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

[RoseMontague]

Ah, well I could have written something shorter along the lines of this:

"Any argument that sound can be "amplified" in a canyon is laughably wrong, utterly at odds with even basic scientific knowledge, and demonstrative of rather nasty confirmation bias".

But I thought that a fuller explanation with reasoning might be more appropriate. However, your response above - particularly the first sentence of it of course - shows me that you're probably not interested in the practice of closely-reasoned arguments, and perhaps prefer bald, declarative statements with no supporting evidence. You've amply shown me that I should have run with the pithier but unsupported paragraph instead. My mistake.......

Too me it is common sense. Inside a room with the window closed, even with the front door open which is debatable, the sound has to go from her room take a right turn at the hall way, out the front door, up several stories and through double pane widows. If she heard a scream from this room, it would not be the loud scream she described. I don't believe it is possible. If she heard something it would not be the scream she described, it would be barely audible.

The defense should have the right to test this since it is accepted by the court as fact. That should not even be a matter of debate. Unless you already know what the answer would be and you are trying to frame somebody.

 

[Bill Williams]

What? Vogt was in the courtroom, when Mignini made the argument, in the 2008 preliminary hearing and in the 2011 trial. What has the Telegraph to do with that? She is supposed to report events, what she deems important about events, not to quote the Telegraph.

Case closed then. This is precisely what we are critical of A Vogt in doing. Passing on Mignini's arguments as if they were gospel. Ignoring everything else.

And always interpreting court decisions as Mignini would interpret them - ie. in the best light for the prosecution.

So, for instance, when Machiavelli (1 or 2) says the ISC has ruled on something, what we get from Machiavelli is the prosecution's interpretation of what the ISC said.

But Machiavelli is perhaps allowed to do this. The real question is - why is it that when Ms. Vogt reports we essentially get a summary of what the prosecution still believes.... even on points they have lost?

For instance - Massei essentially says, "I was there", refers to Knox at Raffaele's, and not as a confession or as an attempt to get her parents to lie for her.

It's not Massei who claims otherwise - it's Machiavelli who claims that and in so doing misrepresents even the convicting judge.

But back to the point - the real headscratcher is - why would Ms. Vogt also claim this?

 

[Mary_H]

You need to re-write your statement. You should include:
1. the medical staff of the Umbria Health Care system, those who performed the HIV tests and told Knox the results.

If what you say is true, then I agree, they were corrupted.

2. Knox's defence attorneys; those who - allegedly - did not complain about illegal or fake HIV tests, nor about alleged 05:45 interrogation by the prosecutor (as she tells in her book)

Here we go again -- if nobody complains that I beat them up, then it's okay that I beat them up.

3. the State of Italy, namely its consitutional powers (the Judiciary, expressed by the CSM and the Supreme Court)
4. all those countries, international organization and powers who signed treaties, enforce them and deal with with such Italian constitutional powers.

It is true, in my mind, that if toddlers misbehave, the parents are responsible. But we are not talking about toddlers, are we?

 

[RoseMontague]

You need to re-write your statement. You should include:
1. the medical staff of the Umbria Health Care system, those who performed the HIV tests and told Knox the results.
2. Knox's defence attorneys; those who - allegedly - did not complain about illegal or fake HIV tests, nor about alleged 05:45 interrogation by the prosecutor (as she tells in her book)
3. the State of Italy, namely its consitutional powers (the Judiciary, expressed by the CSM and the Supreme Court)
4. all those countries, international organization and powers who signed treaties, enforce them and deal with with such Italian constitutional powers.

I think I will stick with my original statement:

Those corrupt Italian cops, prosecutors, and judges. And their little dog, too.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, it hardly counts if the prosecuted is doing the prosecuting!

It is not, in none of this cases.
Anyway, their prosecutions are real, and it counts.

Then you should not be so quick to assume the prosecutions against the people you mentioned above will not at some point legally not exist any more.

I am not quick. I am slow, and very patient.

So now there WAS a HIV test?

Actually there were two.

Do you know how many violations of WHO guidelines you just accused the Capanne medical staff of?

Yes I know: zero. But even if health organization guidelines were violated (which I do not concede) that would be no crime, and certainly no evidence of corruption, nor of a fake HIV test, nor of police or prosecution involvement. Nothing to do with the claims that your friends make.

Actually if there was any serious guideline violation, meaning health standard were not followed, that would be evidence of a furthrr defence failure, because actually this would be a matter for attorneys to fill a complain at the Health Care system organs. Which they did not do.

 

[Mary_H]

What? Vogt was in the courtroom, when Mignini made the argument, in the 2008 preliminary hearing and in the 2011 trial. What has the Telegraph to do with that? She is supposed to report events, what she deems important about events, not to quote the Telegraph.<snip>

She doesn't have to quote them. But she should know (and report) as much as they do.

 

[Machiavelli]

If what you say is true, then I agree, they were corrupted.

If you have evidence they committed a crime.
Which - let's guess - you don't have.
Actually, I think you don't even know their names or who they are. In your mind, they are corrupted a priori, independent from who they are.

Here we go again -- if nobody complains that I beat them up, then it's okay that I beat them up.

No, it's that if the defence attorney did not complain, he is guilty of a very severe misbehaviour which would cause him to be disbarred. And that would be a compulsory proceeding. One cannot complain about be beaten up, AND be defended by that defence attorney at the same time.

It is true, in my mind, that if toddlers misbehave, the parents are responsible. But we are not talking about toddlers, are we?

I think you are talking about the Supreme Court of Cassazione of Rome, and about the Supreme Council of Magistrates, which, you imply, are probably grown up, and don't have parents.
And logicall, you are talking about all those international powers who act in cooperation with them.

 

[Mary_H]

It is not, in none of this cases.
Anyway, their prosecutions are real, and it counts.

So did Mignini's. So will Napoleoni's.

I am not quick. I am slow, and very patient.

Actually there were two.

Can you provide records?

Yes I know: zero. But even if health organization guidelines were violated (which I do not concede) that would be no crime, and certainly no evidence of corruption, nor of a fake HIV test, nor of police or prosecution involvement. Nothing to do with the claims that your friends make.

They violated many. But you are right, it is no crime, as they are only guidelines and not enforceable. They are ethical violations, though, which most physicians take seriously, as they should. And ethical violations = corruption.

Don't tell me the doctors took Amanda's diary and gave it to Sarzanini, too!

Actually if there was any serious guideline violation, meaning health standard were not followed, that would be evidence of a furthrr defence failure, because actually this would be a matter for attorneys to fill a complain at the Health Care system organs. Which they did not do.

Oy vey.

 

[Machiavelli]

This makes it even more shameful that Vogt did not tell the whole truth in the 2011 article, but left readers to infer that Knox's statement was important evidence against her.

Sensationalism, yellow journalism, pure and simple. Andrea's been living in Italy too long.

I guess Andrea Vogt may understand Italian language and Italian law better than you. She is probably not, however, an expert in that field. She may not be not able to assess what will be important or non-important and anyway that's not her task. It doesn't matter how important it is ultimately, that's impossible to tell, and that might change. Vogt just did a honest quality job and her reporting of even this detail proves to be a quality report from the trial, when you read the Cassazione ruling.

It seems you fail to point out and realize the extent of the ******** produced by the US mainstream media on the case. Which is actually the real, interesting aspect of this whole case.

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to evade the autocensor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Mary_H]

If you have evidence they committed a crime.
Which - let's guess - you don't have.
Actually, I think you don't even know their names or who they are. In your mind, they are corrupted a priori, independent from who they are.

I am not accusing them of committing a crime (see my last post).

Of course I don't know who they are. I merely assumed the doctors would be more ethical that the cops. But if you say it was the doctors, then I will take your word for it.

No, it's that if the defence attorney did not complain, he is guilty of a very severe misbehaviour which would cause him to be disbarred. And that would be a compulsory proceeding. One cannot complain about be beaten up, AND be defended by that defence attorney at the same time.

It is obvious to me that Amanda's defense attorneys are much more afraid of what will happen to them if they complain about their client being mistreated than if they do not.

I think you are talking about the Supreme Court of Cassazione of Rome, and about the Supreme Council of Magistrates, which, you imply, are probably grown up, and don't have parents.
And logicall, you are talking about all those international powers who act in cooperation with them.

And I think you are saying that if nobody interferes with Italian corruption, then they approve of it, when there is ample evidence they do not.

 

[Mary_H]

I guess Andrea Vogt may understand Italian language and Italian law better than you. She is probably not, however, an expert in that field. She may not be not able to assess what will be important or non-important and anyway that's not her task. It doesn't matter how important it is ultimately, that's impossible to tell, and that might change. Vogt just did a honest quality job and her reporting of even this detail proves to be a quality report from the trial, when you read the Cassazione ruling.

She withheld the side of the story that would have balanced the report. The end.

It seems you fail to point out and realize the extent of the ******* produced by the US mainstream media on the case. Which is actually the real, interesting aspect of this whole case.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Quoted text edited for Rule 10.

The case is not supposed to be fought in the newspapers. If the prosecution chooses to do it that way, then the defense has no choice but to respond.

Much of US mainstream media is now on Amanda's side, but they were not until 2011. Even now, they still report too much of the prosecution's arguments for my taste.

Why don't you enumerate what you see as lies coming from US mainstream media?

 

[Diocletus]

I guess Andrea Vogt may understand Italian language and Italian law better than you. She is probably not, however, an expert in that field. She may not be not able to assess what will be important or non-important and anyway that's not her task. It doesn't matter how important it is ultimately, that's impossible to tell, and that might change. Vogt just did a honest quality job and her reporting of even this detail proves to be a quality report from the trial, when you read the Cassazione ruling.

It seems you fail to point out and realize the extent of the ******* produced by the US mainstream media on the case. Which is actually the real, interesting aspect of this whole case.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Quoted text edited for Rule 10.

She strikes me as dopey. I don't think she made it in the big city. Never heard of her outside of this case and I'm sure will never hear from her afterwards.

 

[Bill Williams]

I guess Andrea Vogt may understand Italian language and Italian law better than you. She is probably not, however, an expert in that field. She may not be not able to assess what will be important or non-important and anyway that's not her task. It doesn't matter how important it is ultimately, that's impossible to tell, and that might change. Vogt just did a honest quality job and her reporting of even this detail proves to be a quality report from the trial, when you read the Cassazione ruling.

It seems you fail to point out and realize the extent of the ******* produced by the US mainstream media on the case. Which is actually the real, interesting aspect of this whole case.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Quoted text edited for Rule 10.

What is it about Italian law, here? Judge Massei did not see the "I was there" statement as evidence of guilt. Judge Massei, the convicting Judge, mentions it, gives the defences spin to it, and moves on.

Why did Ms. Vogt NOT correct the record, when she was on the record - via news articles - that this was somehow a sinister admission on Knox's part? You don't need to understand anyone's law to realize that even the convicting judge didn't buy what Machiavelli is saying - which is basically Mignini's (now disproven) case. (Please note, you keep wanting to elevate the ISC into a finder of fact.)

But it's a nice diversion to then shift gears into what's being reported now in the US media. It seems that the I.K. media is also printing stuff favourable to Knox and Sollecito - an amazing reversal given the tabloid frenzy against them in 2007/2008. Heck, even Italian news agencies are now starting to get on board.

You're a little behind if you spew venom at the U.S. media. The whole world seems to be catching on.

Where you are in error is that there is a diminishing number of people who believe the US media is misreporting this case. At base people know when they are being lied to.

Andrea Vogt's reporting from the trial was always to report what the prosecution said. If that is quality reporting, then we know who which side the author of the post above is on.

 

[acbytesla]

The apartment is far above the above the cottage in a position where sounds carry upward. The dog barking was not obstructed by the back of the cottage , one small building in an open bowl does not block noise. The picture posted hear up thread doesn't show the surrounding hills, including those at the back which have a rock base. Keeping in mind that an honest discussion about sound and how it amplifies is second to nullifying what witnesses heard , I'll stick with my first hand " she" experiences in Perugia.

Bury your head in the sand Briars. That really doesn't surprise me since you've proven that you do not care about science and logic. I've shown you very clear easy to perform experiments that would demonstrate that Nara is full of crap. Every obstruction between the source of the sound and your ears matters. Sound bounces predictably off of every surface. It's simple acoustical design.

As for "the open bowl" It's not an open bowl from inside the cottage. You've also not acknowledged what happens to the frequency of a sound smothered by walls.
The hills in the distance are too far away to make any difference at all.

This is like explaining evolution to a conservative Christian or global warming to someone with millions of dollars invested in the Coal industry. They simply refuse to look at the science.

 

[acbytesla]

The apartment is far above the above the cottage in a position where sounds carry upward. The dog barking was not obstructed by the back of the cottage , one small building in an open bowl does not block noise. The picture posted hear up thread doesn't show the surrounding hills, including those at the back which have a rock base. Keeping in mind that an honest discussion about sound and how it amplifies is second to nullifying what witnesses heard , I'll stick with my first hand " she" experiences in Perugia.

Bury your head in the sand Briars. That really doesn't surprise me since you've proven that you do not care about science and logic. I've shown you very clear easy to perform experiments that would demonstrate that Nara is full of crap. Every obstruction between the source of the sound and your ears matters. Sound bounces predictably off of every surface. It's simple acoustical design.

As for "the open bowl" It's not an open bowl from inside the cottage. You've also not acknowledged what happens to the frequency of a sound smothered by walls.
The hills in the distance are too far away to make any difference at all.

This is like explaining evolution to a conservative Christian or global warming to someone with millions of dollars invested in the Coal industry. They simply refuse to look at the science.

 

[RoseMontague]

What is it about Italian law, here? Judge Massei did not see the "I was there" statement as evidence of guilt. Judge Massei, the convicting Judge, mentions it, gives the defences spin to it, and moves on.

Why did Ms. Vogt NOT correct the record, when she was on the record - via news articles - that this was somehow a sinister admission on Knox's part? You don't need to understand anyone's law to realize that even the convicting judge didn't buy what Machiavelli is saying - which is basically Mignini's (now disproven) case. (Please note, you keep wanting to elevate the ISC into a finder of fact.)

But it's a nice diversion to then shift gears into what's being reported now in the US media. It seems that the I.K. media is also printing stuff favourable to Knox and Sollecito - an amazing reversal given the tabloid frenzy against them in 2007/2008. Heck, even Italian news agencies are now starting to get on board.

You're a little behind if you spew venom at the U.S. media. The whole world seems to be catching on.

Where you are in error is that there is a diminishing number of people who believe the US media is misreporting this case. At base people know when they are being lied to.

Andrea Vogt's reporting from the trial was always to report what the prosecution said. If that is quality reporting, then we know who which side the author of the post above is on.

Yep, yep. Some progress is being made in the Italian and the UK press. As far as early news reports in the US as compared to the Italian or British news reports, that would probably make a great discussion as to who was reporting BS and who was not, or who was worse. Bring it on.

 

[GreyFox]

puff puff pass

I think someone in here smoked a bowl and then became obsessed about talking about the "bowl." As the effects began to really kick in ,the voices in this persons head became amplified ...And in the end were left with a bowl full of pooh that defies common sense.

This is why Toto see's funny looking people in costumes on nights other than Halloween. It's called being stoned.

I've deer hunted on property (bowl) just like this for over 30 years and never has the Deer's noise been amplified for me to hear them far away. In fact they walk under me sometimes before I even know they are there. Even if I yell my voice will echoe less each time until it fades away. Never does it get louder ???

Likewise I still beleive toto should have heard the window break if he was coherent enough. The window faces the park. There is no sound proof trees or forest like others are claiming. Glass breaking doesn't change its sound as it travels either!

Nara heard the tow truck ! I doubt she even looked out the window.

 

[moodstream]

Well, let's talk. About Mario Spezi, maybe, you mean. Or about Frank Sfarzo. Or about Sollecito's defence expert Pascali.
If you are thinkin about Mignini, well legally he was not: there has been a prosecution and a trial, however they were found to be illegitimate (by a Florentine appeal court), they were annulled, not just the trial but also the prosecution and the investigation, and legally they don't exist any more.

Written without a wisp of a grasp of the irony. Incredible.

 

[Mary_H]

Machiavelli, I am very interested in the comments you have made about the HIV tests that were administered to Amanda in Capanne. I am going to take your word for it that you have information about these, and even may know who administered them.

I would suggest that if Andrea Vogt ever comes to her senses and decides to walk the straight and narrow, she could have the story of her career by doing an investigative piece just on the HIV testing of Amanda, as it represents possibly the most serious violation of Amanda Knox’s human rights as an inmate of a European prison. Maybe you could even share your records with her (wink wink nudge nudge).

At issue are these principles of medical ethics and standards of care: consent, confidentiality, counseling, equivalence of care, vulnerable patients, and the doctor in dual roles. Just for starters, here is a list of potential violations:

• All HIV testing must be voluntary, confidential, and undertaken with the patient's consent.
• Patients have the right to decline the test. They should not be tested for HIV against their will, without their knowledge, without adequate information or without receiving their test results.
• Pre-test information and post-test counselling remain integral components of the HIV testing process.
• Patients should receive support to avoid potential negative consequences of knowing and disclosing their HIV status, such as discrimination or violence.
• Testing must be linked to appropriate HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support services.
• Decisions about HIV testing in health facilities should always be guided by what is in the best interests of the individual patient.
• Provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling is not, and should not be construed as, an endorsement of coercive or mandatory HIV testing.
• Implementation of provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling should be undertaken in consultation with key stakeholders, including civil society groups, acknowledging that what works and is ethical will inevitably differ across countries.
• When implementing provider-initiated HIV testing and counselling, equal efforts must be made to ensure that a supportive social, policy and legal framework is in place to maximize positive outcomes and minimize potential harms to patients.
• A system that monitors and evaluates the implementation and scale-up of provider-initiated testing and counselling should be developed and implemented concurrently.

Basically, the UNODC, UNAIDS and WHO Policy Brief on HIV testing and counselling in prisons and other closed settings, recommends that medical professionals in prisons:

• "Unequivocally oppose mandatory testing or counselling:
• "Emphasize that regardless of whether HIV testing is client- or provider-initiated, it should always be voluntary." [page 1]
• ".….these mandatory or compulsory forms of HIV testing violate ethical principles and the basic rights of consent, privacy and bodily integrity. They are not necessary for the protection of prisoners, staff or visitors and cannot be justified from a public health perspective." [page 3]

There is a lot more where that came from. Here are some links to get her started on her research:

• Policy Brief: HIV Testing and Counselling in Prisons and Other Closed Settings (from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC); Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; World Health Organization (WHO)
• European Standards on Confidentiality and Privacy in Health Care (from the EuroSOCAP Project, funded by the European Commission (2003-2006)
• Health in Prisons: A WHO Guide to the Essentials of Prison Health: 2. Standards in prison health: the prisoner as a patient -Andrew Coyle (from the WHO Regional Office for Europe)
• Health in Prisons: A WHO Guide to the Essentials of Prison Health: 7. HIV infection and human rights in prisons - Rick Lines (from the WHO Regional Office for Europe)

If Andrea doesn’t take the story, maybe someone else will. A lot of media consumers don't know their rights when it comes to health care, but people in the medical profession sure do. This would be of interest to a medical journal, no doubt. Quite a plum for a writer's resume.

Given the other violations of Amanda’s privacy in prison (men accompanying her to every doctor appointment and watching her physical exams), this is a women’s rights issue as well as a public health and prisoner’s rights issue.

 

[GreyFox]

I guess Andrea Vogt may understand Italian language and Italian law better than you. She is probably not, however, an expert in that field. She may not be not able to assess what will be important or non-important and anyway that's not her task. It doesn't matter how important it is ultimately, that's impossible to tell, and that might change. Vogt just did a honest quality job and her reporting of even this detail proves to be a quality report from the trial, when you read the Cassazione ruling.

It seems you fail to point out and realize the extent of the ******* produced by the US mainstream media on the case. Which is actually the real, interesting aspect of this whole case.

Edited by zooterkin: 

Quoted text edited for Rule 10.

Most American Journalist are to busy with multiple stories to investigate this case. They have copied what tabloid writers put out without checking into it.

When you and yours are done twisting your laws like the mafia to get the verdict you want (and locking up the free press)the real party will begin upon the request to extradite.

My guess is a lot more journalist/politicians will look deeper into this "railroad from hell" and see the bigger story of how the PLE was corrupt and laugh at people like you who think we would be dumb enough to send her back! There's a better chance of the Italian soldeirs going back to India! What ever came of that ?