Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[stilicho]

This comment would seem to support Prof. Halkides claim that not all of the underlying DNA evidence (fsa files) were provided to the defense team. The source is again Chris Mellas but the other quote from Comodi seems to support the claim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

At some point we have to accept "we don't know" as an answer. Halides1 is on and on about these files that will apparently blow the lid off the investigation. Nobody sees any relevance to them except for him.

If the defence doesn't have all the information they require to contest the DNA evidence, then on what basis are they contesting it? This is Logic 101. If they don't have the data then they should state that. If they do have the data then they should argue contamination (or whatever).

They are arguing contamination so they must have the data they need.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Bob Graham article on the appeal

Here is a new article by Bob Graham (Published: 6:43PM BST 17 Apr 2010)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

“It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.
Chris Mellas, Knox's step-father who is currently in Perugia, said yesterday: ‘Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp.’
Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

 

[RoseMontague]

At some point we have to accept "we don't know" as an answer. Halides1 is on and on about these files that will apparently blow the lid off the investigation. Nobody sees any relevance to them except for him.

If the defence doesn't have all the information they require to contest the DNA evidence, then on what basis are they contesting it? This is Logic 101. If they don't have the data then they should state that. If they do have the data then they should argue contamination (or whatever).

They are arguing contamination so they must have the data they need.

I agree that "we don't know" is an appropriate descriptive. If the defense gets the data they need it will change to "now we know". Until then, missing information remains unknown as to whether it would be helpful to the defense or not. That is the true logic of the situation, in my opinion. The prosecution is claiming that the missing information is not needed by the defense. If that is the case, there should be no reason not to turn it over.

 

[Amazer]

This comment would seem to support Prof. Halkides claim that not all of the underlying DNA evidence (fsa files) were provided to the defense team. The source is again Chris Mellas but the other quote from Comodi seems to support the claim.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

I'd like to see the full statement from Comodi.... because I have the nagging feeling that there is more to the statement then what is printed here.

That said, there's something weird going on. If not all the forensic data on the bra-clasp and the knife were released to the defense, then I'd have to seriously question what and why that data was withheld. On the other hand, why didn't the defense didn't bring this up during the first trial? That should have been a major issue imho.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Here is a new article by Bob Graham (Published: 6:43PM BST 17 Apr 2010)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

“It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.
Chris Mellas, Knox's step-father who is currently in Perugia, said yesterday: ‘Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp.’
Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

Bob Graham is an FOA sympathiser. It was he and Garfield who spent so much time with the family and made the documentary 'The Trials of Amanda Knox'. When you quote these 'sources', they all go back to one place...the FOA. Handle with care.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree that "we don't know" is an appropriate descriptive. If the defense gets the data they need it will change to "now we know". Until then, missing information remains unknown as to whether it would be helpful to the defense or not. That is the true logic of the situation, in my opinion. The prosecution is claiming that the missing information is not needed by the defense. If that is the case, there should be no reason not to turn it over.

No, that's not what they're claiming. The have stated the defence have been given everything.

 

[shuttlt]

Ignoring Falcanelli's post for a second, the only way I can make sense of this without having the defence acting like incompetent baffoons is for them to have shared the prosecutions judgement that whatever data they don't have wasn't relevant. After the forensic testimony they realized they were in big trouble and clutched at this straw.

 

[Alt+F4]

Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

Is this a direct quote from Comodi herself given to The Telegraph in response to Mellas' statement? Or is this what Mellas said she said? The article isn't clear on this point and I can find no reference to it anywhere accept The Telegraph.

 

[Alt+F4]

The only physical evidence linking Amanda to the crime is that knife found in Raffaele's apartment where it belonged that could not have DNA on the blade but the police were so desperate to wrap up the case that they kept pushing the amplification well beyond the establishet protocol limit until they found a faint trace. There is no scientific basis to associate the trace of DNA that was found as coming from the knife because contamination cannot be ruled out.

Bolding mine.

So you're saying that there is no DNA on the knife, but if there is DNA on the knife it got there by contamination.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Dan O.]

The timeline from the Massei Report has been translated:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=42185#p42185

More correctly stated, a timeline has been compiled from the translated Massei Report.

But one of the first things I noticed in that timeline:

28 OCTOBER 2007, SUNDAY
22:36
The Amelie.avi media file finishes downloading via P2P onto Raffaele’s MacBookPro laptop (p326).​

Whereas the Massei report says:

"Era così risultato che il film era stato "creato" domenica 28 ottobre alle ore 22.36, a significare che a tale ora era iniziato il download (lo scarico) del file video dalla Rete sul portatile, tramite il sistema P2P."​

Don't the Itialians know the difference between iniziato and finito?

A couple of things spring to mind. It looks like Raffaele was back at his flat to close a pop-up on his computer at 00:58

I pointed that out over a month ago with a reference to the trial coverage.

...and that Amanda was still at Raffaele's for the calls before 12:30 on 06 NOV 2007.

Back in December, Fiona pointed out that this was Amanda's claim.

 

[Alt+F4]

The timeline from the Massei Report has been translated:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=42185#p42185

There is no mention of Amanda and Meredith going together to the Chocolate Festival. This only seems to come from one source, Janet Huff, Amanda's aunt:

Amanda and Meredith were very friendly,” said Janet Huff, Knox’s aunt. “Just two days before (the murder) they attended the Chocolate Festival together and had been out together to local pubs. There were quite a few photos of the two of them together in the days before her murder on Amanda's computer. Too bad the Italian police completely fried it when trying to get into it and were not able to retrieve a single thing.

The problem is that the 2007 Perugia Chocolate Festival ended on October 21, eleven days before the murder, not two.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/11/23/news/amanda-knox-verdict-just-days-away

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Here is a new article by Bob Graham (Published: 6:43PM BST 17 Apr 2010)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html

“It has also emerged that the prosecution has failed to deliver to the defence all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.
Chris Mellas, Knox's step-father who is currently in Perugia, said yesterday: ‘Our lawyers asked for everything, every file and record relating to the forensic testing. We were given some of the stuff, like what was on Meredith's shoes or a juice glass but not the full reports on the knife used or the bra-clasp.’
Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

Ok. So, not only has Chris Mellas told you that the Defense was not provided all the information, he's told someone else.

That does nothing to corroborate your claim since, essentially, it's the same source for both reports.

Now, do you have a motion from the Defense claiming that they did not, in fact, receive all the evidence?

 

[tsig]

Ok. So, not only has Chris Mellas told you that the Defense was not provided all the information, he's told someone else.

That does nothing to corroborate your claim since, essentially, it's the same source for both reports.

Now, do you have a motion from the Defense claiming that they did not, in fact, receive all the evidence?

Seems like the FOA only files motions in the court of public opinion.

I'm having a hard time understanding FOAs' strategy.

How does belittling the Italian justice system help Amanda? Stirring up American opinion will have no effect on Italian judges and would seem to be counterproductive.

Are they trying to get Amanda moved to an American jail?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It would be really interesting to see Dan O's response if Raffaele throws Amanda under the bus on appeal. He's already done it once during the police interview on the evening of 05 NOV 2007.

If either of them are going to do it, it's Raffaele. His emotional state is reported to be rather frail. Amanda won't tell on him; she referred to her cellmates once as "roommates". For her, incarceration is just another of life's opportunities to experience, and it seems to suit her.

Raffaele's lawyers defended Amanda during the first trial. They will continue to do so in during the appeal.

Keep spreading Barbie's rumors.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bob Graham is an FOA sympathiser. It was he and Garfield who spent so much time with the family and made the documentary 'The Trials of Amanda Knox'. When you quote these 'sources', they all go back to one place...the FOA. Handle with care.

Anyone that doesn't agree with Michael is an FOA sympathizer.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Raffaele's lawyers defended Amanda during the first trial. They will continue to do so in during the appeal.

Keep spreading Barbie's rumors.

Sure, because their client's fate was linked with Amanda's (as it still is). However, they very well might try to make Amanda out to the be ringleader and Raffaele the poor young man who she duped into her nefarious plan - if for no other reason than a reduction in sentence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Anyone that doesn't agree with Michael is an FOA sympathizer.

Could you knock off the personal attacks? You already received a yellow card for this, and I'd hate to see you banned because you couldn't keep your off-this-site-drama off this site.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Raffaele's lawyers defended Amanda during the first trial. They will continue to do so in during the appeal.

Keep spreading Barbie's rumors.

That's the spirit Bruce!

 

[Amazer]

Raffaele's lawyers defended Amanda during the first trial. They will continue to do so in during the appeal.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It will/should really depend on what is in Raffaele's best interest.

 

[RoseMontague]

Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

I don't understand how this is hard. It seems very clear that not all the information was provided. There is a difference between "everything" and "everything they need". There is a difference between "That is enough" and "That is all".

You can deny reality or claim it is a mis-quote or fabrication but you can't make these words seem to mean something else.