Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

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?

We touched on this earlier, at least tangentially. One problem is that as soon as an "independent" lab arrives at any conclusions, and those conclusions suggest anything favorable to the prosecution, then they somehow cease to be "independent" from the viewpoint of the defense.

If Steffanelli's lab had not concluded that defendants' DNA was present on the knife or the bra clasp I'm fairly confident that the Sollecito/Knox team would not be screaming about their bias. If a new "independent" lab were to replicate the conclusions that it was I would not be surprised to hear that their impartiality was in question as well, from the same sources. It seems unlikely that they would just say "I guess we were wrong after all. She's guilty.", and then go home.

To a defense team the only impartial testimony is that which is impartially favorable to their defendant.

 

[shuttlt]

For those who think the judge is part of the conspiracy there is certainly no point in him getting an independent expert in, since doubtless he could find one who would give the right answers.

As to the independence issue, it is surely independence in the eyes of the judge, not the defence or prosecution.

 

[Fiona]

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.

When you say she got them all wrong what do you mean? I recall that she said the first phone call was around 12:15. That is wrong because it was at 12:08. It seems a reasonable guesstimate to me. But thereafter I do not remember her saying times: I may have missed it. What I remember fits with what is in the time line we have been provided. For example (from PMF without a link, sadly)

La Stampa:
"la Romanelli ha raccontato di aver ricevuto, intorno alle 12.15, una telefonata da Amanda. «Ciao, c’è qualcosa di strano in casa. Sono arrivata e la porta era aperta. C’è sangue. Ho fatto la doccia e ora vado da Raffaele e lo faccio venire» avrebbe detto Amdana al telefono a Filomena che, stavolta le disse di fare un controllo e richiamarla. «Provai subito a chiamare Meredith. Uno dei telefoni suonava ma non rispondeva. L’altro era spento - ha raccontato Filomena -. Ho provato a richiamare Amanda ma non mi rispose. Poi la chiamai ancora e mi disse che a casa era tutto per aria, e che la finestra della mia camera era rotta. Le dissi di chiamare i carabinieri e lei mi disse di si."

That is:
"Romanelli told that about 12:15 she received a call from Amanda. "Hello, there is something strange in the house. I arrived and the door was open. There is blood. I had a shower and now I'm going to Raffaele and get him come here" - said Amanda in the call to Filomena who told her to make a check and call her back. "I tried to call Meredith. One of her phones rang but did not respond. The other was switched off" - Filomena said - "I tried to recall Amanda but she did not respond. Then I called her again and she told me that ??the house was open?? (tutto per aria) and the window of my room was smashed. I said her to call the carabinieri and she said yes."

It is true no time was given: but it seems to me that the implication is clearly that this call was either 12:12 or 12:20. What do you think they talked about in those two calls?

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.

I have missed where she said it was the last phone call. I am also puzzled as to why all the calls are from Filomena to Amanda (apart from the first one). Why did Amanda not call Filomena when she found her window broken, if your speculation is correct?

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.

Well if it was going to be quick I would have to wonder why she asked her b/f to go because he could get there quicker. Do you know why?

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.

I would imagine she would call to say that she had called her b/f and he was on his way and would arrive before she could. But that is a mere guess.

 

[Dan O.]

I'm currious if Moss believes that guilt or innocence should be decided on the basis of how the experts twitch or swivel their hips when they give testimony or if science should be applied when deciding scientific evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm currious if Moss believes that guilt or innocence should be decided on the basis of how the experts twitch or swivel their hips when they give testimony or if science should be applied when deciding scientific evidence.

Is it normally the case in courts outside Italy, say in the US, that the judge and jury don't trouble themselves with the prosecution and defence experts and instead just ask their own super experts to decide which side was right?

 

[Moss]

I'm currious if Moss believes that guilt or innocence should be decided on the basis of how the experts twitch or swivel their hips when they give testimony or if science should be applied when deciding scientific evidence.

The judge weighs the scientific analyses the experts provide against each other. That is his job.
The job of the scientific experts is to a) apply scientific methods for the analysis of evidence, b) build theories based on said analysis and c) then communicate the results of their work in a way that is understandable and thus allows the nonexpert judge to weigh it.
If the judge needs a further scientific interpreter the experts did not do their job. It's part of their job to enable the judge to do his work.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

Halides1 has done an excellent job discussing this topic. He is not the only one that believes this is an important issue. Evidence was withheld from the defense. This is a fact. This will be a brought up on appeal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Halides1 has done an excellent job discussing this topic. He is not the only one that believes this is an important issue. Evidence was withheld from the defense. This is a fact. This will be a brought up on appeal.

More assertions. If it's a fact, then prove it Bruce.

 

[Fiona]

So explain it to me again. The defence asked for all the information: The prosecution agreed to provide it. The judge ordered it be passed over before the summer recess. The defence did not complain that the order had not been complied with when the trial resumed after the summer. Why not?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Since you're here Bruce, are you going to get around to answering my questions from my post here?: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5840531&postcount=7283

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce Fisher -

You stated some time ago you would examine the translated section from the Massei Report that posted, yet since that time you've been completely silent on the matter. It's here if you mislaid it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

So, what 'are' your comments? In light of this analyses from the report, combined with the fact that both Filomena and Amanda had stated Filomena's room had been trashed/messed up, whatever term you prefer, do you still maintain that:

1. The window was broken with a rock thrown from outside
2. That someone climbed up the wall and entered the cottage via that window
3. That this person was Rudy Guede
4. That the mess seen in Filomena's room was done by Filomena herself
5. That the break-in was not staged and a real event

If so, can you outline your justification?

Finally, you have said here, in regard to this, that if you are shown to be wrong in this matter, you would readily update your site to reflect it. Now's the time to put this claim to the test and see if it is anything other then so much hot air. Will you now be correcting your site on these matters?

I will look this over. Answering your questions is not my main concern. I came on this board to see how much information you actually had. You didn't have the picture of Raffaele's kitchen drawer. This was all I needed. I know that you have limited resources. This is okay. I do not fault you for this but it tells me that you base all of your claims on evidence that you have acquired from the news and online blogs.

For the record. the picture of Raffaele's drawer is perfectly fine. If anyone needs to see this picture, I have it available on my site. I was surprised that so much was made out of that picture.

It will not benefit Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito if I am able to somehow change your mind in regard to this case. I have no interest in trying to do so.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

My comment was not a personal attack. Every time someone offers any information that is favorable to Amanda or Raffaele, it is quickly written off as FOA.

Bob Graham was called an FOA Sympathizer.

Steve Moore was called a sock puppet for FOA.

Steve Moore is a retired FBI Agent who has 25 years of investigative experience. His experience includes the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. Steve has researched the Meredith Kercher murder case extensively. I was very pleased when Steve accepted my request to write about his knowledge of this case for Injustice in Perugia. Steve has agreed to join our effort and will continue to work with us to set the record straight about this case. I would like to personally thank Steve for providing this invaluable information. Steve's expert opinion is one that comes from years of experience and one that must be respected when it comes to crimes of this nature.

Please get your facts straight before you accuse me of personal attacks.

The first time I posted on here, Michael quickly responded accusing me of spam and warned me that I might be banned.

I simply introduced myself and let everyone know who I was.

I am amazed at the level of arrogance that I see from people. Any one that disagrees must be paid by the family or part of a PR firm or an FOA sympathizer.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I will look this over. Answering your questions is not my main concern. I came on this board to see how much information you actually had. You didn't have the picture of Raffaele's kitchen drawer. This was all I needed. I know that you have limited resources. This is okay. I do not fault you for this but it tells me that you base all of your claims on evidence that you have acquired from the news and online blogs.

For the record. the picture of Raffaele's drawer is perfectly fine. If anyone needs to see this picture, I have it available on my site. I was surprised that so much was made out of that picture.

It will not benefit Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito if I am able to somehow change your mind in regard to this case. I have no interest in trying to do so.

We have things you do 'not' have, at least not unless you got them from us...A translation of Raffaele's and Rudy's diaries, Judge Matteini's Report, the original unedited Micheli Report, a full professional translation of the Massei Report, translations of hundreds of Italian articles, the full translation of Amanda's testimony on the stand during the trial, original photos taken of points of relevance in Perugia taken by our various members who visted to name just a few things. We also have our own direct sources in Perugia close to the case. We also have our own scientists on PMF, as well as experts in fields related to this case.

Does any of this information you claim to have support, in the face of the judgement I posted from Judge Massei, your continuing assertion of the points I listed in my post that you quoted above?

 

[Fulcanelli]

My comment was not a personal attack. Every time someone offers any information that is favorable to Amanda or Raffaele, it is quickly written off as FOA.

Bob Graham was called an FOA Sympathizer.

Steve Moore was called a sock puppet for FOA.

Steve Moore is a retired FBI Agent who has 25 years of investigative experience. His experience includes the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. Steve has researched the Meredith Kercher murder case extensively. I was very pleased when Steve accepted my request to write about his knowledge of this case for Injustice in Perugia. Steve has agreed to join our effort and will continue to work with us to set the record straight about this case. I would like to personally thank Steve for providing this invaluable information. Steve's expert opinion is one that comes from years of experience and one that must be respected when it comes to crimes of this nature.

Please get your facts straight before you accuse me of personal attacks.

The first time I posted on here, Michael quickly responded accusing me of spam and warned me that I might be banned.

I simply introduced myself and let everyone know who I was.

I am amazed at the level of arrogance that I see from people. Any one that disagrees must be paid by the family or part of a PR firm or an FOA sympathizer.

Attacking your audience is just bound to win them over to your cause

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Attacking your audience is just bound to win them over to your cause

I am not trying to win anyone over. I have already stated why I came here. There are maybe 10 people on this forum that have the same exact views as you do and speak those views with the same level of arrogance. I have no intention of trying to change those minds. You can all discuss the case and agree amongst yourselves. I have clearly upset you. I can see this from your messages to me as soon as I signed on. It was never my intent to upset you. You are not my concern.

 

[RoseMontague]

I've got nothing other than an open mind. Neither one of you is "winning me over" with your rhetoric.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What 'is' your concern then Bruce?

You also came here under a claim that if anything on your site is shown to be wrong, then you'd gladly change it. The questions I asked you were concerned with that and putting your claim to the test, a claim which was obviously empty but made only because it sounded good. Your response was 'I'm not interested in answering your questions'. Instead, all you seem to be wanting to do is make personal attacks, call people arrogant and willy wave (lot's of 'my site's better then yours' flannel). So again, what is your concern and why are you here?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I will look this over. Answering your questions is not my main concern. I came on this board to see how much information you actually had. You didn't have the picture of Raffaele's kitchen drawer. This was all I needed. I know that you have limited resources. This is okay. I do not fault you for this but it tells me that you base all of your claims on evidence that you have acquired from the news and online blogs.

For the record. the picture of Raffaele's drawer is perfectly fine. If anyone needs to see this picture, I have it available on my site. I was surprised that so much was made out of that picture.

It will not benefit Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito if I am able to somehow change your mind in regard to this case. I have no interest in trying to do so.

So, you have no evidence for your assertions?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Bob Graham was called an FOA Sympathizer.

Have you ever met Bob Graham Bruce? PMF has and with regret, has worked with him in the past. We know well what Graham and Garfield are.

 

[RoseMontague]

Fulcanelli,
I like that term "willy wave". Is that British?

It seems a short way of saying whip it out and show everyone how big it is.