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

[Supernaut]

Really, I've read more than enough to see that a certain male poster has issues with females, sex and sexuality that makes the Victorian English look like Bohemians.

 

[Supernaut]

Did this make you and/or the lady more or less likely to murder someone in a foursome gone wrong?

In hindsight? let me think ....less likely?

 

[Diocletus]

The assertion consists in pointing out that the described event is verosimile, credible, plausible. Since there is a number of elements that support this.
There is no proof, but no proof about this was intended to be sought. I thought that this was clear. The analysis of the context, the elements that I mentioned, it's just a check, meant to control if there is something that contradicts the guilty scenario. There is nothing that contradicts, there are elements instead that favor the scenario.

That's interesting, because I was thinking that it is credible, plausible and compatible with the known facts that Napoleoni and her cops planted the DNA on the clasp. For example, Napoleoni's cops are known to engage in illegal behavior. Napoleoni and her cops had exclusive custody and access to the cottage on November 6 and 7 (and it appears, sometime afterwards), and as far as I can tell, they should not have been in there because arrests had been made and the defendants had a right to be present. They had a reason to plant the DNA, because they needed the evidence, because the wiretaps told them that the shoes were no good. The clasp is known to have moved. So many compatible facts.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The assertion consists in pointing out that the described event is verosimile, credible, plausible. Since there is a number of elements that support this.
There is no proof, but no proof about this was intended to be sought. I thought that this was clear. The analysis of the context, the elements that I mentioned, it's just a check, meant to control if there is something that contradicts the guilty scenario. There is nothing that contradicts, there are elements instead that favor the scenario.

Obviously, I mean to say the scenario is just about a one-night sexual meeting involving Knox and Guede, it has nothing to do with the ludicrous idea that Guede was a pimp.

No, it is poco verosimile. Verosimile is realistic, probable, likely. The reality is she had reportedly met Guede once, she was 6 or 7 days into a hot, steamy romance with Raffaele, she thought she had to work that night, she was definitely at Raffaele’s flat at 8:40 PM, and no one had ever seen Guede and Knox together, other than the 1 reported incident when they ended up at the same party. This does not in any way make your assertion that they had sex, let alone had sex on that specific night, probable. You are trying to say it is é verosimile che I fatti si siano svolti cosi, but that is a huge stretch of the imagination. The elements you claim favor the scenario are debole, un’argomentazione poco convincente. In fact, it is almost completely impossible.
I see a consistency in your arguments though. You seem to think it is incumbent upon people to prove negatives. You don’t see the necessity to prove your assertions, but rather it is acceptable for you to claim that it is possible, therefore probable that something happened. You move from possible to probable too easily. Interestingly, if it is something with which you disagree, such as Stefanoni disclosing the negative controls, you refuse to apply the same logic.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Amanda had sex with a man she met on a train to Florence. They had sex that night in the hotel. At least that is what the testimonies reported.

This interesting phrasing makes me suspect that Machiavelli is well aware that Amanda Knox's account of this event in Waiting To Be Heard says that they fooled around, did not have sex because they didn't have a condom, and then Amanda went back to her hotel room.

Why Machiavelli would report allegations that he/they know to be probably false, without mentioning that they are probably false and they know it, I do not know. I do struggle to find an innocent motivation, however.

 

[acbytesla]

I think I read somewhere that Andrea Vogt performed oral sex on Mignini and Commodi and this is why she seems to have so much access to prosecution information. Machiavelli?? What do you know about Vogt trading sexual favors for access??

 

[Grinder]

The assertion consists in pointing out that the described event is verosimile, credible, plausible. Since there is a number of elements that support this.
There is no proof, but no proof about this was intended to be sought. I thought that this was clear. The analysis of the context, the elements that I mentioned, it's just a check, meant to control if there is something that contradicts the guilty scenario. There is nothing that contradicts, there are elements instead that favor the scenario.

Obviously, I mean to say the scenario is just about a one-night sexual meeting involving Knox and Guede, it has nothing to do with the ludicrous idea that Guede was a pimp.

Mach if Amanda had never had sex before Raf would that change anything about your opinion of her guilt?

As you might know I think it possible that Rudy made a date with Meredith on Halloween night or at least an arrangement to meet-up with her the next night. We know that in fact they met up the next night one way or the other.

Lalli said she had the equivalent of one full drink in her system. The british girls said she didn't drink at the pizza party so where did the alcohol come from? Is Lalli credible? Do you think that with Meredith's boyfriend out of town she might have interest in the beautiful black man? It seems Meredith was into extreme sex and was aiding and abetting a drug merchant.

 

[Diocletus]

I think I read somewhere that Andrea Vogt performed oral sex on Mignini and Commodi and this is why she seems to have so much access to prosecution information. Machiavelli?? What do you know about Vogt trading sexual favors for access??

I doubt that that's true. Vogt is too dumb to think of that.

 

[kwill]

Excuse me - but did "Machiavelli" actually say this?

You were asking if he called Amanda Knox a slut. I believe the phrase he used was "party girl." The context was whether or not she took money for sex, and his contention was that no, probably not, because she was not a prostitute but rather a party girl.

That this is even being discussed about a young woman who was an innocent bystander to a terrible crime is mind-boggling, but there it is.

He also questioned her status as an honor student who was attending a legitimate university earning credits toward a degree, which are details that obviously don't fit easily with the "party girl" designation. I'm going to repeat myself and say that this is an absurd suspicion. It's not as ugly as all the speculation about how she chose to manage her sex life, but it's still wrong.

 

[Supernaut]

This interesting phrasing makes me suspect that Machiavelli is well aware that Amanda Knox's account of this event in Waiting To Be Heard says that they fooled around, did not have sex because they didn't have a condom, and then Amanda went back to her hotel room.

Why Machiavelli would report allegations that he/they know to be probably false, without mentioning that they are probably false and they know it, I do not know. I do struggle to find an innocent motivation, however.

<sarcasm> it's hard to explain, isn't it? </sarcasm>

 

[acbytesla]

I doubt that that's true. Vogt is too dumb to think of that.

No, I'm sure Vogt is giving it up to several members of the prosecution. She certainly is compatible with giving it up to random members of the prosecution. What do you think Machiavelli? Is she compatible??

 

[Dan O.]

This interesting phrasing makes me suspect that Machiavelli is well aware that Amanda Knox's account of this event in Waiting To Be Heard says that they fooled around, did not have sex because they didn't have a condom, and then Amanda went back to her hotel room.

Why Machiavelli would report allegations that he/they know to be probably false, without mentioning that they are probably false and they know it, I do not know. I do struggle to find an innocent motivation, however.

But he says "At least that is what the testimonies reported." Has this testimonies ever been provided here? The name only comes up once in this thread 2 years ago when Bill absolutely shreds the rumor.

Bringing this subject up when trying to deflect the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct is laughable. It just reminds us of when the police stormed Amanda's cell on November 30, 2007 and confiscated her writings. News of this was in the papers the very next day with quotes coming out in the subsequent days. It was also from these confiscated papers that an author acquired the details of Amanda's sex life and included it in a book. That author and publisher were successfully sued. And to wrap it up, one name is conspicuously missing from the list of Amanda's sex partners.

With that fully documented and evidenced, I call Machiavelli's statement a lie.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, from what I posted already we can divine that Vecchiotti required an electropherogram that included the peak area data in addition to the peak height data like on the one she originally sent. However this omission by Stefanoni and Vecchiotti having to specifically ask for one with the peak area data included doesn't imply that Vecchiotti should have had to specifically request every little thing regarding the data for the work she was evaluating, especially something as necessary to the evaluation of the work as the negative controls.

Well, actually it does imply that Vecchiotti went into the merit of which single file she wanted to have. She wrote a mail (maybe more than one) not to just request “all the existing documentation” in generic terms, but to request single files. It seems to me there is a little contradiction in your statement above, when you talk about specifically requesting “every little thing” and “especially something as necessary to the evaluation of the work”.
The apparent contradiction is between “little thing” and “something as necessary…” . It’s a bit jarring isn’t it? If something is absolutely necessary to her work, it’s not a “little thing”.
If Vechiotti sends a second and third e-mail in order to request some specific file which she indicates, on the ground that that specific file is necessary to her work, this logically implies she could well request a second or a third file, in the same e-mail.
But she didn’t.
You seem to set the issue as if the problem was whether Vecchiotti “had to” specifically ask things. But the problem is not if she ‘had to’. The problem actually is that Vecchiotti could request something which she (and you) define as absolutely necessary to complete her work, she could do that, and she didn’t.
If something is absolutely necessary, you can request it, and you don’t request it (or don’t make any attempt to obtain it) it’s an indefensible position.
Compare her position to that of a doctor (which in fact she is): if you can do something, you have to. And if you can do and you don’t do, you are at fault.

Then she answered that Stefanoni was cooperative and send all material that she requested.

She was paid (along with Conti) to test the knife and evaluate the work of Stafanoni, not chase down all the records necessary to do so.

I'm afraid you'r wrong. In fact, she was paid exactly for seeking out herself all documentation that could be necessary to her analysis. She is a court appointed expert. She is appointed for dealing with courts documentation in the first place. She was granted unfettered access to the records.
But she didn’t access them. Apparently, she complained that someone else didn’t tell her what was in the case file.

Stefanoni claimed she and the police followed all sorts of procedures even a cursory glance at the crime scene videos proves they did not, such as regularly change their gloves. C&V made a demonstration of that in court as you'll recall. Merely because Stefanoni (or Comodi) asserted something in court is no reason for C&V to assume it was true, especially them having evidence of it not being true.

Try to follow me: they cannot assume it is false, either. Certainly not prior to reporting about it, and not without reporting about their own verification activity on the topic.

Btw (this is incidental): indeed C&V played a video (which was already known to the judges), but this video did not prove that something said by Stefanoni was a lie. In fact the only purpose of the video was to show a dirty glove. Which was already photographed and seen by the first instance trial judges.

She went straight to the source, the person who had all the files and whose work was being evaluated. Being as they were (in part) commissioned to evaluate Stefanoni's technical report they had the data they needed from the RTIGF, if Stefanoni failed to include something there and didn't bring it to C&V's attention that it was included at another time despite being asked for all files relevant to the tests Stefanoni performed then the omission is on Stefanoni, not them.

I’m sorry but this argument is totally flawed. In reality the only person responsible for Vecchiotti’s documentation is Vecchiotti herself.
By going to a “direct source” she doesn’t have a power to “transfer” any responsibility to Stefanoni. She (and Conti) are the only ones responsible for ensuring that all steps are taken order to obtain the complete documentation they need, insofar as they deem it necessary to their work.
If Vecchiotti and Conti deem something is necessary, and don’t take a step to obtain it, they are at fault. And Stefanoni bears no responsibility for such fault, regardless if Stefanoni’s cooperation performance is good or bad.
Stefanoni was not appointed by the judge. Stefanoni had no obligation, except complying with Vecchiotti’s requests, and bears no responsability about the adequacy of Vecchiotti and Conti's documentation. If Vecchiotti’s requests turn out to be incomplete and inadequate, their responsibility is out of discussion.

Yes, she ought to have been quite surprised if there was material outstanding that wasn't in the RTIGF and wasn't included by Stefanoni when she was asked for the files relevant to the tests.

She ought to know what was in the preliminary hearing transcripts, since she included them in her reference documentation and quoted the mas legal papers.
But she didn’t know them.

Perhaps this is because C&V weren't commissioned to take Stefanoni at her word but to evaluate the work she did, and having been exposed to it realized that simply because Stefanoni said something in court didn't mean it was true? A perusal of this page (amongst others!) shows where they'd discovered this about Stefanoni and her work.

Vecchiotti fails to mention key information from the preliminary hearing. She could have taken it and challenged it. In fact, she did challenge something, but just one cherry picked element (which maybe she was fed directly by the defence, since, by coincidence, it’s exactly the same one quoted in the defence submissions).
Had she actually read the transcripts and seached the files, she could have challenged the negative controls pointing out the contradiction.
But she didn’t.
Vecchiotti didn’t mention and didn’t challenge the records. She did not do anything to verify them. She simply ignored them.
They were not commissioned to take Stefanoni at her word, but they neither can ignore her – and they cannot ignore the transcripts. What C&V did was to ignore some things, they refused to dispute them and just assumed something else without verification, and they cherry pick and ‘challenged’ openly only some other few of them. In other words, the mentioned and disputed only the claimes that they could dispute, while they ignored the claims that they didn’t want to actually find out.

To my knowledge there is no proof anywhere that Stefanoni ever submitted the negative controls. We know that Comodi claimed they were on record, but when she attempted to find them she couldn't and produced a record that wasn't compatible with the other records.

To my knowledge, judge Pratillo Hellmann refused to accept them, on the reason that “contamination could have occurred outside the laboratory”.

The proof that Stefanoni submitted the negative controls is actually a secondary issue. What matters instead, the real problem with Vecchiotti and Conti, is that they made no attempt to verify whethr the negative controls were submitted, if they were there, if they were iin the file; and even if they were elsewhere.

C&V did no attempt to verify and this is the only, actually sufficient, question that matters to their credibility. Comodi said that the negative controls were deposited, she may be wrong but the word of a magistrate puts the burden of proof on those who want to disprove it, Stefanoni deglared she always performed negative controls (and btw it would be just unrealistic and not credible to assume the contrary) this witness statement also put a burden of proof on anyone who wishes to dispute it; but anyway, the question of where the negative are is secondary to the point of C&Vs’ credibility: they only should have attemtped to verify their existence, to verify the court files, and they did nothing. This blows down C&V no matter who or what Comodi and Stefanoni are or did.

 

[Supernaut]

I've just realised that we NEED Mach here until the trial ends.

Bearing this in mind, I will desist from humiliating him, hence forth.

 

[Supernaut]

Well, actually it does imply that Vecchiotti went into the merit of which single file she wanted to have. She wrote a mail (maybe more than one) not to just request “all the existing documentation” in generic terms, but to request single files. It seems to me there is a little contradiction in your statement above, when you talk about specifically requesting “every little thing” and “especially something as necessary to the evaluation of the work”.
The apparent contradiction is between “little thing” and “something as necessary…” . It’s a bit jarring isn’t it? If something is absolutely necessary to her work, it’s not a “little thing”.
If Vechiotti sends a second and third e-mail in order to request some specific file which she indicates, on the ground that that specific file is necessary to her work, this logically implies she could well request a second or a third file, in the same e-mail.
But she didn’t.
You seem to set the issue as if the problem was whether Vecchiotti “had to” specifically ask things. But the problem is not if she ‘had to’. The problem actually is that Vecchiotti could request something which she (and you) define as absolutely necessary to complete her work, she could do that, and she didn’t.
If something is absolutely necessary, you can request it, and you don’t request it (or don’t make any attempt to obtain it) it’s an indefensible position.
Compare her position to that of a doctor (which in fact she is): if you can do something, you have to. And if you can do and you don’t do, you are at fault.

Then she answered that Stefanoni was cooperative and send all material that she requested.



I'm afraid you'r wrong. In fact, she was paid exactly for seeking out herself all documentation that could be necessary to her analysis. She is a court appointed expert. She is appointed for dealing with courts documentation in the first place. She was granted unfettered access to the records.
But she didn’t access them. Apparently, she complained that someone else didn’t tell her what was in the case file.



Try to follow me: they cannot assume it is false, either. Certainly not prior to reporting about it, and not without reporting about their own verification activity on the topic.

Btw (this is incidental): indeed C&V played a video (which was already known to the judges), but this video did not prove that something said by Stefanoni was a lie. In fact the only purpose of the video was to show a dirty glove. Which was already photographed and seen by the first instance trial judges.



I’m sorry but this argument is totally flawed. In reality the only person responsible for Vecchiotti’s documentation is Vecchiotti herself.
By going to a “direct source” she doesn’t have a power to “transfer” any responsibility to Stefanoni. She (and Conti) are the only ones responsible for ensuring that all steps are taken order to obtain the complete documentation they need, insofar as they deem it necessary to their work.
If Vecchiotti and Conti deem something is necessary, and don’t take a step to obtain it, they are at fault. And Stefanoni bears no responsibility for such fault, regardless if Stefanoni’s cooperation performance is good or bad.
Stefanoni was not appointed by the judge. Stefanoni had no obligation, except complying with Vecchiotti’s requests, and bears no responsability about the adequacy of Vecchiotti and Conti's documentation. If Vecchiotti’s requests turn out to be incomplete and inadequate, their responsibility is out of discussion.



She ought to know what was in the preliminary hearing transcripts, since she included them in her reference documentation and quoted the mas legal papers.
But she didn’t know them.



Vecchiotti fails to mention key information from the preliminary hearing. She could have taken it and challenged it. In fact, she did challenge something, but just one cherry picked element (which maybe she was fed directly by the defence, since, by coincidence, it’s exactly the same one quoted in the defence submissions).
Had she actually read the transcripts and seached the files, she could have challenged the negative controls pointing out the contradiction.
But she didn’t.
Vecchiotti didn’t mention and didn’t challenge the records. She did not do anything to verify them. She simply ignored them.
They were not commissioned to take Stefanoni at her word, but they neither can ignore her – and they cannot ignore the transcripts. What C&V did was to ignore some things, they refused to dispute them and just assumed something else without verification, and they cherry pick and ‘challenged’ openly only some other few of them. In other words, the mentioned and disputed only the claimes that they could dispute, while they ignored the claims that they didn’t want to actually find out.



To my knowledge, judge Pratillo Hellmann refused to accept them, on the reason that “contamination could have occurred outside the laboratory”.

The proof that Stefanoni submitted the negative controls is actually a secondary issue. What matters instead, the real problem with Vecchiotti and Conti, is that they made no attempt to verify whethr the negative controls were submitted, if they were there, if they were iin the file; and even if they were elsewhere.

C&V did no attempt to verify and this is the only, actually sufficient, question that matters to their credibility. Comodi said that the negative controls were deposited, she may be wrong but the word of a magistrate puts the burden of proof on those who want to disprove it, Stefanoni deglared she always performed negative controls (and btw it would be just unrealistic and not credible to assume the contrary) this witness statement also put a burden of proof on anyone who wishes to dispute it; but anyway, the question of where the negative are is secondary to the point of C&Vs’ credibility: they only should have attemtped to verify their existence, to verify the court files, and they did nothing. This blows down C&V no matter who or what Comodi and Stefanoni are or did.

Would you mind conversing, rather than slinking off and then dropping 1000's of words of bovine-manure on us, like this?

 

[Diocletus]

she may be wrong but the word of a magistrate puts the burden of proof on those who want to disprove it,

Is this an actual law in Italy? This would be one of the most absurd laws ever, but the quality of the judiciary is so poor that I wouldn't be surprised.

Or, is this just something that you are making up?

 

[Diocletus]

Stefanoni deglared she always performed negative controls (and btw it would be just unrealistic and not credible to assume the contrary) this witness statement also put a burden of proof on anyone who wishes to dispute it;

Indeed, she did do controls.

The problem is just that she's hiding the results of her controls.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
He also questioned her status as an honor student who was attending a legitimate university earning credits toward a degree, which are details that obviously don't fit easily with the "party girl" designation. I'm going to repeat myself and say that this is an absurd suspicion. It's not as ugly as all the speculation about how she chose to manage her sex life, but it's still wrong.

These details fit just perfectly.
Anyway, I point out that the "honor student" claim is just a claim; by now I never saw evidence about this.

I only saw elements of the contrary; something incidental and irrelevant: among those elements I include the fact, that you may legitimately consider irrelevant, and maybe it is, that she was not in Perugia as a part of an academic exchange, she did not win a scholarship and was not on a program set in agreement with the University of Washington, she rather enrolled in a "free" or "anarchic" study program, that she decided independently from her University - while Meredith was there on an Erasmus scholarship.

 

[Machiavelli]

Would you mind conversing, rather than slinking off and then dropping 1000's of words of bovine-manure on us, like this?

I'm conversing with Kaosium.

 

[Bill Williams]

These details fit just perfectly.
Anyway, I point out that the "honor student" claim is just a claim; by now I never saw evidence about this.

I only saw elements of the contrary; something incidental and irrelevant: among those elements I include the fact, that you may legitimately consider irrelevant, and maybe it is, that she was not in Perugia as a part of an academic exchange, she did not win a scholarship and was not on a program set in agreement with the University of Washington, she rather enrolled in a "free" or "anarchic" study program, that she decided independently from her University - while Meredith was there on an Erasmus scholarship.

Well, I do consider irrelevant. Why is this even important?