• 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.
Wildhorses said:
Well see, Knox had a spacious handbag. That makes it all plausible. And if it's plausible, it's likely. And if it's likely, it's rock solid evidence.

Ya gotta use osmotic logic.
Click to expand...

Yes, the osmotic logic. Thank you for reminding me of it. I almost went with logic itself.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh right. She has a PhD then. That's a fact, according to you. Didn't know that.
Click to expand...

I repeat to you the following facts:
1) Stefanoni is a molecular biologist;
2) she is also the author of scientific articles that went in the top-list of international forensic litarature
3) albeit you never investigated that for a definitive proof, everything points to the fact that has a PhD. (the fact that she is a scientific author and the fact that she was a researcher at Federico II University for eight years).

I re-state: the above assertions are facts.

Have you got a link to her dissertation? Which university awarded her PhD, and in what year? Can you also provide a link to any time where she has, on the record, been referred to (or referred to herself) as "Dottoressa di Ricerca"?
Click to expand...

The title "dottoressa di riceca" is normaly not used in Italy, PhDs are usually not indicated (except in curriculums).

I am not going to providing absolutely any further proof, I am not going to do any investigation: you bring up the topic, you decide to make unsupported assertions about Stefanoni. If you call Stefanoni "not-a-ral-doctor" you are defaming her, you re making an unsupported claim without verification, hence you are a criminal. If you want, you are able to investigate yourself and verify if any assertion about the status of Stefanoni is true or not, and i'ts up to you to do that; you can mail the Federico II University doctorate school of Genetics, you can mail Stefanoni, you can mail her co-authors for information; and it's up to you to prove what you say.
 
acbytesla said:
This sounds like a Chinese restaurant not a court of law. I'm curious, Who's Supreme Court are referring to? Italy's or a modern nation where they respect science?
Click to expand...

Come on, show us your respect of science, and mention a substance that reacts to luminol and not to TMB.
 
LondonJohn said:
There are no documented negative controls. I think we can be fairly certain of that. (...)
Click to expand...

Based on what? On you fantasy?
Or on Bongiorno's word?

The Oct. 8. 2008 hearing documents that negative controls were deposited. Stefanoni deposited documentation on the Oct. 8. 2008 hearing declaring they were the knife negative controls.
How is it that Vecchiotti says she does not even know that this happened?

Is it possible that nobody here realizes the absurdity of things Vecchiotti is saying in her cross questioning?
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. In many ways, the discussion of Stefanoni's academic credentials (or, more accurately, her lack of them) is moot. (...)
Click to expand...
.

(...) (Oh, and she's not a real doctor outside the fantasy world of Italian academia, just for the record :D )
Click to expand...

If it's moot, you drop it.
(Or otherwise you take care of backing your defamatory unsupported assertion that 'she is not a real doctor').
 
Machiavelli said:
I repeat to you the following facts:
1) Stefanoni is a molecular biologist;
2) she is also the author of scientific articles that went in the top-list of international forensic litarature
Click to expand...


What is this mythical "top-list" of which you write?!


3) albeit you never investigated that for a definitive proof, everything points to the fact that has a PhD. (the fact that she is a scientific author and the fact that she was a researcher at Federico II University for eight years).

I re-state: the above assertions are facts.
Click to expand...


I did "investigate it, thanks. It would-beyond a shadow of a doubt - have been entered into the court record in the Massei trial if Stefanoni was indeed a PhD equivalent. The academic credentials of any expert witness are absolutely central information in a criminal trial.

Let me give you a little example: Suppose you were on trial for manslaughter because you were a builder and you'd removed an internal supporting wall in a client's house causing the building to collapse and kill people. Suppose that someone from either a structural engineering company or an academic institution came to court to give evidence about load-bearing walls and the consequences of their removal.

Whether this person came from industry or academia, I can 100% guarantee that, somewhere near the start of their testimony, they would be asked to qualify their expertise in the field in which they were giving testimony. And I 100% guarantee that all revelant academic qualifications would be mentioned at that point - most notably, of course, the most advanced qualification. For example, if the person giving testimony worked for (say)Ove Arup, and had a degree in civil engineering and a PhD in structural engineering, their qualification testimony would not be either

a) "I've worked for Ove Arup for 10 years as a senior structural engineer"; or

b) "I've worked for Ove Arup for 10 years as a senior structural engineer,and I have a degree in civil engineering from York University".

It would be

c) "I've worked for Ove Arup for 10 years as a senior structural engineer, and I have a PhD in structural engineering from Southampton University".

End of. Stefanoni does not have a PhD. Otherwise we'd know about it. Now please shut up about it :D


The title "dottoressa di riceca" is normaly not used in Italy, PhDs are usually not indicated (except in curriculums).
Click to expand...


And court testimony,when the witness's expertise is qualified. D'oh.

And in things like professional conferences, and - yes - academic papers. Maybe you can pull out one of these "top-list" academic papers written by Stefanoni, and see how she titles herself at the top of the paper.You'rein for a disappointment :D


I am not going to providing absolutely any further proof, I am not going to do any investigation: you bring up the topic, you decide to make unsupported assertions about Stefanoni. If you call Stefanoni "not-a-ral-doctor" you are defaming her, you re making an unsupported claim without verification, hence you are a criminal. If you want, you are able to investigate yourself and verify if any assertion about the status of Stefanoni is true or not, and i'ts up to you to do that; you can mail the Federico II University doctorate school of Genetics, you can mail Stefanoni, you can mail her co-authors for information; and it's up to you to prove what you say.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. When you start saying things like "you are a criminal", the last shreds of your personal integrity and credibility shuffle off shamefully though the exit door. You seem very angry about this issue. Why is that, I wonder?
Click to expand...
 
Machiavelli said:
Based on what? On you fantasy?
Or on Bongiorno's word?

The Oct. 8. 2008 hearing documents that negative controls were deposited. Stefanoni deposited documentation on the Oct. 8. 2008 hearing declaring they were the knife negative controls.
How is it that Vecchiotti says she does not even know that this happened?

Is it possible that nobody here realizes the absurdity of things Vecchiotti is saying in her cross questioning?
Click to expand...

Really. Let's see the transcript.

Also, what about all of the secret egrams and all the other controls.
 
Diocletus said:
Really. Let's see the transcript.

Also, what about all of the secret egrams and all the other controls.
Click to expand...

Here is what Mach provided as proof at IA, evidently she brought 2 (two) negative controls with her to the hearing (WOW!!!). It does not indicate if they were deposited with the court...

transctript of the preliminary hearing 0f Oct. 4. 2008, p. 116-117 wrote: Pascali "ma voi questi controlli negativi li avete fatti? Lei li ha fatti?",
Stefanoni "Certo che li ho fatti"
Pascali "e perché non li ha allegati?",
Stefanoni "non li ho allegati"
(…)
Stefanoni "guardi, io li posso allegare ne ho proprio due qui. Riguardo la traccia del coltello per esempio, li ho portati perché normalmente non li alleghiamo, cioè, io dò per scontato che le persone che sono dei consulenti e comunque dei genetisti forensi come me, operino nella più assoluta oggettività del dato" (..)




translation wrote:Pascali "but these negative controls, did you make them? Did you make them?"
Stefanoni "Of course I made them"
Pascali "And why did you not include them?"
Stefanoni "I did not include them"
(...)
Stefanoni "look, I can include them. I have just two of them here with me. Regarding the knife trace, for example, I brought them here because usually we do not include them, that is, I take it for granted that people who work as consultants or anyway forensic geneticists as me, they operate in absolute objectivity of the data" (..)
Click to expand...
 
RoseMontague said:
Here is what Mach provided as proof at IA, evidently she brought 2 (two) negative controls with her to the hearing (WOW!!!). It does not indicate if they were deposited with the court...
Click to expand...
Didn't he once famously claim the negative controls were in Stefanoni's purse, having been retrieved from the warehouse where the Ark of the Covenant is being studied by "top men"?
 
Dan O. said:
If we treat the knife as a negative control for which it qualifies being that there was nothing at the time of it's collection that linked it to the crime, Stefanoni's own testing has proven contamination.
Click to expand...

I suspect it may be evidence of fabrication. Fabrication by falsely quantifying matter allegedly from the knife blade to make the quantity of matter appear sufficient (just enough) for testing with amplication, and then falsfying analysis of the graphic data to get a result she can claim is Meredith's DNA on the knife blade. The police and prosecutor needed to hold and condem the defendants and Stefanoni understood she was to find something on the knife to pin it on the defendants as the murder weapon.

Combine Stefanoni's knife blade analysis with the way in which the knife was collected at random from Raffaele's cutlery drawer, and it screams evidence fabrication.

Raffaele wrote in his book "Honor Bound" that during the night of his interrogation at the police station, after the police took his shoes, he asked the police to take him to his flat so that he could show them his computer which would show he used it at various points throughout the night of Nov 1/2, the night Meredith was murdered. The police took him, shoeless, to his flat and searched through everything.

Raffaele writes "When (police officer) Finzi came across a drawer full of kitchen knives, he called Chiacchiera over immediately. He pulled out the first knife that came to hand, a large chopping knife with an 8" blade.
"Will this knife do?" Finzi asked Chiacchiera.
"Yes, yes, it's great," came the answer.
(End of quotation, Honor Bound, paperback p. 64)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom