• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
Andrea Vogt is at it again. {quote} "Shouldn’t a state and federally funded university be required to release records related to such a high-profile international case? Not according to them. Boise State University General Counsel Kevin D. Satterlee cited this as one of the reasons to deny my public records request to review the case:

“The product of Dr. Hampikian’s work on Ms. Knox’s defense constitutes unpublished information that is not readily ascertainable and has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its private nature. Such information is of potential economic value and is thus recognized as a trade secret under Idaho Code 9-340(D)1.” {end quote}

Now if only Andrea were as determined to protect the interests of Italian taxpayers, who coughed up $180,000 for a cartoon. Let me see, do a scientific experiment, and Vogt is up in arms. Make a worthless, inaccurate cartoon, and no comment. Makes sense to me.
EDT
Vogt wrote, "But if Northwest lawmakers are really serious about digging into the details of the Knox case, they should also be asking hard questions about the use of U.S. public taxpayer resources for her defense." If Vogt were really serious about digging into this case, she would look into the lack of discovery. She has only had five years to do so. If Italy has the equivalent of a freedom of information law, maybe she could finally get those EDFs.
Click to expand...


She unmasked a professor using a university lab to perform research. In other news, a secret video shows Starbucks selling coffee.
 
Machiavelli said:
Preemptively; in advance. What Mignini says revolves around the concept of in advance; deciding something before. It is about the approach, not about the subsequent decision about ruling out; it is the concept of prejudice versus judgement.

You forget this essential concept in what Mignini said, the concept of doing something prejudicially, in advance, preemptively, before or without verifying.

Because you omit this logical element, you turn the statement into something else: you replace "in advance" with "ever", so you misrepersent a reasoning abut prejudice, as if it was a reasoning about judgement saying "this can never be completely ruled out".

The disclaimer between prejudicial approach and verification, which is the logical core of Mignini's reasoning, you completely delete it, and you instead decide to describe Mignini's reasoning as if it was a statement about the impossibility of ruling out things, independently from verification, just "never", indefinitely.
Click to expand...

Bill Williams said:
Does anyone understand what Machiavelli is talking about, much less what it has to do with what Mignini said?
Click to expand...

I think he is saying that Mignini is so good he can even manage to stick his foot in his mouth before he says anything.
 
halides1 said:
Andrea Vogt is at it again. {quote} "Shouldn’t a state and federally funded university be required to release records related to such a high-profile international case? Not according to them. Boise State University General Counsel Kevin D. Satterlee cited this as one of the reasons to deny my public records request to review the case:

“The product of Dr. Hampikian’s work on Ms. Knox’s defense constitutes unpublished information that is not readily ascertainable and has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its private nature. Such information is of potential economic value and is thus recognized as a trade secret under Idaho Code 9-340(D)1.” {end quote}

Now if only Andrea were as determined to protect the interests of Italian taxpayers, who coughed up $180,000 for a cartoon. Let me see, do a scientific experiment, and Vogt is up in arms. Make a worthless, inaccurate cartoon, and no comment. Makes sense to me.
EDT
Vogt wrote, "But if Northwest lawmakers are really serious about digging into the details of the Knox case, they should also be asking hard questions about the use of U.S. public taxpayer resources for her defense." If Vogt were really serious about digging into this case, she would look into the lack of discovery. She has only had five years to do so. If Italy has the equivalent of a freedom of information law, maybe she could finally get those EDFs.
Click to expand...

Charlie Wilkes said:
She unmasked a professor using a university lab to perform research. In other news, a secret video shows Starbucks selling coffee.
Click to expand...

The woman's chutzpah is breath-taking.

She's right up her own rectal-sphincter, isn't she?

(B*llsh*tting is a largely male-dominated domain, but Vogt is "the exception that proves the rule")
 
RoseMontague said:
I think he is saying that Mignini is so good he can even manage to stick his foot in his mouth before he says anything.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!

Of all the posts Machiavelli has posted where he's claimed Mignini has said the exact opposite of what he's said, this is right up there.

Sometimes I reckon Machiavelli does this in a futile attempt to save the man from himself.

Mignini has one good friend. All of us need this kind of friend who'll risk ridicule for another.
 
halides1 said:
Andrea Vogt is at it again. {quote} "Shouldn’t a state and federally funded university be required to release records related to such a high-profile international case? Not according to them. Boise State University General Counsel Kevin D. Satterlee cited this as one of the reasons to deny my public records request to review the case:

“The product of Dr. Hampikian’s work on Ms. Knox’s defense constitutes unpublished information that is not readily ascertainable and has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its private nature. Such information is of potential economic value and is thus recognized as a trade secret under Idaho Code 9-340(D)1.” {end quote}<snip>

Vogt wrote, "But if Northwest lawmakers are really serious about digging into the details of the Knox case, they should also be asking hard questions about the use of U.S. public taxpayer resources for her defense." If Vogt were really serious about digging into this case, she would look into the lack of discovery. She has only had five years to do so. If Italy has the equivalent of a freedom of information law, maybe she could finally get those EDFs.
Click to expand...

Andrea Vogt's husband, Marco Bittelli, was at Washington State University in Pullman for a half dozen years or so, as a student, researcher and instructor. I wonder if his research and e-mails are available through the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Andrea Vogt's husband, Marco Bittelli, was at Washington State University in Pullman for a half dozen years or so, as a student, researcher and instructor. I wonder if his research and e-mails are available through the Freedom of Information Act.
Click to expand...

Wow. He's a soil physicist. In other words, he studies dirt. How interesting.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
She unmasked a professor using a university lab to perform research. In other news, a secret video shows Starbucks selling coffee.
Click to expand...

She is a complete dope. First of all, her requests are from 2012. Second, the main reason that her requests are denied, it is obvious, is because Hampikian was a consulting expert for a legal case, which is an engagement that Hampikian was permitted to undertake. In short, Vogt has no right to get these records, notwithstanding her belated hissy fit.

Now, Randy Jackson's WU information on the other hand . . .
 
Mary_H said:
Andrea Vogt's husband, Marco Bittelli, was at Washington State University in Pullman for a half dozen years or so, as a student, researcher and instructor. I wonder if his research and e-mails are available through the Freedom of Information Act.
Click to expand...

Marco Bitteli? I just may file an application under the FOIA. Who knows what one may find?
 
Diocletus said:
She is a complete dope. First of all, her requests are from 2012. Second, the main reason that her requests are denied, it is obvious, is because Hampikian was a consulting expert for a legal case, which is an engagement that Hampikian was permitted to undertake. In short, Vogt has no right to get these records, notwithstanding her belated hissy fit.

Now, Randy Jackson's WU information on the other hand . . .
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side. This has all the markings of a Hail Mary pass, albeit this time Andrea Vogt is working for the PR team of the prosecution. All that seems to be left is to besmirch reputations of people simply because of the findings they found.

Which is also the Achilles Heel of Andrea's other snit. She calls the Washington State US Senators "biased", again because of what they found when they looked into the case. She's trying to besmirch them because of a position they hold.

It's like trying to besmirch the reputation of Sir Isaac Newton for theorizing about gravity; and trying to suggest that Newton should keep quiet on the subject because he has a point of view about the concept.

Or pulling Einstein's university funding, because Einstein published something at odds with Newton's findings....

Vogt is the quarterback of the prosecution PR team tossing a Hail Mary pass.
 
Bill Williams said:
Look on the bright side. This has all the markings of a Hail Mary pass, albeit this time Andrea Vogt is working for the PR team of the prosecution. All that seems to be left is to besmirch reputations of people simply because of the findings they found.

Which is also the Achilles Heel of Andrea's other snit. She calls the Washington State US Senators "biased", again because of what they found when they looked into the case. She's trying to besmirch them because of a position they hold.

It's like trying to besmirch the reputation of Sir Isaac Newton for theorizing about gravity; and trying to suggest that Newton should keep quiet on the subject because he has a point of view about the concept.

Or pulling Einstein's university funding, because Einstein published something at odds with Newton's findings....

Vogt is the quarterback of the prosecution PR team tossing a Hail Mary pass.
Click to expand...

Senators are good friends to have. Did you know that Senators are the ones who decide who gets who become federal judges in their state? Yup. They tell the President who to appoint and he does it.

Also, Secretaries of State tend to listen to Senators when it comes to issues involving the Senator's constituents.
 
I think that Andrea knows that the prosecution is going to loose,another acquittal is coming and her reporting on the the case might be in for some serious criticism,and she is now desperately trying to get her retaliation in first
 
Diocletus said:
She is a complete dope. First of all, her requests are from 2012. Second, the main reason that her requests are denied, it is obvious, is because Hampikian was a consulting expert for a legal case, which is an engagement that Hampikian was permitted to undertake. In short, Vogt has no right to get these records, notwithstanding her belated hissy fit.

Now, Randy Jackson's WU information on the other hand . . .
Click to expand...


This is a horribly biased - and extremely amateurish - attempt by Vogt to create a story where none exists.

I do believe that there's a reasonable debate to be had on public funding vs private funding in universities, but this is not it (or even part of it). Is Vogt not aware that private companies pay to conduct research through universities all the time? I, for example, worked on GSM cellular phone technology research when I was at a publicly-funded university (and indeed, as an undergraduate, I had my tuition fees paid by the state), yet that GSM research was majority-funded by two commercial companies.

Perhaps Vogt would like to do a piece on that as well.....

It further remains to say that Vogt's FOI request to BSU was farcically bound to fail. Does she not understand that if an expert is retained to do criminal defence work for a defendant (whether paid or unpaid), everything outside that disclosed by the defence in court is protected by the attorney-client privilege? Does she really not know that?

Here's the rejection letter from BSU to Vogt.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SatterleeBSU-pg11.pdf

Hilariously, it lists three separate - and entirely valid - reasons why her requests were refused, and a further reason why her request for consulting agreements was refused. She not only got it wrong: she got it spectacularly wrong.

There's a reason why the US mainstream media will not pick up on this story. It's because it's a laughably misguided attempt to create a story where none exists. I wonder just how much copy Vogt is actually selling these days. I'm going to go out on a limb and say not much at all. Perhaps she ought to focus on writing better stories, and perhaps ones which have more balance and objectivity. Just a hint for ya there, Andrea....
 
Diocletus said:
Wow. He's a soil physicist. In other words, he studies dirt. How interesting.
Click to expand...

Her husband is a US educated soil scientist. Too bad he wasn't called in by the scientific police to examine the soil below Filomena's window and soil deposited on Filomena's floor by Rudy's shoe. You can see the soil deposits in the photos of Filomena's room annotated by Ron Hendry.
 
LondonJohn said:
This is a horribly biased - and extremely amateurish - attempt by Vogt to create a story where none exists.

I do believe that there's a reasonable debate to be had on public funding vs private funding in universities, but this is not it (or even part of it). Is Vogt not aware that private companies pay to conduct research through universities all the time? I, for example, worked on GSM cellular phone technology research when I was at a publicly-funded university (and indeed, as an undergraduate, I had my tuition fees paid by the state), yet that GSM research was majority-funded by two commercial companies.

Perhaps Vogt would like to do a piece on that as well.....

It further remains to say that Vogt's FOI request to BSU was farcically bound to fail. Does she not understand that if an expert is retained to do criminal defence work for a defendant (whether paid or unpaid), everything outside that disclosed by the defence in court is protected by the attorney-client privilege? Does she really not know that?

Here's the rejection letter from BSU to Vogt.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SatterleeBSU-pg11.pdf

Hilariously, it lists three separate - and entirely valid - reasons why her requests were refused, and a further reason why her request for consulting agreements was refused. She not only got it wrong: she got it spectacularly wrong.

There's a reason why the US mainstream media will not pick up on this story. It's because it's a laughably misguided attempt to create a story where none exists. I wonder just how much copy Vogt is actually selling these days. I'm going to go out on a limb and say not much at all. Perhaps she ought to focus on writing better stories, and perhaps ones which have more balance and objectivity. Just a hint for ya there, Andrea....
Click to expand...

Ms. Vogt will undoubtedly follow this up by how the US media has been so bought off by the Marriott PR machine, that they refuse to run her scoop.

The truth is that the way this case was conducted in 2007/2008, these sorts of "leaks" were tabloid gold. Not any more - people are more discerning than when Foxy Knoxy was Queen and guaranteed money for starving stringers...

Ms. Vogt's real complaint is that she now cannot monetize this story, at Meredith's ultimate expense, like Barbie Nadeau has done - by seeling film rights to her horrid book.

You know - the one that Machiavelli calls Nadeau a liar about!
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
There's a reason why the US mainstream media will not pick up on this story. It's because it's a laughably misguided attempt to create a story where none exists. I wonder just how much copy Vogt is actually selling these days. I'm going to go out on a limb and say not much at all. Perhaps she ought to focus on writing better stories, and perhaps ones which have more balance and objectivity. Just a hint for ya there, Andrea....
Click to expand...

My guess is that Andrea Vogt has in her possession, right now, material enough to write the real scoop of the half-century.

It takes real loyalty to others not to do that. However, Machiavelli has already thrown Nadeau under a bus, and mercifully refers to John Kercher as only "misguided" for writing essentially the same thing as Nadeau.

C'mon, Andrea, if you write the real exposé I will buy the book!
 
LondonJohn said:
This is a horribly biased - and extremely amateurish - attempt by Vogt to create a story where none exists.

I do believe that there's a reasonable debate to be had on public funding vs private funding in universities, but this is not it (or even part of it). Is Vogt not aware that private companies pay to conduct research through universities all the time? I, for example, worked on GSM cellular phone technology research when I was at a publicly-funded university (and indeed, as an undergraduate, I had my tuition fees paid by the state), yet that GSM research was majority-funded by two commercial companies.

Perhaps Vogt would like to do a piece on that as well.....

It further remains to say that Vogt's FOI request to BSU was farcically bound to fail. Does she not understand that if an expert is retained to do criminal defence work for a defendant (whether paid or unpaid), everything outside that disclosed by the defence in court is protected by the attorney-client privilege? Does she really not know that?

Here's the rejection letter from BSU to Vogt.

http://thefreelancedesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SatterleeBSU-pg11.pdf

Hilariously, it lists three separate - and entirely valid - reasons why her requests were refused, and a further reason why her request for consulting agreements was refused. She not only got it wrong: she got it spectacularly wrong.

There's a reason why the US mainstream media will not pick up on this story. It's because it's a laughably misguided attempt to create a story where none exists. I wonder just how much copy Vogt is actually selling these days. I'm going to go out on a limb and say not much at all. Perhaps she ought to focus on writing better stories, and perhaps ones which have more balance and objectivity. Just a hint for ya there, Andrea....
Click to expand...

Nice shell game. No, the significance of the Vogt scoop is not in the desultory FOIA request but in the three prominent US criminal cases, cited in her article, where Hampikian's work was error-ridden and likely as fraudulent as his peer-unreviewed "experiment" on DNA transfer.

Error #1: "[In] his affidavit to the court Hampikian had misread one of the swab results, referring to the DNA subtyping as “sub 1-” instead of “sub 1+."

Error #2: "The court then wrote: 'Hampikian’s opinion letter referencing his interpretation of DNA tests performed by the state is framed with speculative conditions and conjecture.'"

Error #3: (Conflict of interest; abuse of public funds) "Though Hampikian consulted for some time for free... Gary’s defense team filed a motion asking the court to authorize paying Hampkian $200 an hour for his services."

Vogt unearthed these examples even without information the "open and honest Knox PR campaign" is required, at least ethically, to release. Boise State and Hampikian at least owe their alumni, their auditors, and those of us interested in more than bald-faced and fact-free advocacy.

The curtain has begun to descend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom