Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

The defense asked for an independent review of the forensics. This would have not been necessary if the prosecution had turned over the information that had been requested.

The request for an independent review had absolutely nothing to do with what data the defence had or did not have. The request was made simply because they had nothing to lose and they hoped that an independent, by some chance, might support their interpretation of the evidence.

For the record, during the trial when the defence requested an independent review, the prosecution's reaction was to state that they'd be only too happy for an independent review.

The judge denied the request, because there was no justification for having one and the court had already heard from enough scientists.

 

[Moss]

The defense asked for an independent review of the forensics. This would have not been necessary if the prosecution had turned over the information that had been requested.

While I don't see any particularly point that speaks against an independent review, I'm not sure why the request for an independent review would indicate that the defense didn't get all the data.
Unless I am mistaken the independent review has the goal of having a neutral and objective party going over the same data again to exclude bias, nothing more or less.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

logic?

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.

Some problems with the DNA profile from the knife are clear solely on the basis of the data that were released. I discussed these most recently in message #48 on the second page of the thread on DNA and dust. The fsa files would allow one to examine the control experiments at the same threshold as the knife, for example. They may be valuable in other ways that I have previously discussed. No contradiction exists between these two claims, despite your comments.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The dates are part of the fsa files. All the prosecution had to do was burn a CD ROM and send it. There are also machine logs. The idea that the defense has to be present at each of several hundred tests in Rome to get the dates is ridiculous.

Send what? You have not demonstrated there was anything to send. The prosecution have stated there is no other data...they were quite clear on that. What is it about that you do not understand?

They didn't need to be present to get the dates, the dates would be in the letters listing the dates for them to attend. They were sent appointments. If your doctor sends you an appointment, you know when it is even if you choose not to go. You claim to be a scientist and yet you don't comprehend this basic simple knowledge?

Neither have you demonstrated the defence do not have the .fsa files. And never ending assertions like a broken record simply don't cut it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Some problems with the DNA profile from the knife are clear solely on the basis of the data that were released. I discussed these most recently in message #48 on the second page of the thread on DNA and dust. The fsa files would allow one to examine the control experiments at the same threshold as the knife, for example. They may be valuable in other ways that I have previously discussed. No contradiction exists between these two claims, despite your comments.

We already proved to you the results had nothing to do with 'dust'. You even admitted yourself over in the thread in the science forum Kestrel started that you don't believe dust to have anything to do with it. So, why do you persist with it, again?

As for the so-called 'other problems' you raised, nobody agrees with you that they are problems.

 

[Fiona]

Amanda never said that. But that's what Filomena apparently understood.

Filomena testified to this. She may have misunderstood or she may not.

at 12.20 she was still at Raffaele's.

Yes

after that phone call Amanda and Raffaele left for the cottage.

Presumably yes

by 12.34 Amanda had arrived at the cottage, discovered the broken window and told Filomena.


according to Filomena it was in the final phone call. Filomena thought it was 12.45 but it really was 12.34.

Filomena said it was in the phone call she made after she tried to phone Meredith. At first she got no answer from Amanda and then she called again and spoke to her and she was told about the broken window. That would be the one at 12:12 or at 12:20 surely?

it also doesn't make any sense to hear about the broken window and then hang around for quite a while before calling the boyfriend to get to the cottage. they weren't far away anyway and arrived at around 13.00.

What time did she call her boyfriend? She must have thought it would take her a while to get there, because that is why she asked him to go, IIRC. How long did it take him to phone Luca and meet up with him and get organised to go to the cottage? Were they together and up and ready? Or in separate places and met up before going (I think they arrived together). How much urgency would he give this?

What doesn't make sense to me is that if the information was given about the broken window at 12:20 then she knew about it at 12:08 and at 12:12. Because she had not been back to the cottage between those phone calls. It is not clear from the time line as translated which call contained that information:but to me the third phone call was 12:20 apparently

 

[shuttlt]

I think that the operant underlying theory of those who see great importance in the allegedly unreleased files - & I hesitate to put words in anyone's mouth but I too have been trying to make sense of this - is that the defense were repeatedly stymied by an uncooperative / hostile / conspiratorial (choose one or more) prosecution. This put them in the position of constantly having to play catchup during the trial of A&R. Therefore they could not mount an adequate defense.

Well, so far as I can see the PR company/advocacy group isn't showing much concern to actually show this to be the case aside from periodic assertions that it is the case. As for the specific issue of the FSA files, it is Halides1's position that these are standard and obvious things that anybody would want if they intended to question a DNA profiling result. It's not as if this is secret data that the defence wouldn't have known existed unless the prosecution told them about it. The prosecution lacks the power to withhold evidence that the court orders them to hand over. If the defence had been interested in the FSA files and had been rebuffed by the prosecution they could have asked the court for them. By the look of things at the moment, the defence and their experts didn't think the FSA files were important enough to bother with until very late in the case. Perhaps they did ask earlier and the PR firm/advocacy group can't/won't/don't see any point in telling anyone.

If there's any truth to that, they will have had plenty of time & opportunity to catch up on everything for the appeal.

I agree.

If there are unreleased files & there is any significance to them, I expect a holy stink to be raised during the appeal. Beyond this, it seems pointless to me to speculate.

I agree.

I realize I'm simultaneously becoming flippant and repetitive on this issue, but I sincerely believe that if it seemed to someone that it was worth the effort to provide all the data that presumably the authors of the open letter had (how much would the translation have cost?), and Dr Waterbury claims to have, they could have done more to make that data public and have provided other useful data as well for very little further effort. Telling me that for some tens of thousands of pounds I can get the data for myself doesn't to me seem like a serious attempt to get the truth out there. Why Halides has been left out in the cold is beyond me. The professional PR/advocacy efforts seem focused on keeping Amanda's profile high, and keep people feeling outraged on her behalf... there really doesn't seem to me to be any interest at all that I can make out in proving the case to those who doubt, therefore I continue to doubt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

independent reviewers would also need full disclosure

While I don't see any particularly point that speaks against an independent review, I'm not sure why the request for an independent review would indicate that the defense didn't get all the data.
Unless I am mistaken the independent review has the goal of having a neutral and objective party going over the same data again to exclude bias, nothing more or less.

Moss,

My interpretation is that the defense asked for an independent review the reason you suggest but also because an independent review would run into the same problem as the defense, namely the lack of information.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Moss,

My interpretation is that the defense asked for an independent review the reason you suggest but also because an independent review would run into the same problem as the defense, namely the lack of information.

Got a cite to justify that interpretation?

 

[shuttlt]

I hadn't noticed before that Frank had posted about the application for appeal. The defence putting weight on the Mario Alessi claims is the biggest surprise for me. He doesn't mention anything about the defence being improperly denied essential evidence, just that an independent analysis should have been performed.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

message #48 dealt with the knife, not the bra clasp

We already proved to you the results had nothing to do with 'dust'. You even admitted yourself over in the thread in the science forum Kestrel started that you don't believe dust to have anything to do with it. So, why do you persist with it, again?

As for the so-called 'other problems' you raised, nobody agrees with you that they are problems.

Did you read message #48 or what I actually wrote about the dust? When I posted this comment, I was following stilicho's suggestion to elicit a discussion of the technical problems with the knife DNA profile in a forum that was more "sciency" than this one. No one but shuttit replied to this comment, and shuttit's remarks were limited to a single point in a long message.

 

[shuttlt]

Is it normal to get an independent expert in? I have never heard of such a thing. Surely all expert witnesses are either called by the defence, or the prosecution the court then decides whose experts they believe. Getting in an independent expert seems to me contrary to the way courts work. Are there any examples of this happening?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the knife profile

I thought it was indeed Meredith's DNA on the knife, but it got there through contamination? Still can't make up your mind on that, Chris?

Scrambling to find anything you can find that may throw any doubt on the evidence serves to throw no doubt on the evidence. See, here's how you're playing it:

"Well, it's not Meredith's DNA. But even if it was, it got there through contamination."

BobTheDonkey,

I dealt with this in message #57 on page 2 of the DNA and dust thread.

halides1

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is it normal to get an independent expert in? I have never heard of such a thing. Surely all expert witnesses are either called by the defence, or the prosecution the court then decides whose experts they believe. Getting in an independent expert seems to me contrary to the way courts work. Are there any examples of this happening?

No, it's not normal, it's an exception and one that can only be ordered by the judge. There has to be very good reasons for doing so, reasons that do not exist in this case.

 

[shuttlt]

No, it's not normal, it's an exception and one that can only be ordered by the judge. There has to be very good reasons for doing so, reasons that do not exist in this case.

I'd be curious to discover a case where this has occurred.

 

[Oliebol]

What doesn't make sense to me is that if the information was given about the broken window at 12:20 then she knew about it at 12:08 and at 12:12. Because she had not been back to the cottage between those phone calls. It is not clear from the time line as translated which call contained that information:but to me the third phone call was 12:20 apparently

Well, you can't expect Filomena to remember exactly how many phone were made, at what time (she got them all wrong) and what the exact content was.

According to Filomena it was the last phone call in which she learnt about the broken window. She panics, calls her boyfriend and gets back to the cottage as fast as she can.

If it were the 12.20 call, you'd have to wonder why it took them around 40minutes to get to the cottage when they weren't far away. And also what they talked about in the 12.34 call. There wasn't anything to talk about anymore, Filomena would have been on her way to the cottage.

 

[Dan O.]

What is the court supposed to do when the two experts disagree?

Apparently in Italy, the judge thinks he knows more about the science than the experts.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What is the court supposed to do when the two experts disagree?

Apparently in Italy, the judge thinks he knows more about the science than the experts.

In Italy, the judge is classed as the 'expert of experts'.

Are not amateur juries in you US system ranked the same?

 

[shuttlt]

What is the court supposed to do when the two experts disagree?

Apparently in Italy, the judge thinks he knows more about the science than the experts.

Surely prosecution and defence experts always disagree? Is it ever the case that the defence expert takes the stand and agrees with everything the prosecution expert said? It surely doesn't happen very often if the defence are competent and prosecution are competent. Given that the prosecution experts position was that the victims DNA was found on the knife it is pretty much a given that the defence expert will find some reason why what the prosecution expert said was wrong, or does not apply in this case.

Isn't it normal for the court to decide which expert to believe. This has been my experience in every case I've been aware of in the UK and US. From memory that is what happened in the OJ case (though whether that is an example of a well run trial is an argument for another day).

 

[Moss]

I am curious as to who gets to make the final decision if experts from all three sides were to disagree with each other in Dan O.'s opinion.