Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

So they basically bank the whole appeal process on a new judge granting permission to run new tests on the genetic material and blood stains and hoping/expecting different results.

What are the chances that a new judge will allow fresh testing?

Yep, that's exactly how it is.

As for granting new tests? Why would an appeal judge do so? The reasons Massei gave for not doing so were sound and will not have changed when it comes to the appeal. A judge couldn't grant them anyway since it's impossible with many of the things....such as the footprints, they are no longer there to test.

 

[RoseMontague]

As far as retesting of the knife goes, since there is nothing left of the DNA attributed to Meredith on the knife to test, how are they going to have that part of the testing reviewed for accuracy?

 

[Fulcanelli]

A few lines down from the testimony you quoted we find this:



Your carefully clipped quote from PMF conveniently left this out.

My point is proven. Amanda gave two reasons in her interrogation and in the courtroom for why she turned her phone off on the night of Nov. 1.

No. The reason Amanda gave in her interrogation on 17th Dec 2007 was to conserve the battery.

On the stand in the trial the reasons she gave so as not to be called back into work.

In short, it is a perfect example of Amanda's shifting alibis. The FOA claim that apart from accusing Patrick her story remained the same. This is not true. The devil is in the detail and details such as this constantly morphed.

The truth is the truth and never needs to change. If it changes, it's either not the truth, never was in the forst place or both.

 

[Alt+F4]

The forensics team failed to take Laura or Filomena's reference DNA. Why were they so scared to find out to whom the other DNA profiles belonged?

Who cares what the prosecution is afraid of? The defense had (and still has) the opportunity to try to determine who that DNA belongs to. Is the prosecution stopping them?

 

[Fulcanelli]

As far as retesting of the knife goes, since there is nothing left of the DNA attributed to Meredith on the knife to test, how are they going to have that part of the testing reviewed for accuracy?

Exactomundo.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The forensics team failed to take Laura or Filomena's reference DNA. Why were they so scared to find out to whom the other DNA profiles belonged?

And once again you demonstrate the huge black void in your knowledge. The two unkown traces on the clasp were 'partial trace' profiles, they could not be matched to anyone because they were too damaged and too weak.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not enough information

Who cares what the prosecution is afraid of? The defense had (and still has) the opportunity to try to determine who that DNA belongs to. Is the prosecution stopping them?

How can they do this analysis without access to the .fsa file for the bra clasp DNA? The defense did not even obtain the dates of the tests, according to Sara Gino.

Can the defense compel people to give their DNA for testing? If not, then that is a second problem. Even if they can, it does not excuse the fecklessness of the forensic police.

 

[shuttlt]

What does it matter why Amanda says she switched off her phone? She is just as capable of thinking of reasons to turn off a phone as I am. I should think I can think of a list of 5 or 6 half way plausible reasons if I needed to. Her explanation of why she turned off the phone is not the least bit helpful in telling us why she turned off her phone unless we have already decided that she isn't the killer and has nothing to hide. I for one don't know why she turned off her phone.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

threshold

And once again you demonstrate the huge black void in your knowledge. The two unkown traces on the clasp were 'partial trace' profiles, they could not be matched to anyone because they were too damaged and too weak.

What peak threshold did they use?

 

[Fulcanelli]

How can they do this analysis without access to the .fsa file for the bra clasp DNA? The defense did not even obtain the dates of the tests, according to Sara Gino.

Can the defense compel people to give their DNA for testing? If not, then that is a second problem. Even if they can, it does not excuse the fecklessness of the forensic police.

Have you got the proof yet that the defence don't have the .fsa files?

The fecklessness is yours. At least the Italian forensics have to prove stuff. You merely assert stuff and demand your word be enough.

 

[RoseMontague]

What does it matter why Amanda says she switched off her phone? She is just as capable of thinking of reasons to turn off a phone as I am. I should think I can think of a list of 5 or 6 half way plausible reasons if I needed to. Her explanation of why she turned off the phone is not the least bit helpful in telling us why she turned off her phone unless we have already decided that she isn't the killer and has nothing to hide. I for one don't know why she turned off her phone.

If she had her phone on and took it back to her flat, those movements may have been detected by the cell phone records

 

[shuttlt]

How can they do this analysis without access to the .fsa file for the bra clasp DNA? The defense did not even obtain the dates of the tests, according to Sara Gino.

Can the defense compel people to give their DNA for testing? If not, then that is a second problem. Even if they can, it does not excuse the fecklessness of the forensic police.

Perhaps they'll make a formal request for them in good time this time around. If they do the same thing again and wait until after the appeal court has already considered all the forensic evidence and the trial is almost over I'm sure the request will be denied again. Hopefully they are taking the .fsa files more seriously this time around.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What peak threshold did they use?

Stop trying to talk like you're a DNA expert, you're not.

In any case, you will find the answers to those questions in the Massei Report. He devotes page after page to after page to the DNA aspects.

 

[shuttlt]

If she had her phone on and took it back to her flat, those movements may have been detected by the cell phone records

Absolutely, that is a good reason to turn it off assuming she was up to no good that night. Amanda says she turned it off for innocent reasons, but then again, she would say that, wouldn't she.

 

[shuttlt]

Who cares what the prosecution is afraid of? The defense had (and still has) the opportunity to try to determine who that DNA belongs to. Is the prosecution stopping them?

One of the defence experts found that one of the weak profiles belonged to Amanda, right before he stopped working on the case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If she had her phone on and took it back to her flat, those movements may have been detected by the cell phone records

Actually, they were. The records showed that she was not actually at Raffaele's apartment when she received the text, as she had claimed. Phone records covering a whole month also showed Raffaele and Amanda had never turned their phones off in the early evening. That evening was the first and only time.

 

[Alt+F4]

If she had her phone on and took it back to her flat, those movements may have been detected by the cell phone records

I don't believe she stated if she took the phone with her when she went back to her apartment. She does state however that she returned to Rafaelle's with a mop, no mention of a cell phone charger or anything to take on the day trip.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Perhaps they'll make a formal request for them in good time this time around. If they do the same thing again and wait until after the appeal court has already considered all the forensic evidence and the trial is almost over I'm sure the request will be denied again. Hopefully they are taking the .fsa files more seriously this time around.

They were given every piece of data the crime lad had. This was confirmed by the prosecution. When asked Commodi said with a shrug 'There is nothing else'.

 

[RoseMontague]

Absolutely, that is a good reason to turn it off assuming she was up to no good that night. Amanda says she turned it off for innocent reasons, but then again, she would say that, wouldn't she.

That makes the fact that her reasons changed (if they did change)for turning it off suspicious. Did they ask her if she normally took her battery charger with her went she spent the night elsewhere?

 

[shuttlt]

I also enjoy the fact that people like Bruce Fisher and Chris Halkides are posting here, I think hearing from both sides is important in determining the truth.

Perhaps you are already taking this into account, but one of the few thing both sides agree on is that one side is dishonest, or at least is relying on sources of authority and information that are not honest.