Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Machiavelli]

The highlighted part is where Machiavelli retreats intellectually.

He is supplied with copious quotes from Judge Massei's report (page 421 an others) and then simply denies that Judge Massei says what he says.
(...)

Massei simpky does not say what you say.

You are making up. It's that simple.

You should quote something to back what you say, but you can only quote material which does not back your claim.
You also fail to understand that it would be impossible for you to find something that backs your claim in the Massei motivations. Because your claim is about a topic which did not belong to the trial.

There is in fact no argument to make with you: because you have none. I don't retreat anywhere, because there is no argument to retreat from. I can't respond to an argument which doesn't exist. That has no logical structure.
Your claims are totally unsubstantiated. They are just rhetorical proclaims devoid of logic. They have no logical content, they point to nothing.

On Massei "findings", on allegation about Stefanoni's lies, etc. You make up meanings and "facts" that don't exist.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Kids" is a word which doesn't belong to Massei's document.
(a court of Assise tries adults, not kids).

Also, there is no "history of being good"; there is no moral judgement of "being good" or "being bad" on a person in a legal document.

There is actually no assessment on the personality of a defendant in a criminal trial at all, unless limited aspects are explicitly required and discussed in court for specific legal purposes.

For which specific legal purpose did Mignini ask Amanda about the party in Seattle where rocks allegedly were thrown?

Machiavelli - I know why you are avoiding answering Mary_H's question, because you really do want the subject changed...

But could you be a good chap and at least give it a go? What was Mr. Mignini trying to prove by bringing up the issue of the noise citation back in Seattle?

Be a good man.

 

[Bill Williams]

The highlighted part is where Machiavelli retreats intellectually.

He is supplied with copious quotes from Judge Massei's report (page 421 an others) and then simply denies that Judge Massei says what he says.
(...)

Massei simpky does not say what you say.

You are making up. It's that simple.

You should quote something to back what you say, but you can only quote material which does not back your claim.
You also fail to understand that it would be impossible for you to find something that backs your claim in the Massei motivations. Because your claim is about a topic which did not belong to the trial.

There is in fact no argument to make with you: because you have none. I don't retreat anywhere, because there is no argument to retreat from. I can't respond to an argument which doesn't exist. That has no logical structure.
Your claims are totally unsubstantiated. They are just rhetorical proclaims devoid of logic. They have no logical content, they point to nothing.

On Massei "findings", on allegation about Stefanoni's lies, etc. You make up meanings and "facts" that don't exist.

This note of Machiavelli's is exactly what I am talking about. Machiavelli is simply making declarations. He offers not one citation, nor one quote, nor anything at all.

Machiavelli is in full blown, intellectual retreat mode today.

I have provided the citations where fair minded people can make up their own mind. In response Mach simply claims things.

Good for him. His running shoes specialize in running backwards.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The first trial was notable for its lack of discovery

Quick recap please. IIRC C&V eventually received the data after Hellmann forced Stefanoni to release them.

What frustrates me about these conversations is that truth and justice take a back seat to legal technicalities. Why should it be so critical exactly when a request was made? If the trial isn't over why not allow more data and be more sure of the verdict?

The defense teams did not have the EDFs during the first trial, making it unfair. Whatever Conti and Vecchiotti did or did not receive is irrelevant to that point.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wow. Let me get this straight. The prosecution tries to enter evidence at trial that Knox and Sollecito have pathological personality traits which would lead to murder - traits which include the proclivity to engage in sex-games with unwilling partners, and/or escalate normal household tensions (not keeping the bathroom toilet clean, that sort of thing).....

But it's incorrect!
First - most important - the prosecution never entered evidence about psychopatology. To enter evidence about psychopatology, it would require to call an expert witness on psychopatology. And the prosecution did not do that. Neither the defence or the judge did that.
The topic psychopatology or personality profile was simply never opened.

The calling of witnesses about the defendant's behavior instead is normal and due in any trial. But such evidence is NOT the same thing as a clinical assessment about one's personality; it does not lead to "findings" of facts concerning personality or psychopatology (mostly it does not, certainly it does not lead to that necessarily) and obviously does not support alleged non-stated clinical "findings". If you find evidence that a defendand indulged to knife-carrying or had a habit of committing burglaries or car thefts, this is behavioral elements but not an assessment about personality.
A finding of fact on personality is something totally different.

Moreover, there was not even an element asserting Knox's "proclivity" to commit crimes (certainly not as a matter of personality profile). And the elements brought in at the trial are there - the testimonies of Meredith's British frirends are there - they were never disproven or discredited by Massei.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't have that specific transcript (May 20.) but I think I can access it.
However, it should be pretty unnecessary to have a transcript when you have credible news reports (like Il Corriere and La Nazione) which are unequivocal and were never denied.

I explained why I wanted the transcript. A journalist, even a good one, who is unaware of the nuances may transcribe something that was not actually said and this is a good example where it would be easy to go wrong, the point being subtle, as was the one I offered before. I bet others would appreciate seeing the 20 May 2011 transcript if you can get hold of it.

 

[Bill Williams]

But it's incorrect!
First - most important - the prosecution never entered evidence about psychopatology. To enter evidence about psychopatology, it would require to call an expert witness on psychopatology. And the prosecution did not do that. Neither the defence or the judge did that.
The topic psychopatology or personality profile was simply never opened.

The calling of witnesses about the defendant's behavior instead is normal and due in any trial. But such evidence is NOT the same thing as a clinical assessment about one's personality; it does not lead to "findings" of facts concerning personality or psychopatology (mostly it does not, certainly it does not lead to that necessarily) and obviously does not support alleged non-stated clinical "findings". If you find evidence that a defendand indulged to knife-carrying or had a habit of committing burglaries or car thefts, this is behavioral elements but not an assessment about personality.
A finding of fact on personality is something totally different.

Moreover, there was not even an element asserting Knox's "proclivity" to commit crimes (certainly not as a matter of personality profile). And the elements brought in at the trial are there - the testimonies of Meredith's British frirends are there - they were never disproven or discredited by Massei.

Whatever.

It is noted, though, the other things you avoid answering or any citation you may wish to provide, other than your wild opinions.

Full retreat mode. My fear, though, is that this is what is driving the renewed persecution of two innocents. Good for you Machiavelli.

 

[Machiavelli]

This note of Machiavelli's is exactly what I am talking about. Machiavelli is simply making declarations. He offers not one citation, nor one quote, nor anything at all.

Machiavelli is in full blown, intellectual retreat mode today.

I have provided the citations where fair minded people can make up their own mind. In response Mach simply claims things.

Good for him. His running shoes specialize in running backwards.

The "quotes" you are offering us are a bowl full of thin air. There is nothing of your claim in that. But you have the courage to say that I don't bring up arguments!

What citation is possible, on a statement asserting something that doesn't exist? You make a claim that Massei made a "factual finding" that Knox and Sollecito are psychopatologically normal.
Your are the one who makes a claim about a finding.

And you ask me to make a citation.

I could make many citations from testimonies, like Meredith's girlfriends Filomena etc. and other evidence from the trial about Knox's personality. But I'm not goint to talke about that because we are talking about YOUR claim! You are the person who claims there is a finding in Massei's document.
YOU should just substantiate and prove the claims that you make.

 

[anglolawyer]

Quick recap please. IIRC C&V eventually received the data after Hellmann forced Stefanoni to release them.

What frustrates me about these conversations is that truth and justice take a back seat to legal technicalities. Why should it be so critical exactly when a request was made? If the trial isn't over why not allow more data and be more sure of the verdict?

The defense teams did not have the EDFs during the first trial, making it unfair. Whatever Conti and Vecchiotti did or did not receive is irrelevant to that point.

I don't think this answer quite deals with Grinder's enquiry.

It is pretty clear from all discussions and from contributions from those in the know like Charlie that the EDFs have never been seen by the court, the defence or the independent experts. What C-V report is the receipt, first, on 29th April 2011 of a CD-Rom bearing graphs showing peak heights and then on 11th May 2011 of an email attaching graphs showing peak heights and areas. It is crucial to understand though that no digital information was provided, even though the media was digital. That is to say, what they got were like PDFs of the graphs showing certain numbers (peak heights and areas) not the underlying digital data that the interpretative software operates upon.

No doubt, I shall be corrected if wrong. Halides is right that the EDFs never surfaced either at prelim or the first instance trial.

 

[MDDVS]

Was a professional psychological report on Knox and Sollecito ever produced during the trial?

 

[Machiavelli]

Whatever.

It is noted, though, the other things you avoid answering or any citation you may wish to provide, other than your wild opinions.

Full retreat mode. My fear, though, is that this is what is driving the renewed persecution of two innocents. Good for you Machiavelli.

You are retreating, like a mussel in the shell, since it is YOU who are making a claim about a "finding" in Massei's report. About a "demonstration" that Stefanoni withhold evidence.
And you are unable to back the claim - instead of admitting that you are making assertions which are just totally wild, which you are unable to substantiate in any way, you seem you like more to pretend that you are putting 'questions' and others don't answer.
You said Massei made a 'finding' and stated that Knox and Sollecito are psychopatologically normal. Apart from your total ignorance about the legal implications of what you a talking about, you, and you alone are the one who should quote and prove your statement.

 

[anglolawyer]

Was a professional psychological report on Knox and Sollecito ever produced during the trial?

There was defence evidence about the effect on Knox of the interrogation but not, as far as I am aware, as to whether either of them was psychotic.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are retreating, like a mussel in the shell, since it is YOU who are making a claim about a "finding" in Massei's report. About a "demonstration" that Stefanoni withhold evidence.
And you are unable to back the claim - instead of admitting that you are making assertions which are just totally wild, which you are unable to substantiate in any way, you seem you like more to pretend that you are putting 'questions' and others don't answer.
You said Massei made a 'finding' and stated that Knox and Sollecito are psychopatologically normal. Apart from your total ignorance about the legal implications of what you a talking about, you, and you alone are the one who should quote and prove your statement.

Whatever.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe some pictures would help. The free induction decay is a set of data in the time domain (like a musical note or chord being struck and dying away), and the Fourier transform converts the data into the frequency domain (like musical tones). Notice how the spectrum changes when one applies different window functions: exponential, Gaussian, shifted Gaussian, sine, and shifted sine. Different kinds processing improves different qualities of the spectrum, such as signal to noise, resolution between peaks, or reduction of artifacts. However, if someone handed you a paper copy of a frequency spectrum, you would have an extremely difficult time to go backwards to the original free induction decay and then process the data set differently. This is only offered as an analogy with respect to EDFs and egrams.

Thanks for adding that link Chris. I understood your analogy earlier. I just thought it was funny, because most lay people would be thinking "huh???" after reading your precise mathematical analogy. For some reason, it just cracked me up.

 

[Bill Williams]

I could make many citations from testimonies, like Meredith's girlfriends Filomena etc. and other evidence from the trial about Knox's personality. But I'm not goint to talke about that because we are talking about YOUR claim! You are the person who claims there is a finding in Massei's document.
YOU should just substantiate and prove the claims that you make.

Yet those people are not fact-finders, are they? And if their testimony was so persuasive, then why did Judge Massei say that Knox and Sollecito were basically normal people?

You are incredible. Well, not so much really. When you get into retreat mode, all you can do is to reverse the insult! Wow, that's what I call rhetorical style!

Like I say, my fear is that your opinions and natterings on this matter are what will eventually hold sway in Italy.

Masonic conspiracies, illuminated decks on cottages that aren't really illuminated (pay no attention to that street lamp!), experts on sleep issues who do their clinical studies based on their clients writings!, not to mention admitting that the PLE were suspecting Knox and Sollecito almost from the beginning yet you dare to not call the suspects at interrogation!

My fear is that your opinions are the ones which are going to carry the day with this case. Which is why I'm glad you are writing so much.

 

[Grinder]

Mach maybe you missed this:

Mach I don't think you have explained what Massei was doing when he wrote the following:

That said, it should be noted above all that both defendants have no criminal record, no pending suit (with regard to the non-applicability of the limit to the granting of generic [extenuating circumstances] in Article 1 letter F bis [421] Law 24.7.2008 No. 125 to crimes committed in an earlier period, cf. Cassation 10646/2009). Other than their personal use of drugs, no unbecoming behaviour of the same [defendants] was demonstrated to have been carried out to the detriment of others. No witness testified to violent actions, or to aggressions-intimidations carried out by the current defendants to the detriment of anyone at all. To the contrary, there were even shown to be circumstances in which as much one as the other, besides diligently and profitably undertaking their studies in the manner that they were expected to do as students (Raffaele Sollecito was on the point of graduating and Amanda Knox was working profitably and regularly in the classes she was attending at the University) proved themselves to be available with others (Raffaele Sollecito, on the evening of 1 November, was meant to have accompanied Jovana Popovic to the station) and made the effort of taking on work (Amanda Knox worked in the evenings in the pub of Diya Lumumba) which was added to the effort required by their studies and attending lessons. These circumstances seem significant ex Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code.

Why did he discuss the kids (short way of saying Amanda and Raf) in this way. Isn't this summing up their characters?

What exactly is Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code?

How does this differ from Bill's contentions?

 

[Dan O.]

Required or requested?

Google translation is ambiguous on this. Only one Italian source that used a different wording was translated as "requested". All the others come out as "required".

Looking back at the C&V report itself, in the meeting of 2011-04-05, several of the consultants suggested that the electronic files be requested which C&V reported. On 2011-04-29 C&V receive a CD ROM from Dr. Stefanoni containing electropherograms. But the information was incomplete and on 2011-05-10 C&V receive an email from Dr. Stefanoni with information related to peak heights.

 

[anglolawyer]

Google translation is ambiguous on this. Only one Italian source that used a different wording was translated as "requested". All the others come out as "required".

Looking back at the C&V report itself, in the meeting of 2011-04-05, several of the consultants suggested that the electronic files be requested which C&V reported. On 2011-04-29 C&V receive a CD ROM from Dr. Stefanoni containing electropherograms. But the information was incomplete and on 2011-05-10 C&V receive an email from Dr. Stefanoni with information related to peak heights.

Like I just posted above, but minus the information that what was sent with the CD Rom and email was not the EDFs.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mach maybe you missed this:

Mach I don't think you have explained what Massei was doing when he wrote the following:



Why did he discuss the kids (short way of saying Amanda and Raf) in this way. Isn't this summing up their characters?

What exactly is Article 133 paragraph 2 number 2 of the Criminal Code?

How does this differ from Bill's contentions?

It is not going to be good enough now, Machiavelli, simply to be in full blown retreat.

Grinder is on your case. Best to wave the white flag, my friend. Grindet's agreeing with me - that's how bad your retreat is going!!!!

 

[acbytesla]

Yet those people are not fact-finders, are they? And if their testimony was so persuasive, then why did Judge Massei say that Knox and Sollecito were basically normal people?

You are incredible. Well, not so much really. When you get into retreat mode, all you can do is to reverse the insult! Wow, that's what I call rhetorical style!

Like I say, my fear is that your opinions and natterings on this matter are what will eventually hold sway in Italy.

Masonic conspiracies, illuminated decks on cottages that aren't really illuminated (pay no attention to that street lamp!), experts on sleep issues who do their clinical studies based on their clients writings!, not to mention admitting that the PLE were suspecting Knox and Sollecito almost from the beginning yet you dare to not call the suspects at interrogation!

My fear is that your opinions are the ones which are going to carry the day with this case. Which is why I'm glad you are writing so much.

Don't you get it Bill? Machiavelli is employing a long used argumentative technique. It isn't one that is taught in any debating class, but it has been effective on the uneducated, corrupt and ignorant throughout history.

I know, because it has this odor associated with it I remember from when I was a kid. I'm from Sioux City, Iowa originally. Sioux City isn't known for a lot, mostly they do a lot of agricultural processing, including corn, wheat and livestock. In fact as a kid, the largest stockyards in the world were in Sioux City. You could smell the sweet methane stench for miles. That is why I can detect it so easily from reading Machiavelli's posts. They reek of the same scent that I traveled 1500 miles to get away from.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance.....baffle them with bull ◊◊◊◊!!!!!

Right Machiavelli?? Goebbels?? Mussolini?? Mignini?? Whatever your name is.