeal without needing it. In order to justify the appointing of a new report, the court have to show they absolutely needed it.

Oh, he'll use them alright. But first you'll hear him discuss the rye/no blood and the 46 days. Then he'll say that even assuming arguendo that something came out of Stephanoni's machine, then neverheless, it is unreliable per C&V.

 

[Diocletus]

This is another gratuitous offense that you make up against people just bcause you don't like what they say.

Do you think they had to pay extra to get him to say the line about it being more likely that a meteor would strike the courthouse?

 

[Diocletus]

She perfectly knew what she was doing.

That's too bad, because before I thought she was just a boob. Now, since you say that, I guess she has to be deceitful.

 

[Swimfish]

"One of the greatest examples of this type of self-serving, short-sighted insensitivity was, of course, that selfish bastard Jonas Salk. A polio vaccine?! Are you kidding me? A vaccine for (rich) people who don’t even HAVE the disease?"

Not an iota of Moore's previous perverse penchant for hyperbole in that.
No Sir.

PS:
Google or even Wikipedia will not substantiate Moore's strange exaggerations (hyperbole) and unnecessary slurs (hyperbole) toward Dr Salk in making his latest case for innocence of Knox.

Pilot the spittle in your voice is coming out so hard that you can't even see an obvious sarcasm. If you need to Google an example for understanding I recommend Jonathan Swift "A Modest Proposal". If its not in your home library it should be.