Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Computer hackers have been covering up their intrusions for decades. Once you get root access nothing is prohibited. There are even stealth viruses that cover their tracks. But I'm not aware of any claim that such hacking took place.

I also don't believe that Raffaele's laptop was involved in the hard drive destruction fiasco. (link to evidence (Italian PDF))

What happened to Raffaele's laptop is apparently some joker decided to turn it on and play with it after it had been taken into evidence.

Only to the computer user, not a computer forensics expert.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fiona,

We know that the fsa files were not in the possession of the nine forensic scientists who signed the petition of 19 November 2009, because this document mentions their absence. I have since communicated with several of the co-signers of this letter, and no one has said that they now have the fsa files, even when the subject has come up. Therefore, either the prosecution did not release them to the defense, or the defense did not release them to the co-signers. The latter possibility is less likely than the former; the signers of the letter could help the defense analyze the contents of these files.

Having the .fsa files would allow independent investigators to analyze the forensic DNA data and come to their own conclusions. Having someone from the defense present when the data are first obtained would not be equivalent. I am not saying that the files contain a smoking gun. There is a good chance that there is nothing unusual in them. However, I cannot think of a single reason for not releasing them. Does anyone have evidence that they were released? Someone saying that there was a court order to release certain information is not the same thing at all.

Chris

What 'nine' forensic experts? I have the document, only two have signed it...where are the other seven? And why should they have the data...are they the defence team? I don't think so. Therefore, on what grounds is your or their claim to it?

Release them to 'whom'? The defence have all the data. Your 'nine experts' are not the defence. If they want it, I suggest they ask the defence team for it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe that Kokomani said that RS was wearing a strange cap and Guede said it was a swimming cap with a white stripe. Late in 2009 the local papers reported that such a cap was found in RS's apartment. However such caps are common, apparently, and by itself it does not mean much. Since Guede did not take the stand in AK and RS's trial I think his statement with regard to this was not admissable for some reason. Fulcanelli may know more

As you've written it, it's correct.

In regard to Rudy's statements, the defence teams of Raffaele and Amanda had all his statements ruled out of their trial at the beginning. Had Rudy agreed to give evidence, it would have put them back on the table but he refused, no doubt for fear it may interfere with his appeal. So, none of Ruy's statements figured in the trial. The only exception is his Skype conversation which the defence introduced at the last minute and requested the judges view (to which they agreed), presumably because they thought it would help their case...I can't think why.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am waiting for you to provide evidence that the files have been released. It is your claim to support, and you have not done so.

We don't have to prove it, it's you that has to prove they haven't since it's you that's accusing people of wrongdoing. Accuse someone of wrongdoing...evidence it. That tends to be the rule in the real world. Is it changed in yours?

 

[Fulcanelli]

And what fun that would be: Nine outside scientists are now going to parse the ugly Perugia trial to their heart's content and bring glowing scientific clarity to the motions. As should be.

I've seen no evidence of 'nine'. Two names, two signatures...who are the other seven? What are their credentials? What is their experience in this field? halides1 doesn't know, can't tell us, won't tell us, yet he keeps banging on about nine scientists. Unless and until someone can actually name them, I suggest we refer to them as they actually are...two scientists.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two plus seven

I've seen no evidence of 'nine'. Two names, two signatures...who are the other seven? What are their credentials? What is their experience in this field? halides1 doesn't know, can't tell us, won't tell us, yet he keeps banging on about nine scientists. Unless and until someone can actually name them, I suggest we refer to them as they actually are...two scientists.

Fulcanelli,

Here are the other seven. Professor Krane is at Wright State University. You can search out their publications using Medline.

Dan Krane, chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, Forensic Bioinformatics
Jason Gilder, systems engineer, Forensic Bioinformatics
Joy Halverson, DVM, director, Zoogen Services
Laurence D. Mueller, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine
Marc Taylor, president, Technical Associates
Rick Staub, Ph.D., director of laboratory operations, Orchid Cellmark, Dallas, Texas
Simon Ford, Ph.D., Lexigen Science and Law Consultants

Chris

 

[shuttlt]

Fiona,

We know that the fsa files were not in the possession of the nine forensic scientists who signed the petition of 19 November 2009, because this document mentions their absence. I have since communicated with several of the co-signers of this letter, ........
Having the .fsa files would allow independent investigators to analyze the forensic DNA data and come to their own conclusions. Having someone from the defense present when the data are first obtained would not be equivalent. I am not saying that the files contain a smoking gun. There is a good chance that there is nothing unusual in them. However, I cannot think of a single reason for not releasing them.

Perhaps they don't support the FOA position? By the way, do these scientists know for certain whether LCN controls were or weren't done? That surely is a much more basic question that, if they have access to everything the defence have access to they must know.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

fsa files, part 3

Perhaps they don't support the FOA position? By the way, do these scientists know for certain whether LCN controls were or weren't done? That surely is a much more basic question that, if they have access to everything the defence have access to they must know.

shuttIt,

Besides the open letter, I have previously cited two articles that implied that disclosure of forensic information was incomplete. From one of them, an article by Bob Graham in December 2009, “Other forensic experts in several countries – including two from Britain – have started to study the DNA results but have delayed giving a verdict until they have received precise details on the methodology used by their Italian counterparts.”

Finally, I asked Chris Mellas, and he said that the fsa files had not been turned over, nor had the machine logs for the knife or bra evidence. What was turned over to the defense after the judge’s order was not what was requested, nor was it especially useful or pertinent.

I would ask those who have defended the prosecution until now to explain whether or not they still do so with respect to this lack of disclosure, and if so, why.

Chris

 

[Fiona]

Any evidence for this assertion yet, Halides1? We know you could not comprehend the Bob Graham piece cos we have discusssed that before too. Curt Mellas is all you've got? No protest from the defence team documented? No contempt of court from the judge? Nothing?

 

[shuttlt]

shuttIt,

Besides the open letter, I have previously cited two articles that implied that disclosure of forensic information was incomplete. From one of them, an article by Bob Graham in December 2009, “Other forensic experts in several countries – including two from Britain – have started to study the DNA results but have delayed giving a verdict until they have received precise details on the methodology used by their Italian counterparts.”

So none of them know whether LCN controls were done either? This seems pretty basic.

Finally, I asked Chris Mellas, and he said that the fsa files had not been turned over, nor had the machine logs for the knife or bra evidence. What was turned over to the defense after the judge’s order was not what was requested, nor was it especially useful or pertinent.[/QUOTE}
I had thought the defence made another request after the summer recess and the judge rejected it as not relevant and late.

I would ask those who have defended the prosecution until now to explain whether or not they still do so with respect to this lack of disclosure, and if so, why.

The prosecution aren't withholding anything. It is the court. If the prosecution didn't comply with the instructions of the court then they are surely in contempt and this would even be good in a US appeal.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris Mellas

Any evidence for this assertion yet, Halides1? We know you could not comprehend the Bob Graham piece cos we have discusssed that before too. Curt Mellas is all you've got? No protest from the defence team documented? No contempt of court from the judge? Nothing?

Fiona,

Doubtless you mean Chris Mellas, who is stepfather to one of the accused, Amanda Knox. The defense asked for a mistrial partly on the basis of Dr. Stefanoni’s not being forthcoming with this information. The sequence of events is roughly this. The defense found out sometime before summer that Dr. Stefanoni had turned over information to the Kerchers’ lawyer that she said did not exist. They went to the judge, who ordered release of the information, but Dr. Stefanoni did not comply properly. Therefore, the defense asked for a mistrial, and the nine scientists correctly noted this almost unprecedented lack of disclosure in their open letter. End of story.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

Here are the other seven. Professor Krane is at Wright State University. You can search out their publications using Medline.

Dan Krane, chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors, Forensic Bioinformatics
Jason Gilder, systems engineer, Forensic Bioinformatics
Joy Halverson, DVM, director, Zoogen Services
Laurence D. Mueller, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine
Marc Taylor, president, Technical Associates
Rick Staub, Ph.D., director of laboratory operations, Orchid Cellmark, Dallas, Texas
Simon Ford, Ph.D., Lexigen Science and Law Consultants

Chris

Really? None of these have signed the letter. So, what is your proof they subscribe to it?

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Doubtless you mean Chris Mellas, who is stepfather to one of the accused, Amanda Knox. The defense asked for a mistrial partly on the basis of Dr. Stefanoni’s not being forthcoming with this information. The sequence of events is roughly this. The defense found out sometime before summer that Dr. Stefanoni had turned over information to the Kerchers’ lawyer that she said did not exist. They went to the judge, who ordered release of the information, but Dr. Stefanoni did not comply properly. Therefore, the defense asked for a mistrial, and the nine scientists correctly noted this almost unprecedented lack of disclosure in their open letter. End of story.

Chris

No they did not so far as I am aware. I have explained what happened more than once. Why do you persist with this nonsense?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fiona,

Doubtless you mean Chris Mellas, who is stepfather to one of the accused, Amanda Knox. The defense asked for a mistrial partly on the basis of Dr. Stefanoni’s not being forthcoming with this information. The sequence of events is roughly this. The defense found out sometime before summer that Dr. Stefanoni had turned over information to the Kerchers’ lawyer that she said did not exist. They went to the judge, who ordered release of the information, but Dr. Stefanoni did not comply properly. Therefore, the defense asked for a mistrial, and the nine scientists correctly noted this almost unprecedented lack of disclosure in their open letter. End of story.

Chris

And the mistrial request was overuled on the basis that they had been given all the evidence and ample time to study it. Those are the facts. Your rendering is false.

(I thought I'd add that bit in since, probably through oversight, you forgot to put it in )

 

[Fulcanelli]

Finally, I asked Chris Mellas, and he said thar...

And I have to say, I had to blink many times at this to credit what I was reading. Since when, with whom and in what Universe has anything Chris Mellas ever said been credible? I'm sorry, you need to provide other CREDIBLE sources...otherwise, I will not be able to answer you due to my being incapacitated rolling around the floor laughing...at you, not with you.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

seven plus two

Really? None of these have signed the letter. So, what is your proof they subscribe to it?

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html

 

[Fulcanelli]

Perhaps they don't support the FOA position? By the way, do these scientists know for certain whether LCN controls were or weren't done? That surely is a much more basic question that, if they have access to everything the defence have access to they must know.

No, of course they don't.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

noise

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html

Fulcanelli,

Chris Mellas never claimed that noise does not exist in a spectroscopic experiment. Therefore, he has more credibility than you do when discussing DNA forensics.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html

Thanks for the link, but I have the letter. There are only two signatures on it. And also, I would add, I'd advise you not to link to the FOA website to provide evidence from this point...after all, we know how they doctor evidence...shrinking footprints and the like..'nuff said.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

mystification

No they did not so far as I am aware. I have explained what happened more than once. Why do you persist with this nonsense?

Fiona,

You asked for my source, and I have complied. If Chris Mellas is correct, then the fsa files were not released. Your position seems to be that the files were not released. If so, then you must either believe that Mr. Mellas is wrong or that your prior position is wrong. Which is it? Your reply above is utterly mystifying. Please explain what you mean.

Chris