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

[kwill]

The analysis of whether or not it is feasible that a murderer would have moved the knife must be taken without bringing in what "we know" to be true. That's what is known as confirmation bias.

Sorry, but when you put it that way, it makes even less sense.

Is it feasible that a murderer would have moved the knife? Sure

Is it confirmation bias to begin by imagining that someone is a murderer and proceed from there with questions about what the murderer may or may not have been up to?

When you start with "murderer," isn't just about anything feasible?

 

[Dan O.]

Grinder, I recognize that you are trying so very hard to be the devils advocate here. But your arguments have no weight. They are empty, void of support.

Take for instance in your imaginary world where Amanda discovers that she lost her job to Meredith. On the evening of the 1st, Amanda receives a text message from Patrick which regardless of the content of that message it is a reminder that she lost her job. So how does this furious she-devil respond: she replies with the text: "Fine, see you later, good evening".

And, just to be certain that she isn't masking her true feelings in an emotionless text media, minutes later she is met face to face by Jovana Popovic and there is no hint of anger displayed.

The time is 20:43 and Raffaele is talking to his father which is why Amanda was answering the door. This is happening also while they are in the middle of watching Amelie. They finish watching Amanda's movie at 21:10. At 21:26 Raffaele opens one of his movies, "Naruto ep 101" which runs for 23 minutes.

But Meredith gets home at 21:05. This time is supported by the testimony of her english friends and the CCTV camera in the car park across the street. She doesn't have a chance to recall her mother whom she tried to call earlier. She doesn't have a chance to remove her wet clothes from the washing machine and move them to the drying rack. She doesn't have a chance to open up the history book that she borrowed to study that night. Her digestion doesn't have a chance to start moving her last meal out of her stomach. All of this evidence supports that Meredith was attacked and killed shortly after arriving home.

Anomalous activity begins on Meredith's phone at 21:58. The phones are found in a garden of a home where the police were called and responded at about 22:00. A car is broken down outside the cottage from 22:30 to 23:00 with 2 couples and the tow truck operator reporting no activity from the cottage. These events are consistent with an early murder but place serious constraints on alternative theories.


If you want to play the devil's advocate, fine. Come up with a plausible alternative theory so that we may compare which theory best fits the known facts.

 

[acbytesla]

You really think it rare on that level for someone to grab a weapon and go get someone?

I don't, but I don't think they do it with 2 people they barely know.

Confirmation bias. Is it impossible or nearly impossible that someone would take a knife from their home to another home for the purposes of committing murder? No.

Nope. You just can't get outside of your bias.

Well you are just wrong. Take the names out because you have a big case of bias. The knife would have been cleaned before putting it in the drawer. After a good washing and maybe a wipe down with bleach it was then left in a dish tub soaking.

You can shout that TMB proves that it wasn't blood and you are wrong.

You can yell that it is impossible that anyone would take a knife and return it and you would be wrong again.

I don't think so Grinder. It's also silly to label a rational thoughtful analysis as confirmation bias. It is not. The idea that this knife could have been used is SILLY. Very silly. Not even the least bit credible.

Personally, I think it is you that is suffering from confirmation bias. And not because you believe that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. No, it's because you offered a silly hypothesis and YOU don't want to look silly.

You're like the customers I use to deal with when I worked as a computer tech. They would be convinced that they understood the problems they were having with their computer. And even though I hadn't yet determined what was wrong with their computer, the one thing I knew for sure is that they were wrong. I humored them.

But I respect you too much to do that. I'm going to flat out tell you that this knife is silly. So is the idea that the TMB was a false negative but not as silly as this knife.

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder, I recognize that you are trying so very hard to be the devils advocate here. But your arguments have no weight. They are empty, void of support.
Take for instance in your imaginary world where Amanda discovers that she lost her job to Meredith. On the evening of the 1st, Amanda receives a text message from Patrick which regardless of the content of that message it is a reminder that she lost her job. So how does this furious she-devil respond: she replies with the text: "Fine, see you later, good evening".

And, just to be certain that she isn't masking her true feelings in an emotionless text media, minutes later she is met face to face by Jovana Popovic and there is no hint of anger displayed.

The time is 20:43 and Raffaele is talking to his father which is why Amanda was answering the door. This is happening also while they are in the middle of watching Amelie. They finish watching Amanda's movie at 21:10. At 21:26 Raffaele opens one of his movies, "Naruto ep 101" which runs for 23 minutes.

But Meredith gets home at 21:05. This time is supported by the testimony of her english friends and the CCTV camera in the car park across the street. She doesn't have a chance to recall her mother whom she tried to call earlier. She doesn't have a chance to remove her wet clothes from the washing machine and move them to the drying rack. She doesn't have a chance to open up the history book that she borrowed to study that night. Her digestion doesn't have a chance to start moving her last meal out of her stomach. All of this evidence supports that Meredith was attacked and killed shortly after arriving home.

Anomalous activity begins on Meredith's phone at 21:58. The phones are found in a garden of a home where the police were called and responded at about 22:00. A car is broken down outside the cottage from 22:30 to 23:00 with 2 couples and the tow truck operator reporting no activity from the cottage. These events are consistent with an early murder but place serious constraints on alternative theories.


If you want to play the devil's advocate, fine. Come up with a plausible alternative theory so that we may compare which theory best fits the known facts.

You nailed it Dan. Grinder is playing Devil's advocate. He is constantly arguing that "anything is possible". But I could care less about the multi million dollar Powerball lottery possible.

Crimes DO make sense...even the senseless crimes make sense in terms of how. Grinder is not wrong that impulsive crazy people might just grab anything that is handy and go kill someone. I give him that. But if you are Raffaele and you barely know this girl and she does that? Are you really going to help her clean up the crime scene and be her alibi for 6 years? No, when the crazy wench murders her roommate before your very eyes you get away from her and call the cops!!!!

I mention the Manson family, because the Tate La Bianca murders were much like that. But please.... I dare anyone to compare the wildly crazy drug addled Squeaky Fromme, Charlie, Patricia Krenwinkle and Tex Watson to the well balanced University students which are Raffaele and Amanda.

 

[Supernaut]

Statement Analysis, my friend. It's even better than googluminol for opening new vistas of insight. I have the power to become an expert on anything, instantly.

I can also use words to change facts so they are 180 degrees from what they really mean. It takes a hell of a lot of boring-ass words, though, so usually I don't bother.
All I have to do now is join a cult on the Internet, so I can apply my talents.

The Greek "Sophists" developed this art, which we now call 'dissembling', 2,600 years ago.

CarloFab started a discussion about this and 'Platonism' on IIP a day or two ago.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, do yourself a favour. Read Douglas. Learn what "typology" means instead of using it as an excuse for an ad hominem against me.

ty·pol·o·gy
tīˈpäləjē/Submit
noun
1.
a classification according to general type, esp. in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences.
"a typology of Saxon cremation vessels"
2.
the study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally esp. in the Bible.

Should have known that it is associated with mumbo jumbo of biblical symbol interpretation. Other than that pretty much what I thought.

This is a well trod field, none of us are going to reinvent it on JREF with our back and forths here.

No idea if there is a point there or not.

You're trying too hard to be the smartest person here, all the while admitting you don't read others who know the lay of the land.

Do you have a quote from Douglas saying no murderer would ever take, use and return a weapon?

Read Douglas. THEN try to put the transport and return of the knife into the proper context of what actually happens. Put it in situ......

Just as Popham saying that the knife was the only evidence and was wrong, the argument that it couldn't have been the or a knife in this murder because no one would bring it and return it is just wrong.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, I recognize that you are trying so very hard to be the devils advocate here. But your arguments have no weight. They are empty, void of support.

Take for instance in your imaginary world where Amanda discovers that she lost her job to Meredith. On the evening of the 1st, Amanda receives a text message from Patrick which regardless of the content of that message it is a reminder that she lost her job. So how does this furious she-devil respond: she replies with the text: "Fine, see you later, good evening".

Meredith was offered a special night at le chic to make mojitos. Personally it seemed that Meredith was insensitive about Amanda's job.

Be that as it may, I was only drawing a scenario for example. Do you think that she would have, in her fury, texted "thanks a lot, I'm going go kill Meredith now and then finger you." ?

And, just to be certain that she isn't masking her true feelings in an emotionless text media, minutes later she is met face to face by Jovana Popovic and there is no hint of anger displayed.

So she composed herself.

 

[Grinder]

I don't, but I don't think they do it with 2 people they barely know.

Well, according to Rudy she did it only with her BF. Once again you smudge the point by bring in other beliefs of yours.

I don't think so Grinder. It's also silly to label a rational thoughtful analysis as confirmation bias. It is not. The idea that this knife could have been used is SILLY. Very silly. Not even the least bit credible.

More smudging. I don't believe that the knife was part of the murder as I have repeatedly said, but not because it is impossible to believe that they might have taken it along and brought it back.

Personally, I think it is you that is suffering from confirmation bias. And not because you believe that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. No, it's because you offered a silly hypothesis and YOU don't want to look silly.

Not exactly a hypothesis. You have a very hard time when caught with a false statement. I've asked you for sources but no avail.

It is not impossible for a murderer to bring a knife and had Amanda been involved she well might have grabbed the knife.

You're like the customers I use to deal with when I worked as a computer tech. They would be convinced that they understood the problems they were having with their computer. And even though I hadn't yet determined what was wrong with their computer, the one thing I knew for sure is that they were wrong. I humored them.

But I respect you too much to do that. I'm going to flat out tell you that this knife is silly. So is the idea that the TMB was a false negative but not as silly as this knife.

Telling. You discounted their idea before you knew what was wrong. Sounds like you'd do well in the PLE maybe even cloning hard-drives .

I'm Katy_DD and believe there is a reasonable chance that the blood on the floor fell between TMB and luminol in dilution recognition and actually was Meredith's from the mat or from long before the murder.

Perhaps you spent too much time in a binary world.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder is not wrong that impulsive crazy people might just grab anything that is handy and go kill someone. I give him that.

Thank you.

ETA - I believe this is how this round started:

Originally Posted by Antony View Post
Added to that there would be the curious decision to transport this knife out of the flat for no plausible reason, at the risk of it going missing. So it's recklessness with an inventory item at one stage of the scenario, and mindless obsession with the inventory later on.

Grinder - I don't think it is a strong point that they wouldn't keep the knife or that they would never have transported it to the cottage. If they were guilty then the whole thing would be a crazy act.

Now, I don't think the knife was involved in the murder for many reasons just not they would never have used it or kept it.

 

[NancyS]

Grinder, I recognize that you are trying so very hard to be the devils advocate here. But your arguments have no weight. They are empty, void of support.

Take for instance in your imaginary world where Amanda discovers that she lost her job to Meredith. On the evening of the 1st, Amanda receives a text message from Patrick which regardless of the content of that message it is a reminder that she lost her job. So how does this furious she-devil respond: she replies with the text: "Fine, see you later, good evening".

And, just to be certain that she isn't masking her true feelings in an emotionless text media, minutes later she is met face to face by Jovana Popovic and there is no hint of anger displayed.

The time is 20:43 and Raffaele is talking to his father which is why Amanda was answering the door. This is happening also while they are in the middle of watching Amelie. They finish watching Amanda's movie at 21:10. At 21:26 Raffaele opens one of his movies, "Naruto ep 101" which runs for 23 minutes.

But Meredith gets home at 21:05. This time is supported by the testimony of her english friends and the CCTV camera in the car park across the street. She doesn't have a chance to recall her mother whom she tried to call earlier. She doesn't have a chance to remove her wet clothes from the washing machine and move them to the drying rack. She doesn't have a chance to open up the history book that she borrowed to study that night. Her digestion doesn't have a chance to start moving her last meal out of her stomach. All of this evidence supports that Meredith was attacked and killed shortly after arriving home.

Anomalous activity begins on Meredith's phone at 21:58. The phones are found in a garden of a home where the police were called and responded at about 22:00. A car is broken down outside the cottage from 22:30 to 23:00 with 2 couples and the tow truck operator reporting no activity from the cottage. These events are consistent with an early murder but place serious constraints on alternative theories.

.

I really wish more people knew this - the most likely time of death is the best evidence of their innocence.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I am very surprised that you don’t understand the gravity of what Vecchiotti is saying, its implications. <snipped for brevity>

I think to answer all of this it might be best to re-look at the testimony:

Vecchiotti C. - For example, on DNA laboratory investigation it is known and it is described in all kits that negative controls should be included in order to verify or less [sic] if they are negative or not.
Prosecutor (Comodi) - And did you ask Dr. Stefanoni for negative controls ?
Vecchiotti C. - I asked Dr. Stefanoni several times and she knows she sent them to me several times the files about the laboratory test he had performed, it was obvious that they should have been there and were not there.

What she testifies to is this: I asked… several times… she sent them to me several times the files about the… tests she had performed, … they should have been there and they were not there.

PROSECUTOR - Why was it obvious?
Vecchiotti C. – Because you include the negative control, in such a delicate case moreover, in which among other things you know that we are speaking about contamination, I do not see why should it have been be not included.

The important statement here is “I do not see why it should not have been included.”

PROSECUTOR - But the negative controls were in fact already included in the proceedings file, are you stating that the negative controls are not there?
Vecchiotti C. - No look, to me they… I asked doctor [Stefanoni] directly and I have all of them here the...
PROSECUTOR - No you did not ask.
Vecchiotti C. – No, sorry , I have asked Dr. ...
PROSECUTOR - No Professor , you did not.
Vecchiotti C. - Then we have the email ...
President JUDGE Claudio Pratillo Hellmann - But excuse me prosecutor , you were not there...
Vecchiotti C. - Excuse me, I have the e-mails .
PROSECUTOR [to the judge]- No Mr. President , but I have read the emails.
President JUDGE Claudio Pratillo Hellmann - Please...

So now Comodi claims they are in the file. Vecchiotti states she specifically asked Stefanoni for them via email. She says she has the emails where she requested them. Why didn’t Comodi enter the emails into evidence if they proved her assertion that Stefanoni did not specifically ask for the negative controls? It makes no sense and it allows her to claim they were not asked for without proving her point. CV says she has the emails to prove what she is stating, but interestingly Comodi doesn't say "Well let's look at them." Why not?

Vecchiotti C. - I have read the emails too, in which we were saying about ... So when I ask in the mail several times and she even sends me the CD and sends me through emails, because it was correct on her part to send them and she was cooperative, I owe to say this and I repeat it, she sends the electropherograms and I give it for granted, I ask the first time, I ask a second time, I'll tell you even something more, the other party consultants they even ask for the raw data, they ask [inaudible], they ask about everything and even more , it is clear that she should have sent it to me , I mean one would attach it at least just to show that all reagents , that everything was negative, this is one of the reasons.

Again Vecchiotti says Stefanoni sends return emails and even a CD and yet the negative controls are not included. Here too is your answer to “Who is they?” Clearly she begins speaking of “they” as the other consultants. She says the other consultants have also asked for the negative controls. She says Stefanoni was cooperative (collaborativa) in that she did send information, but she maintains Stefanoni never sent the negative controls. She further explains “I ask the first time, I ask a second time” and “The other party consultants, they even ask for the raw data…” and she repeats, “She should have sent it to me…”
You claim Stefanoni cannot send her things directly, but this testimony clearly states Stefanoni sent her things directly.

And then there is this:

PROSECUTOR - But you rule out ... Anyway you always make me run forward [with the arguments], into the steps following the ones that I was planning to follow in my mind, however, you rule out the possibility that Stefanoni did not send them to you, just because the negative controls were already included to the proceedings file?

What is this mumbo jumbo? I have no idea what she means by this problem with her thought process, but she ends it all with stating the negative controls are in the file.

So then this:

Vecchiotti C. - But I've never seen them in the files of the proceedings, I have searched for them, if you have them and they were not shown to us, that's another thing, I mean I am learning just now that they were included, I don’t know, they should know this .
Defense attorney GIULIA BONGIORNO – They are not there, they are not there.

Neither Vecchiotti nor Bongiorno have ever seen these negative controls in the file. Vecchiotti can’t very well call Comodi a liar (as we know how that works out in Italy) so she says I searched for them and I didn’t see them. But the bigger question here is why the hell didn't Stefanoni reply to Vecchiotti's multiple requests, "They are in the file"?

PROSECUTOR –They were deposited on October 8, 2008 during the course of the Preliminary hearing.
Vecchiotti C. - Excuse me, all of them here ... and there are negatives there? Then they were not sent to us because here I have the emails.
PROSECUTOR – But ‘sent them’… of course, Dr. [Stefanoni] has sent what was not already included in the case file, and which you requested specifically as being something not present in the file.
Vecchiotti C. – Well, so then those of October 8, nobody has ever shown them to us, we didn’t even see them.

So Comodi claims they were deposited into the file on October 8, 2008. You say it is provable by the court transcripts, that there would be a record of the negative controls being deposited into the file. So why doesn’t Comodi whip out the transcripts to prove Vecchiotti is lying? That would have been one of the biggest “Aha” moments in the entire trial. But Comodi doesn’t do this. Why not? Surely she has a copy of the file. Surely she knew this was going to come up in the questioning of Vecchiotti. Why doesn’t she have this transcript at her fingertips to shoot Vecchiotti down in flames? She doesn’t because it doesn’t exist. Yes, I maintain it is non-existent. There is no other explanation why it wasn’t introduced right then and there to completely discredit CV. Instead, Comodi simply asserts it exists, to cause CV to doubt herself.

It seems to me, if there exists a transcript or document which proves these negative controls exist and were in the file as of 2008, this would put to rest all the back-and-forth about these negative controls. It would be a huge feather in the cap for the PGP. So where is it? Why can't even Comodi produce it?

 

[Strozzi]

Meredith was offered a special night at le chic to make mojitos. Personally it seemed that Meredith was insensitive about Amanda's job.

Grinder, do you have any source material that causes you to believe that Meredith was insensitive about Amanda's job? (citing Dr. Tesla doesn't count!)

 

[acbytesla]

I don't, but I don't think they do it with 2 people they barely know.

Well, according to Rudy she did it only with her BF. Once again you smudge the point by bring in other beliefs of yours.

huh???

More smudging. I don't believe that the knife was part of the murder as I have repeatedly said, but not because it is impossible to believe that they might have taken it along and brought it back.

Possible, as the Sun might go supernova tomorrow. not really even remotely likely.

Not exactly a hypothesis. You have a very hard time when caught with a false statement. I've asked you for sources but no avail.

huh?? what are you talking about??

It is not impossible for a murderer to bring a knife and had Amanda been involved she well might have grabbed the knife.

Of course it is not impossible...so maybe that word isn't the right word. Just lottery possible. Not reasonable not credible..silly.

Telling. You discounted their idea before you knew what was wrong. Sounds like you'd do well in the PLE maybe even cloning hard-drives .

No, I just know what's possible. It's the difference between understanding the problem and not understanding.

I'm Katy_DD and believe there is a reasonable chance that the blood on the floor fell between TMB and luminol in dilution recognition and actually was Meredith's from the mat or from long before the murder.

It's not that I don't think that there is a remote possibility, I think it is wrong to entertain that kind of possibility in a court of law given the NEGATIVE tests.

Perhaps you spent too much time in a binary world.

Perhaps, at least computers makes sense.

 

[yimyammer]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Every country has morons, but most don't let them become judges......... But it seems as if it is a prerequisite if you want to become an Italian Supreme Court Justice.

No wonder I was wrong about how their Supreme Court would rule early this year. I really expected them to have brains. Thank God I don't live in Italy, this phrase would get me thrown in jail!!! No wonder Machiavelli is so screwed up.

This and the perspective of a guy like Mach who is presumably Italian, speaks the language, has access to the trials, transcripts and who knows what else and is so diametrically opposed to the view of PIP's in this thread gives me little hope the courts will rule in Amanda/Raf's favor, but maybe they'll surprise me.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

But Vecchiotti states that she didn’t know that the negative controls were deposited at the preliminary hearing. Is it possible that you don’t see how serious the implication of this?
The point is Vecchiotti quoted the Oct. 2008 preliminary hearing extensively in her report. Her reading of the transcripts of the preliminary hearing is among the basis on which Vecchiotti builds her arguments about the knife, on which she attempts to attack Stefanoni’s “credibility” using her declarations about the knife and her guess about the DNA amount. The 2008 preliminary hearing is the hearing from which Vecchiotti quotes (or actually twists and misquotes) Stefanoni, where Stefanoni says that she doesn’t have documents about quantization but says it’s a low template, and maybe the whole amount could be in the magnitude of hundreds pictograms. Vecchiotti attacks Stefanoni on this ridiculous argument parroting the defence, and does this based on the reading of those very transcripts the content of which she now claims she doesn’t know.

But she doesn’t say she doesn’t “know” the report at all. She states there were no negative controls in the file, at least none of which she is aware. IF the negative controls are not there, then your whole argument is moot. You state there are chancellery records of what was deposited into the file on 8/10/08. Can you get a copy of them? So far, no one has seen them, except Comodi claims the negative controls are there.

 

[davefoc]

I think Grinder is right with regard to his limited point and it is reasonable to just acknowledge this. If I understand him correctly, he is just saying that a stand alone argument that it is extremely unlikely that a murderer would take a knife from their apartment, kill somebody with it, and return it to their apartment is not valid. That is something that a murderer might do.

If one argues that Knox is not the kind of person that would do that, or that in this case there is no evidence that anything like that happened the argument about the knife movement is not an independent argument. It is not as probative as it seems as to whether Knox murdered Kercher. The probability that a conclusion based on bits of circumstantial evidence is true can be calculated my multiplying together the probabilities that the independent pieces of evidence are true. But this kind of calculation doesn't work when the bits of evidence are dependent on each other.

Part of the knife movement argument depends on evidence that is already being used as part of other elements of the circumstantial case that Knox didn't murder Kercher. As such the knife movement argument is of limited value if one is trying to prove that Knox didn't murder Kercher.

However the argument that it is unlikely that Knox or Sollecito would select that knife as a murder weapon because it is difficult to conceal or that there were other knives that Knox and Sollecito might have selected for the murder that were more practical weapons is (in my view) an independent argument and it therefore has some probative value to the circumstantial case that Knox and Sollecito didn't murder Kercher. But even this argument is much less strong than other arguments that the knife was not the murder weapon so I still think that in any form, the knife movement argument is of limited probative value as to the issue of whether Knox and/or Sollecito murdered Kercher.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Vecchiotti C. - For example, on DNA laboratory investigation it is known and it is described in all kits that negative controls should be included in order to verify or less [sic] if they are negative or not.
Prosecutor (Comodi) - And did you ask Dr. Stefanoni for negative controls ?
Vecchiotti C. - I asked Dr. Stefanoni several times and she knows she sent them to me several times the files about the laboratory test he had performed, it was obvious that they should have been there and were not there.
PROSECUTOR - Why was it obvious?
Vecchiotti C. – Because you include the negative control, in such a delicate case moreover, in which among other things you know that we are speaking about contamination, I do not see why should it have been be not included.
PROSEUTOR - But the negative controls were in fact already included in the proceedings file , are you stating that the negative controls are not there?
Vecchiotti C. - No look, to me they… I asked doctor [Stefanoni] directly and I have all of them here the...
PROSECUTOR - No you did not ask.
Vecchiotti C. – No, sorry , I have asked Dr. ...
PROSECUTOR - No Professor , you did not.
Vecchiotti C. - Then we have the email ...
President JUDGE Claudio Pratillo Hellmann - But excuse me prosecutor, you were not there...
Vecchiotti C. - Excuse me, I have the e-mails.
PROSECUTOR [to the judge]- No Mr. President , but I have read the emails.
President JUDGE Claudio Pratillo Hellmann - Please ...
Vecchiotti C. - I have read the emails too, in which we were saying about ... So when I ask in the mail several times and she even sends me the CD and sends me through emails, because it was correct on her part to send them and she was cooperative, I owe to say this and I repeat it, she sends the electropherograms and I give it for granted, I ask the first time, I ask a second time, I'll tell you even something more, the other party consultants they even ask for the raw data, they ask [inaudible], they ask about everything and even more , it is clear that she should have sent it to me , I mean one would attach it at least just to show that all reagents , that everything was negative, this is one of the reasons.
PROSECUTOR - But you rule out ... Anyway you always make me run forward [with the arguments], into the steps following the ones that I was planning to follow in my mind, however, you rule out the possibility that Stefanoni did not send them to you, just because the negative controls were already included to the proceedings file?
Vecchiotti C. - But I 've never seen them in the files of the proceedings, I have searched for them, if you have them and they were not shown to us, that's another thing, I mean I am learning just now that they were included, I don’t know, they should know this .
Defense attorney GIULIA BONGIORNO – They are not there, they are not there.
PROSECUTOR – They were deposited on October 8. 2008 during the course of the Preliminary hearing .
Vecchiotti C. - Excuse me, all of them here ... and the are negatives there? Then they were not sent to us because here I have the emails .
PROSECUTOR – But ‘sent them’… of course, Dr. [Stefanoni] has sent what was not already included in the case file, and which you requested specifically as being something not present in the file .
Vecchiotti C. – Well, so then those of October 8. nobody has ever shown them to us, we didn’t even see them.

Do you have the part of the testimony prior to where this begins? I'd like to read this in context with whatever was stated prior to this.

 

[Machiavelli]

But she doesn’t say she doesn’t “know” the report at all. She states there were no negative controls in the file, at least none of which she is aware. IF the negative controls are not there, then your whole argument is moot. You state there are chancellery records of what was deposited into the file on 8/10/08. Can you get a copy of them? So far, no one has seen them, except Comodi claims the negative controls are there.

No, Vecchiotti says she doesn't know. She is learning now, for the first time, that they were deposited in the file.
She says this explicitly

"(...) lo apprendo adesso che erano allegati, non lo so, dovrebbero saperlo".

But beyond her explicit statement, this comes out as implicit and obvious from her answers, before and after thate.
Before Comodi mentions the preliminary hearing, Vecchiotti is totally unaware, explains why it was obvious that Stefanoni should send it, but completely omits to mention somethig which wold have been of extreme importance like that Stefanoni declared she deposited on Oct. 8. but the controls are not in the file.
Then, immediately after, Vecchiotti justifis herself saying:

Scusi, tutte qua... e ci sono i negativi? Allora non ci sono stati mandati perché io ho qua le mail.

Again, she says if they were there, "they were not sent to us". So again, she resorts to the excuse that they were not sent.
Not that they were not in the file: they just didn't send them to them. She confirms she expected to be sent the material.
And again, she justifies herself bringing up "the e-mails", this meaning that she is expecting the files to be sent from Stefanoni (Stefanoni is the one who didn't sent her the material); thus she shifting away from the topic again: the prosecutor is talking about a court hearing, about chancellery of the preliminary judge, and instead Vecchiotti talks again about e-mails and Stefanoni.
It's absolutely obvious. I can't understand how you fail to notice that.

Vecchiotti gives a show of herself, confirming this, also subsequently.
In a subsequent hearing the fact that Vecchiotti did not search the case file at the preliminary judge (from where she is supposed to hav got the documents she quotes) becomes evident again, when Comodi brings into court the files that were deposited at the preliminary hearing. Vecchiotti takes them, browses them and, while she pretends to not understand them and says she doesn't understand what page numbers and what tests they are about, what is obvious - and what she says - is that she doesn't know the document, she was seeing that documentation for the fist time (and that document came from the Preliminary judge's archive).

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you have the part of the testimony prior to where this begins? I'd like to read this in context with whatever was stated prior to this.

Yes of course, but it's in Italian, and I didn't translate it.

 

[Dan O.]

And here we see Machiavelli withholding evidence just like his mentors the prosecution.