Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magister

Thinker
M
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
169
As the thread has become lengthy once again, this is a continuation from part 10. For further reference, see also
Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.
Posted By: zooterkin


Dan O. said:
If anyone on either defense team was supporting that conspiracy theory I would take a further look. But the trail as far as I followed it is consistent with a cat entering through the open bathroom window. The investigation dropped the downstairs long before Rudy was identified. There is no cause for an early conspiracy to cover up anything.
Click to expand...


Here's an earlier post of mine. Frank Sfarzo reports that Bongiorno confirms human blood found in the downstairs apartment.......

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9759065&postcount=2254
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the map link, very interesting.

Dan O. said:
If anyone on either defense team was supporting that conspiracy theory I would take a further look. But the trail as far as I followed it is consistent with a cat entering through the open bathroom window. The investigation dropped the downstairs long before Rudy was identified. There is no cause for an early conspiracy to cover up anything.
Click to expand...

Guess I'll just agree to disagree.


The person that testified said that was not Rudy.





There is a map near the bottom of the page here: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/

Click on the map to brows for more details.
Click to expand...

Rudy has to have been somewhere from the time he killed Meredith, to the time he makes a call from her phone (assuming that's him). Meredith is dad by when? 9:20, something like that?

So, where was he? What's he doing? You could say he ran to the garden and just sat there until he made the calls and tosses the phones, but what supports the contention?

Presuming assumptions, and declaring them correct, isn't convincing, at least to me.
 
Dan O. said:
If they were being smart, a representative sample from each scene would be analized first to help focus the later efforts. But we are talking about Italians.



I would expect this regardless of where the blood came from. A smart forensics team would collect substrate controls to better identify what profile is comming from the blood and what is comming from the surrounding environment. But these are Italians and there were never any substrate controls taken upstairs so there is no expectation for them to exist for downstairs.



This would depend on the circumstance that created the tracts. Do you have evidence that any of the downstairs profiles show such characteristics?



There are instant checks that could type the blood in minutes so it would depend on how long it took Stefanoni to realize that she should run them.
Click to expand...

The results are suppressed. how is that a fair question to ask? Shouldn't the prosecution disclose the results before making an assumption either way?

Stefanoni is on video asking for a 'presumable semen' stain to be tested. What do you think she's referring to, and where is the result?

You don't want to consider the possibility that Rudy went downstairs, fine. But I think there's a lot to suggest he did, as has been bandied about the last few days on these pages.

Relying on the fact that the prosecution has refused to disclose evidence, and then saying, "look, there's no evidence", not very cricket.
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

I'm not a believer in probable guilt, but this is really something (if only for the cause of justice) we should all be able to agree on, if we never agree on anything else.

I SUPPORT (IN MEMORY OF MEREDITH KERCHER):

1) The full release of the EDF files first, and then secondly, the standard operating procedures (SOPs), and any and all contamination snd corrective action files.

And I also personally SUPPORT

2) The opening of the alleged murder weapon and examined by someone other that Doctor Stefanoni, someone appointed by the ISC, or the ECHR (if possible),

In short, I'm willing to put my whole belief (that Raffaele and Amanda are probably innocent) on the line, because (especially) if they open the knife (and it's done by someone respected in the forensics field by both sides) and they find an abundant amount of blood and Meredith's DNA under there (subject to public review of all data, raw or otherwise --including a video of the whole procedure, and the EDFs), I'll believe it's more probable that they are guilty.

I really don't see any reason why anyone wouldn't support this, unless they're afraid they'll be proven wrong,

d

-
Click to expand...

That the pro guilt side does not support full release speaks volumes
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Machiavelli,

What Chris Mellas said is consistent with what Jason Gilder said and with What Carlo dalla Vedova said. The defense made multiple requests, and they have been crystal-clear in what they have said publicly. Comodi did not say that she did not understand; she said that the prosecution gets to decide what the defense can see. It is a shame that you don't put as much time into reforming discovery laws as you do into defending the indefensible.
Click to expand...

You are making a claim about the existence of those "multiple times". Can you show where they are?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Thank you for completely dodging the question in a way that is unmistakable to even a casual reader of this thread. Professor Dan Krane wrote, “The biggest concern that I personally have regarding this case is the refusal of the prosecution to provide the defense with a copy of the electronic data that underlies the DNA test results -- that is virtually unheard of world-wide today and it would be especially important to review that data in a case such as this which seems to involve such low level samples.”
Click to expand...

I answered the question. Didn't dodge it. I said that I am indifferent to the release of data. It means that I only care about the rules and the principles for what concerns law. I have nothing against release of data I am completely favorable, as long as within the due process. But I am not going to expect data release under my conditions whenever I want or at any cist. I am not ready to use data release as an argument against a legitimate and fair process. A trial is not a scientific research, a trial is a decision making process; its main purpose is to come to a conclusion based on the facts presented, law and fair confrontation and logic. Once the purpose is satisfied the trial must be closed. The priority is not to satisfy remaining curiosity, unknowns, skeptics nor to collect perfect information. A trial is not a scientific discussion.
 
carbonjam72 said:
The results are suppressed. how is that a fair question to ask? Shouldn't the prosecution disclose the results before making an assumption either way?

Stefanoni is on video asking for a 'presumable semen' stain to be tested. What do you think she's referring to, and where is the result?

You don't want to consider the possibility that Rudy went downstairs, fine. But I think there's a lot to suggest he did, as has been bandied about the last few days on these pages.

Relying on the fact that the prosecution has refused to disclose evidence, and then saying, "look, there's no evidence", not very cricket.
Click to expand...

It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?
 
Desert Fox said:
Translation, I support everything judges that I like do. . . .
Click to expand...

js202 said:
"When the President does it, it's not illegal."
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that if this was an American court doing this to an Italian defendant, they would be up in arms against what the United States was doing.

In fact there is a case in Florida where an Italian businessman murdered his partner but escaped to Italy before being arrested. My understanding is that the evidence of guilt was strong. Florida offered not to seek the death penalty. Italy refused to extradite but instead tried the defendant themselves. I do not know if they found him guilty or not.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
I have three sources that say you are: Gilder, Mellas, and dalla Vedova. I quoted two of them just yesterday.
Click to expand...

Am I supposed to believe what defence supporters declare outside the trial? And keeping in mind that the defence have a right to lie? There is no defence request. These sources are like a hearsay, they are lies. There are no "multiple requests" of raw data from the defence the trial papers. There is nothing of the kind. If you know where these requests are, when they occurred and where they are recorded, then show them.

But I have one question for you, actually. Which is, s bit of clarification about the defence experts demands that Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti request raw data about clasp and knife. Do you think this demand is related to a defence expectation of obtaining raw data? Did they expect they (the defence) would obtain raw data through this request, as well? If yes, how exactly does it work, I mean in what way exactly would the raw data be delivered from C&V to the American experts? Was it C&V themselves who were expected to give them to defence consultants?
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
I have three sources that say you are: Gilder, Mellas, and dalla Vedova. I quoted two of them just yesterday.
Click to expand...

anglolawyer said:
'Prof. Tagliabracci and Dr. Onofri asked that the experts proceed to request the raw data (electronic files generated by the instrument) relative to the quantization and electrophoretic analysis relating to Items 165 B (clasp) and 36 (knife). Dr. Gino, Dr. Patumi, and Prof. Torre concurred with the request.'

It even includes the word 'request'.
Click to expand...

And the subject?
Don't you notice a change of subject?
"the experts [C&V] proceed to request".
Who is the subject? It seems to me the subject here are Conti and Vecchiotti. We already know Conti and Vecchiotti made a request of raw data. We don't know how their mail exchange ended, we don't know if they obtained the data, if they changed idea or else, what we know for sure is that Conti and Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they requested and were satisfied with the cooperation.
But from the phrase you quote above, which has Conti and Vecchiotti as subjects, who, you deduce, will get the raw data?
The judge appointed experts, or the defence?
You can read it: the defence are not going to be the ones who will get the data.
How is it, that you expect the raw data to be given to the defence?
 
A consistent picture of lack of discovery emerged

Machiavelli said:
Am I supposed to believe what defence supporters declare outside the trial? And keeping in mind that the defence have a right to lie? There is no defence request. These sources are like a hearsay, they are lies. There are no "multiple requests" of raw data from the defence the trial papers. There is nothing of the kind. If you know where these requests are, when they occurred and where they are recorded, then show them.
Click to expand...
Machiavelli,

I believe in the words of experts, such as Jason Gilder, who allow themselves to be quoted by name. And when Gilder, dalla Vedova, and Mellas all say basically the same thing, it becomes even more convincing.
 
Dan O. said:
It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?
Click to expand...

The question isn't whether you think Rudy has a reason to go downstairs. The question is, whether there is any evidence to suggest he did so.

(btw, might needing a change of clean clothes after a bloody murder that would fit Rudy (downstairs guys would more likely fit, girls less likely) so he could try to go home in cleaner clothes, could that be a reason for Rudy to go downstairs? To not get busted in bloody clothes from a murder scene on the way home?

As to how rational or straight thinking Rudy might be, seems like a lot of assumptions for someone with plainly observed mental problems, like experiencing black-out and fugue states, as Rudy reportedly had (Nina Burleigh went into this at length in her book, not sure if you take the Grinder note on this one.)

The point is, your expectations can be a great guide to help interpreting the evidence, but it can't outweigh the evidence.

The DNA experts (maybe you're one as well) on the site can argue the point more persuasively than I, but there were several human DNA profiles from downstairs that came back with human DNA, including on a light switch. (How can a cat drip blood on a light switch?) Those results have been suppressed.

Your assumption is the downstairs DNA can be explained as environmental. Perhaps that's possible. Were all of the samples upstairs also testing positive for DNA? Seems like we need to see the results before drawing a firm conclusion.

If the downstairs DNA turns out to be Rudy's profile, would you still deny Rudy went downstairs because you don't think he had a reason to go downstairs?
You don't see any reason for the police to conceal the downstairs crime scene and to protect Rudy early on. Fine. I do. I think there's support for my position, hence I hold it. I don't think I can convince you on this point, from previous exchanges.

But the question of conspiracy, and towards what end, etc, these are all separate questions from the evidence. There could be evidence of Rudy downstairs, yet the facts fit together in a way I'm not seeing.

Establishing Rudy being downstairs is only establishing Rudy being downstairs. I think an argument can be extended from that eventuality, but there's no logical need to jam every element in up front in an analysis, before considering a single fact in isolation. Hope I wrote that as intended and you're getting my meaning.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Machiavelli,

I believe in the words of experts, such as Jason Gilder, who allow themselves to be quoted by name. And when Gilder, dalla Vedova, and Mellas all say basically the same thing, it becomes even more convincing.
Click to expand...

So you believe that Gilder understands Italian, understands Italian criminal procedure, and has followed or read entirely the papers, so that he has direct experience about such "multiple" requests. You also believe Chris Mellas and Dalla Vedova are truthful and accurate reporters.
Is that correct?

But, you imply, you don't have the quotes. You have never seen those papers with these purported multiple requests in them. You are based on your faith (or trust in the assumptions and people mentioned above).
This is also correct?
 
Dan O. said:
It is my view that there is no reason for Rudy to go downstairs. It would be incredibly stupid to hang around the cottage containing a dead girl. The boys downstairs say the cat was injured and there was already blood in that apartment before they left for holiday. The tracts are consistent with the path that a cat would take.

You are presenting a conspiracy theory. For your theory to be true, who would be involved in keeping the secret? What do they have to gain from this action, what is their motivation? Start with Rudy. He tells us in the chat and Skype conversation all the things he did upstairs that would leave evidence of his presence down to drinking from the juice container in the fridge. Does he think nobody is going to notice his blood downstairs?
Click to expand...

Let's approach this with some healthy skepticism.

What evidence is there that the blood downstairs is from a cat? Stefanoni's say-so???
 
Machiavelli said:
So you believe that Gilder understands Italian, understands Italian criminal procedure, and has followed or read entirely the papers, so that he has direct experience about such "multiple" requests. You also believe Chris Mellas and Dalla Vedova are truthful and accurate reporters.
Is that correct?

But, you imply, you don't have the quotes. You have never seen those papers with these purported multiple requests in them. You are based on your faith (or trust in the assumptions and people mentioned above).
This is also correct?
Click to expand...

Who cares. One request is enough.
 
Machiavelli said:
And the subject?
Don't you notice a change of subject?
"the experts [C&V] proceed to request".
Who is the subject? It seems to me the subject here are Conti and Vecchiotti. We already know Conti and Vecchiotti made a request of raw data. We don't know how their mail exchange ended, we don't know if they obtained the data, if they changed idea or else, what we know for sure is that Conti and Vecchiotti declared they obtained all data they requested and were satisfied with the cooperation.
Click to expand...

We don't know the latter, you refuse to post the source document (and context) for this claim which is dubious in the light of their statements in the report itself, the courtroom and the fact their commission had to be extended a month due to Stefanoni's failure to provide data in a timely manner.

We know they didn't receive the edfs because of their need to request electropherograms with the peak areas denoted (documented in their report) and their (her?) statements regarding the negative controls. The edfs provide that information.

But from the phrase you quote above, which has Conti and Vecchiotti as subjects, who, you deduce, will get the raw data?
The judge appointed experts, or the defence?
You can read it: the defence are not going to be the ones who will get the data.
How is it, that you expect the raw data to be given to the defence?
Click to expand...

Because both the prosecution and the defense can question the independent court experts and would need access to the data they're relying on to support their conclusions.
 
a consistent pattern of stonewalling

Machiavelli said:
But, you imply, you don't have the quotes. You have never seen those papers with these purported multiple requests in them. You are based on your faith (or trust in the assumptions and people mentioned above).
This is also correct?
Click to expand...
Machiavelli,

I trust the individuals I quoted more than I trust anonymous internet posters. I see no reason why such requests would generate papers that would come into the public domain. Yet if those requests had been honored, then Conti and Vecchiotti would not have had to ask for the data.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Machiavelli,

I trust the individuals I quoted more than I trust anonymous internet posters. I see no reason why such requests would generate papers that would come into the public domain. Yet if those requests had been honored, then Conti and Vecchiotti would not have had to ask for the data.
Click to expand...

Well, I would see it more simple, if we say Conti and Vecchiotti wouldn't have had to ask if previous requests existed. In fact, Conti and Vecchiotti did request and complained about the lack of data that was already deposited in the acts (according to prosecutor Crini, who is not an anonymous poster); but this is another story. The fact is you don't have any visible trace about the existence of such requests. What you have is your trust in experts who basically don't know anything about the trial hearings (probably wouldn't even be able to read or understand them). You don't seem to even know the time and venue where and when these requests took place.
The second thing that you have, as a valid support to your conclusion, is your conviction that defence activities such as instances and requests to judges don't leave any trace in trial papers. It's an interesting idea about the courts. Requests that exist in the form of confidential exchanges never recorded. Maybe in the form of phone calls. A trial as something that takes place in the basement of an uncle's house.
You make the claim of the existence of something. Something which is a legal action in a murder trial. You know you, who make the claim of the existence of these multiple things, are the one who has the burden to back the claim, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
(...)
Because both the prosecution and the defense can question the independent court experts and would need access to the data they're relying on to support their conclusions.
Click to expand...

Would "need" to? And, tell me, when, and how, this access to data is supposed to happen? I'd like Prof.Halkides to elaborate on the point. How were Conti and Vecchiotti expected to give their data to the defence? On what occasion? On whose initiative? How should that work?
 
Diocletus said:
Who cares. One request is enough.
Click to expand...

Of course. If Italy is a mafia institution where authorities are gangster bisses who refer to some big padrino and all citizens are just accessories and complicit to some mechanism of corruption, then who cares. One whistle is enough. Maybe better nothing at all. Maybe you should send your dog.
 
Machiavelli said:
Well, I would see it more simple, if we say Conti and Vecchiotti wouldn't have had to ask if previous requests existed. In fact, Conti and Vecchiotti did request and complained about the lack of data that was already deposited in the acts (according to prosecutor Crini, who is not an anonymous poster); but this is another story. The fact is you don't have any visible trace about the existence of such requests. What you have is your trust in experts who basically don't know anything about the trial hearings (probably wouldn't even be able to read or understand them). You don't seem to even know the time and venue where and when these requests took place.
The second thing that you have, as a valid support to your conclusion, is your conviction that defence activities such as instances and requests to judges don't leave any trace in trial papers. It's an interesting idea about the courts. Requests that exist in the form of confidential exchanges never recorded. Maybe in the form of phone calls. A trial as something that takes place in the basement of an uncle's house.
You make the claim of the existence of something. Something which is a legal action in a murder trial. You know you, who make the claim of the existence of these multiple things, are the one who has the burden to back the claim, don't you?
Click to expand...




Here's something interesting that Anglo posted before the thread was re-continued:


Cytological analysis on cotton fragments taken from the swabs performed on 03/22/2011 was carried out, with prior notice to the parties, on 04/05/2011, at the Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic, and Locomotive Sciences — Histology and Medical Embryology Section of Sapienza University of Rome, in the presence of the parties.

On April 5, 2011, the following memorandum was drafted:

“On 4/5/2011 at 10:10 am, at the Department of Forensic Medicine of the University of Rome — La Sapienza, Forensic Genetics Laboratory, 336 Viale Regina Elena, as ordered at the hearing of 1/22/2011, testing by the Appointed Experts Prof. Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti was begun, in the presence of the following consultants for the parties:

- Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Dr. Emiliano Giardina, consultant for the Prosecutor’s Office;
– Prof. Francesca Torricelli, consultant for the civil plaintiff;
– Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
– Dr. Valerio Onofri, consultant for Raffaele Sollecito;
– Ms. Donatella Donati, attorney for Raffaele Sollecito, acting on behalf of Mr. Luca Maori;
– Prof. Carlo Torre, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
– Dr. Sarah Gino, consultant for Amanda M. Knox;
– Dr. Walter Patumi, consultant for Amanda M. Knox.

It is noted that Prof. Novelli removed himself at 10:35; subsequently, the Appointed Experts and the consultants for the parties [i CTP, presumably Consulenti Tecnici delle Parti] reported to the Histology Section of the Appointed Experts’ home Department, where the slides [vetrini] relative to the Items 36 (knife) and 165b (clasps) were prepared and examined. The Experts and the consultants examined the results with a microscope and agreed to photographically document the item labeled with the letter H (handle-blade contact edge). Prof. Tagliabracci and Dr. Onofri asked that the experts proceed to request the raw data (electronic files generated by the instrument) relative to the quantization and electrophoretic analysis relating to Items 165 B (clasp) and 36 (knife). Dr. Gino, Dr. Patumi, and Prof. Torre concurred with the request. The present memorandum ends at 1:50 pm.”
Click to expand...


Notice that all the individuals with 'Prof' or 'Dr.' from the defense teams wanted the edfs made available to the experts, all of those people from the prosecution or victim's lawyer are thunderous in their silence regarding this crucial information.

They don't want this data to be seen by the independent experts, can you hazard a guess as to why?
 
Machiavelli said:
Would "need" to? And, tell me, when, and how, this access to data is supposed to happen? I'd like Prof.Halkides to elaborate on the point. How were Conti and Vecchiotti expected to give their data to the defence? On what occasion? On whose initiative? How should that work?
Click to expand...

They include a CD with the data when presenting their report to the court.
 
Diocletus said:
Let's approach this with some healthy skepticism.

What evidence is there that the blood downstairs is from a cat? Stefanoni's say-so???
Click to expand...


The boys that lived there spoke of promising to clean up all the blood from the cat before they left for the holiday.

ETA: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb.../11/14/quelle-chiavi-per-una-messinscena.html
I quattro studenti hanno giurato di aver pulito le macchie lasciate dal gatto ferito e l' intera casa prima di partire per le vacanze del Ponte dei Morti.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
Here's something interesting that Anglo posted before the thread was re-continued:

Notice that all the individuals with 'Prof' or 'Dr.' from the defense teams wanted the edfs made available to the experts, all of those people from the prosecution or victim's lawyer are thunderous in their silence regarding this crucial information.

They don't want this data to be seen by the independent experts, can you hazard a guess as to why?
Click to expand...

I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.
 
Kaosium said:
They include a CD with the data when presenting their report to the court.
Click to expand...

But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.
 
Machiavelli said:
I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, quoted (quickly!) so it can be preserved for posterity. :)

So what is your evidence for these claims?

Now, to your point: if they distrusted Conti and Vecchiotti the very best response to that would to ensure that the edfs were made available to everyone. That way if Conti and Vecchiotti did try to 'cheat' they'd have the evidence publicly available to denounce them. Instead they chose not to join all the other scientists in asking that that data be made available, a very curious decision for innocent people thinking the trial has been 'hijacked.'

Oh, and Stefanoni did indeed 'object'--in fact she refused to supply the data despite it being formally asked for here and in the court document Charlie Wilkes posted that I recently quoted as well.

That's because she's hiding something Machiavelli, just like she tried to hide the existence of the 2-4 other male contributors to the clasp and the EDFs would show that same pattern of dishonesty with all the rest of the DNA work which would destroy the case against Raffaele and Amanda and probably land her in a prison cell as well.
 
Machiavelli said:
But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.
Click to expand...

It's the easiest way for it to be done and how it's done in other courtrooms where data of this nature is presented.
 
somehow a simple idea has gotten complex

Machiavelli said:
But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this question means.
 
I have been watching "The American Experience" about the Scottsdale Boys and it is interesting how many similarities there is in trials in Italy in the Twenty-First Century to trials in the Deep South in the Nineteen Thirties.
 
Dan O. said:
The boys that lived there spoke of promising to clean up all the blood from the cat before they left for the holiday.

ETA: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb.../11/14/quelle-chiavi-per-una-messinscena.html
Click to expand...

Here is the testimony of Marco Marzan on 23 June 2009

He was asked if there was cat's blood or spots of cat's blood in the apartment before he left for the weekend. He replied no as far as he remembered.

scroll down......

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.
Click to expand...

I'm not Prof. Halkides, but Wow!

You are kidding, right?
 
Machiavelli said:
I don't see any objection risen by the other parties experts, to tho specific request about C&V seeing data. If they wanted to object they would have objected, such as they did on the proposal to break the knife handle. But the point is the other parties don't want Conti e Vecchiotti to be involved in anything at all. It's not something about "this data". They were fundamentally objecting to the appointing of experts for further DNA tests. They object to the Hellmann-Zanetti court decision to order a perizia, they distrust the court and they distrust Conti and Vecchiotti. They don't wish Conti and Vecchiotti to have basically anything, they think Conti and Vecchiotti are criminals and they understand the trial has been hijacked and bribed.
Click to expand...

Kaosium said:
Thank you for that, quoted (quickly!) so it can be preserved for posterity. :)

So what is your evidence for these claims?

Now, to your point: if they distrusted Conti and Vecchiotti the very best response to that would to ensure that the edfs were made available to everyone. That way if Conti and Vecchiotti did try to 'cheat' they'd have the evidence publicly available to denounce them. Instead they chose not to join all the other scientists in asking that that data be made available, a very curious decision for innocent people thinking the trial has been 'hijacked.'

Oh, and Stefanoni did indeed 'object'--in fact she refused to supply the data despite it being formally asked for here and in the court document Charlie Wilkes posted that I recently quoted as well.

That's because she's hiding something Machiavelli, just like she tried to hide the existence of the 2-4 other male contributors to the clasp and the EDFs would show that same pattern of dishonesty with all the rest of the DNA work which would destroy the case against Raffaele and Amanda and probably land her in a prison cell as well.
Click to expand...

Every once in a while, Machiavelli advances his conspiracy theory a little bit further.

The 2-4 other male contributors to the bra-clasp..... these are the ones which Nencini de facto concedes are there, because he tries to account for who those profiles might belong to - and it is of tremendous importance for those extra ones to be there for no suspicious reasons. Yet in accounting for them, he assigns 2 of those unknown male contributors to being from "amica".

But getting back to Conti & Vecchiotti being criminals. Will Machiavelli ever answer if he believes the Presdient of the Appeals Court of Perugia, Wladimiro De Nunzio, to also be a criminal?

This needs to be quoted and requoted for posterity.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
I have no idea what this question means.
Click to expand...

1. Do you agree with Kaosium that Vecchiotti would deposit a CD with the raw data attached to the report?

2. Do you think the defences were expecting they would "obtain" the raw data this way?

3. If yes, then, did the defence experts and lawyers already know in advance that C&V were going to deposit a CD with raw data?

4. If the answer to previous question is "yes", then, how do you think the defence experts happened to know in advance what documentation C&V would decide to attach and deposit?

5. If an answer to some previous question was "no", is there another way by which the defence expected to obtain the raw data from C&V, without the defence requesting them directly themselves, a way that is not depositing a CD with the report?

6. Or, in alternative to the previous question, is there some other reason why the defence expected they would obtain the raw data, just by telling C&V to request them?

7. Was there already a contact between C&V and some defence consultant who wished to access the raw data?
 
Machiavelli said:
But I wanted to know from Prof. Halkides, who has the idea of presenting a CD with the raw data to the court? Who makes an agreement with the experts for that? Is it going to be their own initiative? How do you know in advance that they will have thus idea of including a CD with the raw data? This is not written in Tagliabracci's request.
Click to expand...

To user of computers, such as the technical experts, the idea of using CDs to copy and store data from the test equipment computer to be observed at a later time and different place would be as obvious as the use of a pen or pencil and paper to write. Your seeming lack of understanding that this is common everyday technology is either feigned or indicates an incredible ignorance of everyday 21st (or even late-20th) century technology.

And yes, the data would only be copied, stored, and transported by CD, DVD, or similar technology (such as USB memory stick); uploading to the internet would not be likely, nor would direct transmission by cable to another computer be as practicable.

Of course, if you somehow were the famous Niccolo Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) come back to enlighten us, and had not been briefed throughly enough on modern technology, this would be understandable. {Meant as a humorous comment.}
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
To user of computers, such as the technical experts, the idea of using CDs to copy and store data from the test equipment computer to be observed at a later time and different place would be as obvious as the use of a pen or pencil and paper to write. Your seeming lack of understanding that this is common everyday technology is either feigned or indicates an incredible ignorance of everyday 21st (or even late-20th) century technology.

And yes, the data would only be copied, stored, and transported by CD, DVD, or similar technology (such as USB memory stick); uploading to the internet would not be likely, nor would direct transmission by cable to another computer be as practicable.

Of course, if you somehow were the famous Niccolo Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) come back to enlighten us, and had not been briefed throughly enough on modern technology, this would be understandable. {Meant as a humorous comment.}
Click to expand...

I know this is kind of an aside but would not flash drives be an obvious choice as well? Of course, CDs do have the advantage of once burned being unable to be altered in most cases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom