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

[acbytesla]

The double-edged sword that is the internet.

It allows access to EVERYTHING - arcane/occult knowledge and ......... pornography.

Every kind of pornography.

The internet CREATED the market for child-pornography.

Think about it.

There was a market for kiddie porn long before the Internet. The internet has just made it far easier to acquire.

 

[Supernaut]

I suppose it could be said that teh interweb is a tool with which people can enlighten or debase themselves.

I see a preponderance of debasement.

 

[Supernaut]

There was a market for kiddie porn long before the Internet. The internet has just made it far easier to acquire.

I asked that you "think about it".

You haven't.

 

[acbytesla]

I asked that you "think about it".

You haven't.

How long do I have to think about it??

 

[kwill]

.

Vecchiotti reviewed a subset of Stefanoni's work and found a number of problems that rendered it scientifically invalid. She detailed her findings in a report that is available to the public.

This report is what matters. Even if one could prove, decisively, that Vecchiotti is a criminal, or that she is a habitual liar, or that she has never been right in a single other case, it would not change the substance of her findings in this case. These findings must be addressed on their own terms, by people who are technically competent to do so.

The PMF cultists, who indeed are joined by the judges on Italy's highest court, don't have that competence.

Thanks, and generally thanks for being so articulate; I learn something every time you write.

I was looking at that middle paragraph and thinking about how it relates to the conversation about juries of peers and the need for them to remain focused on what the evidence shows. My sense is that what you wrote there would seem crazy to some Italians,while to me it's self-evident.

Stefanoni did or did not complete her work in this case in a scientifically valid manner. If she did, her results stand. If not, there are no results because the two samples that matter are both gone.

Her past work, her academic credentials, her relationships with the prosecutors, all of that is just as irrelevant as Raffaele's personal life or Amanda's work history.

Did she or did she not complete her work in a scientifically valid manner? Vechiotti says no, and she explains why. It ought to be the end of the story.

(And yes, I realize I just repeated what you said, only not as clearly. )

 

[acbytesla]

I suppose it could be said that teh interweb is a tool with which people can enlighten or debase themselves.

I see a preponderance of debasement.

Double edged sword. Great for commerce, Great for fraud. Great for coming together with people, great for keeping people isolated and alone.

It's a tool. It's how we use the tool.

 

[Supernaut]

I suppose it could be said that teh interweb is a tool with which people can enlighten or debase themselves.

I see a preponderance of debasement.

I mis-phrased that slightly;

I should have said;

Teh interweb is a tool with which people can both enlighten and debase themselves.

 

[Strozzi]

Without the internet few outside of Amanda's family and friends would have heard of, or at least remembered, Amanda's name and she and Raffaele would be spending most of their lives in a Perugian prison for a crime they did not commit.

 

[Mary_H]

Maybe...but another thought is she might keep the body in the passenger seat of her car so she could drive in the HOV lane.

Mmmm.....yummy.

I almost never have to kill anybody after one of my orgies. Almost all my guests want to be invited to the next one.

 

[acbytesla]

Mmmm.....yummy.

I almost never have to kill anybody after one of my orgies. Almost all my guests want to be invited to the next one.

Almost never??

 

[acbytesla]

Without the internet few outside of Amanda's family and friends would have heard of, or at least remembered, Amanda's name and she and Raffaele would be spending most of their lives in a Perugian prison for a crime they did not commit.

You think Strozzi? The tabloids and the rest of the media did a pretty good job of crucifying and resurrecting Amanda if you ask me. How many people watched the 48 Hours and Dateline specials on Amanda?

I'm sure the Internet and Social media played a role....still.

 

[Grinder]

Maybe...but another thought is she might keep the body in the passenger seat of her car so she could drive in the HOV lane.

Once again ridiculous. Mary as we all know is a good student, loves animals and would never cheat in the HOV lanes.

No she would throw the body in a trash can where the police would never look.

She might take Chris' advice and put it in a storm drain, but being a Seattle hippie she wouldn't do that to the environment.

 

[Supernaut]

Double edged sword. Great for commerce, Great for fraud. Great for coming together with people, great for keeping people isolated and alone.

It's a tool. It's how we use the tool.

Quite.

So, how are we using it?

ETA >> Charlie Wilkes has already provided the stats.

 

[acbytesla]

Once again ridiculous. Mary as we all know is a good student, loves animals and would never cheat in the HOV lanes.

OK, I want to drive in the HOV lanes, so that is what I would do.

No she would throw the body in a trash can where the police would never look.

She might take Chris' advice and put in a storm drain, but being a Seattle hippie she wouldn't do that to the environment.

That's probably good for the environment. All that protein for the fish to feast on. cycle of life ..you know.

 

[smkovalinksy]

There was a market for kiddie porn long before the Internet. The internet has just made it far easier to acquire.

But is also has likely drawn many in who would never have sought it out in the days prior to the internet. Appetites can be created by access. Yes, the internet is a tool; capable of fostering the greatest evil and the greatest good. I wouldn't be against some of it be strictly regulated or censored, as is necessary.

 

[Planigale]

I think that Machiavelli's comments are interesting. It is hard for us from a common law jurisdiction to understand the nuances of Roman law. Common law has evolved over 800 years, with certain principles, that just seem irrelevant to the inquisitorial system. The prolonged imprisonment of Amanda Knox prior to trial would certainly have been challenged under habeas corpus. The concept that so much evidence is presented in paper format and that this can incorporate both civil claims including evidence that is not permissible in the criminal case yet is considered by the same 'jury', that complex technical arguments are assessed by the judge(s) privately, and that the public hearing is just the tip of he iceberg is alien to us. We are used to the concept of 'justice must not only be done but seen to be done'. That the prosecution only reveals the information it wants to the defence and can refuse to divulge evidence in favour of the defines seems strange but to coin a phrase Italy is a foreign country and they do things differently there.

As an aside a criminologist on BBC radio this morning made a good observation; 'murder is young man's business', in relation to how rare women murderers are especially those using a knife.

 

[Kaosium]

The quoting and discussing about Vecchiotti's interrogation transcript is no "strained rationalization", it is actualy the most important and factual topic I've posted about in the recent times. I believe it is far more factual and important than all the recent posts which you see as "well written" or "reasonable", which are irrelevant.
What people call "innuendo" about Knox and Guede is something made of absolutely factual elements; but it's marginal, it only relates to a scenario and almost has no probative merit.
But my pointing out a piece of Vecchiotti's transcrit, that is one of the elements (just one of them) from which you can deduce there is a huge problem with Vecchiotti's honesty (as pointed out by the Supreme Court, btw), is instead an extremely important thing, which should be considered as a most objective and relevant topic.
Kaosium has attempted a rationalization of it in response, which is indeed made of denials, twists and basicaly makes up law principles, in attempt to de-fuse its content.
But Kaosium's response is just entirely wrong, it's a re-writing of procedure, an overturning of principles, and also incorporates factual falsehoods.

Hogwash.

I went back to see what you might be talking about and discovered this post which I missed the first time around. I also reviewed what we were specifically )) talking about as I'd wondered if I'd gotten lost during the time I was having trouble following the thread. First off I'll re-post the translation you produced (is this your translation BTW?) regarding Vecchiotti in court, in September of 2011, in reference to the negative controls:

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.

Vecchiotti clearly thinks Stefanoni should have sent the negative controls and that she asked for them. Here's why she would think that:

April 7, 2011: In a fax to Judge Hellmann, independent expert Dr. Conti emphasizes the importance of receiving all relevant data from the police lab, whether “found, or partially found, in the court records or acquisitions.” In other words: “everything integral to the investigation of the two items of evidence,” whether it had already been presented in court or not. The judge swiftly approves Conti’s request for key files.

April 14, 2011: Judge Hellmann’s court clerk (Maria Centorrini) faxes Dr. Stefanoni, telling her to send “as soon as possible” the items requested by Conti, the independent expert. She attaches Conti’s requests, already approved by the judge:

The alleged murder weapon: an ordinary kitchen knife from Raffaele Sollecito's apartment. There is no proof that it was ever carried to the crime scene. Judge Giancarlo Massei claimed that Knox was carrying this knife in her cloth bag, because she worked in a dangerous neighborhood. However, she didn't go to work the night of the murder. No blood or DNA from the victim was found inside the cloth bag.

1. CD of the electropherograms relating to the bra clasp and knife deposed 10/8/2008 during preliminary hearings and found at Raffaele’s flat on Nov. 6, 2007.
2. CD RAW DATA (data relative to the general electrophoretic runs of the automatic sequencer).
3. All the transcriptions, in all the phases, of the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the CTP, including the documentation deposed (considerations and notes, including possible CDs). 4. CD film, photos, search reports on methods of checking evidence into custody, preservation, and transport to the police laboratory.

So they not only asked for “everything integral to the investigation of the two items of evidence” and added “found, or partially found, in the court records or acquisitions" they specifically also asked "including the documentation deposed (considerations and notes, including possible CDs."

That's April 14th of 2011. Stefanoni decided to argue with the judge privately and he told her to copy that correspondence to them and to give the Independent Court Experts what they needed on April 20th, here's Stefanoni's excuses and his reply:

"In reference to the acquisition of the CD containing a collection of DNA profiles (in the form of electropherograms), copies of the same were presented and had already been deposed in the court records on 9/25/2008 by Judge Paolo Micheli of the Perugia Court, and that all of the electropherograms pertaining to the genetic profiles extrapolated by the technical analyses have been gathered into a separate attached book separate from the body of the report.

In reference to the request of acquisition of CD RAW DATA, one is obligated to explain that the information in the form of this file in the sequencer is never an integral part of the technical report, as far as the object being tested by the forensic geneticist, namely the DNA profile, and that it is already reported in the electropherogram printout, connected to the technical report on which all of the useful date and an evaluation of the genetic profile are reported.

In addition, it is good to clarify that the files contained in the denominated sequencer “Sample File.fsa” contain subfolders denominated “Info,” “Raw Data” and “EPT Data” that do not allow any human intervention in order to modify and/or add data; and therefore, in this view, do not contribute to furnishing later elements to the genetic data evaluation.

Finally, the request asked for by the expert consultants relative to the acquisition of the CD RAW DATA appears incomplete in so much as the name of the “sample file” requested was not specified, without which the exact identification of the documented material the acquisition of which is asked for is not possible."

Dear Doctor Stefanoni,
I received your faxed note dated April 20th and take note of the relevant content. I ask you, however, regarding the official experts to kindly give to them copies of your and my responses communicated at the same time, consigning directly to them what is of interest, useful to acquire with the goal of completing the investigations, subject to the clarification of the perplexity that you mention.

We know from the C&V Report that they didn't get some electropherograms until April 29th or so, and had to ask again to get the ones with the peak areas listed and didn't get them until May 10th and 11th of 2011. On May 21st they have to go before the court and request an extension of 40 days to allow them to complete their work and I'd just love to see the context around where Vecchiotti was reported to have said something to the effect of 'the forensic police offered full cooperation' because I'm pretty damned sure it wasn't meant as those two (nearly) identical reports in La Nazione and Leggo reported as meaning they'd given that full cooperation.

We know that because they not only noted that omission regarding the negative controls in their report issued in June of 2011; that translation you thoughtfully included from September of 2011 shows not Vecchiotti acting like a 'criminal' as you said, but Comodi.

Stefanoni was asked not just generally, (“everything integral to the investigation of the two items of evidence,”) but specifically for information “found, or partially found, in the court records or acquisitions” and even more specifically for "the depositions of Dr. Stefanoni and of the CTP, including the documentation deposed (considerations and notes, including possible CDs)" which Judge Hellmann approved, and if you look at the transcript you posted again you'll see he gently tried to tell Comodi that she wasn't a party to that conversation (he was!) which ought to have caused Comodi pause, but it didn't.

Comodi was making an argument on mistaken pretenses or she was lying through her teeth, Stefanoni was stonewalling and has been to this day. Thankfully this has been documented extensively, in part by Halides1 whose link recently re-posted should be given a long read by you or anyone else who thinks Stefanoni or Comodi have any legitimate reason to engage in this Omertà campaign to prevent the defense, and then the independent experts, from seeing the documentation and records of the forensic investigation in this case.

 

[acbytesla]

But is also has likely drawn many in who would never have sought it out in the days prior to the internet. Appetites can be created by access. Yes, the internet is a tool; capable of fostering the greatest evil and the greatest good. I wouldn't be against some of it be strictly regulated or censored, as is necessary.

All that is very true. The question is, how do we manage it and enforce it?

There are actually some very strict laws against child pornography in the US and elsewhere. So I don't think it is the laws that has been the problem but the enforce-ability. Until recently it has been difficult if not impossible to catch the people distributing and viewing it.

That is changing. Microsoft and Google for example have teamed up to fight it. Microsoft created picture detection technology that allows them to scan and catalog known child porn images and identify who is sending and receiving them. Also a a unique identification mark is applied to such content, and then all copies are immediately removed from the web.

Google has also cleaned up the search results for over 100,000 web queries that were known to lead to child porn-related results. They will soon roll out these changes in more than 150 languages, so the impact will be truly global.

While society will never wholly eliminate such depravity, it's getting harder now for people to get access to it, so that is a good thing.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think that Machiavelli's comments are interesting. It is hard for us from a common law jurisdiction to understand the nuances of Roman law. Common law has evolved over 800 years, with certain principles, that just seem irrelevant to the inquisitorial system. The prolonged imprisonment of Amanda Knox prior to trial would certainly have been challenged under habeas corpus. The concept that so much evidence is presented in paper format and that this can incorporate both civil claims including evidence that is not permissible in the criminal case yet is considered by the same 'jury', that complex technical arguments are assessed by the judge(s) privately, and that the public hearing is just the tip of he iceberg is alien to us. We are used to the concept of 'justice must not only be done but seen to be done'. That the prosecution only reveals the information it wants to the defence and can refuse to divulge evidence in favour of the defines seems strange but to coin a phrase Italy is a foreign country and they do things differently there.

As an aside a criminologist on BBC radio this morning made a good observation; 'murder is young man's business', in relation to how rare women murderers are especially those using a knife.

Have you heard about this case?

 

[Grinder]

I think that Machiavelli's comments are interesting. It is hard for us from a common law jurisdiction to understand the nuances of Roman law. Common law has evolved over 800 years, with certain principles, that just seem irrelevant to the inquisitorial system. The prolonged imprisonment of Amanda Knox prior to trial would certainly have been challenged under habeas corpus. The concept that so much evidence is presented in paper format and that this can incorporate both civil claims including evidence that is not permissible in the criminal case yet is considered by the same 'jury', that complex technical arguments are assessed by the judge(s) privately, and that the public hearing is just the tip of he iceberg is alien to us. We are used to the concept of 'justice must not only be done but seen to be done'. That the prosecution only reveals the information it wants to the defence and can refuse to divulge evidence in favour of the defines seems strange but to coin a phrase Italy is a foreign country and they do things differently there.

As an aside a criminologist on BBC radio this morning made a good observation; 'murder is young man's business', in relation to how rare women murderers are especially those using a knife.

I too find it all interesting. For example, the idea that compatible is good enough seems strange to me. The idea that the police/prosecution can deposit what they want and not deposit what they want is strange. The idea that contamination must be proven is beyond strange and enters into a area where severe cultural differences must be coming into play.

The system seems to be based on storytelling and narratives and not facts and evidence. The idea that Mach and Mignini would even entertain the idea that the DM story about the noise ticket should be part of the case in any way is a boggler.

Very strange indeed.