Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Chris_Halkides]

four

Maybe they could ask for them. Did they?

The reference samples or the fsa files? Do you know whether the investigators' reference samples were taken?

 

[Kermit]

It's a simple question. Answer it.

Was the bra clasp handled properly by investigators?

.
I have a simple question that I asked you before you asked your question.

Please answer it: Are you aware that Perugia Prosecutor Mignini did not "take the Monster of Florence case".

If you weren't aware it of, then you are now, and you can modify your website accordingly.
===========

Also, I don't understand why, in light of Preston's own words, you don't modify your site as regards the "midnight" questioning which you continue to maintain that he suffered (with the only "proof" in Paul Ciolino sputtering vehement imagination)

 

[Alt+F4]

Four times at least.

Just so I am understanding you correctly, are you saying that the prosecution has withheld DNA evidence from the defense and that the defense has asked for it four times and four times the prosecution has refused to hand it over?

 

[shuttlt]

They couldn't examine everything right away at the lab anyway, there was a backlog and therefore a queue for everything to be tested...it took them about 3 months to get through and test everything from the cottage, Rudy's, Patrick's and Raffaele's. While the clasp was being tested other important items were being tested. How were they to know the clasp would turn out to be one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case? They only know the importance of something once it was tested. If nothing had been found on the clasp, you wouldn't be whinging about it right now and it could well have turned out that way, that nothing was found. Something was found, but such knowledge is great in hindsight.

This seems like a significant post to me in the context of claims that the collection of the clasp 47 days after the crime militates against it being contaminated in the lab.

 

[stilicho]

stilicho wrote: "Why would they have had to notice this?"

Are you kidding me? They were investigating the violent attack. The clasp was cut from the bra!

One simple look at the bra would have told them that. A piece of clothing cut off of the victim's body is vital evidence.

They screwed up. There is no other explanation.

I'd suggest you actually read other cases or speak with a law enforcement professional before you make such a blanket assertion. This isn't television, Bruce, where they solve the whole case and get all the evidence in one hour.

Besides, as has been explained to you by Fulcanelli, the police wanted to go back to the cottage earlier but were continually rebuffed by the defence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not cricket

Just so I am understanding you correctly, are you saying that the prosecution has withheld DNA evidence from the defense and that the defense has asked for it four times and four times the prosecution has refused to hand it over?

With respect to the .fsa files, the defense asked at least four times and was refused each time. As they say in my part of the world, not cricket.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, Amanda described Raffaele as having blood on his hands from cooking fish, which meant he gutted it. Although, that probably happened another night.

I had forgotten about the fish. That's a strange one. Gutting a fish isn't the action of a man whose idea of cooking is throwing some pasta in boiling water, yet his kitchen draw says otherwise. Perhaps he couldn't be bothered with cooking normally, but was trying to impress Amanda. Gutting fish though is the kind of outward bound skill that one might pick up without having any interest in cooking. Did him and his dad go on fishing trips? If so, he might be more comfortable using a pen knife to gut the fish. Anyway, this is all speculation and if it was important it would have been covered before.

In Italy they don't 'heat up' pizzas, they make them No Italian would be seen dead slinging a supermarket pizza in an oven. Food is a religion in Italy.

True. I'm sure I saw fresh pasta in the supermarket last time I was in Italy though. In any case, you don't necessarily need a knife to make a pizza.

 

[shuttlt]

With respect to the .fsa files, the defense asked at least four times and was refused each time. As they say in my part of the world, not cricket.

Chris, is this new information? I was not aware of this much detail on the previous requests. Are you able to share?

 

[Dan O.]

Was the bra clasp handled properly by investigators? I am interested in everyone's opinion on this.

If by properly you mean that it was carefully picked up with a fresh pair of disposable tweezers and immediately placed in a steril bag that was then closed with a tampere evident seal at the time when it was discovered, i'm sure that's what they would have claimed happened if they hadn't already released the video epic showing off the collection of what they already knew was the most critical piece of physical evidence.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I spoke with the authors and the signers of the open letter more extensively, as well as speaking with Chris Mellas again and the consistent story is that the files were asked for and not turned over to the defense. If some people here do not want to accept that this is true, that is not my concern.

 

[shuttlt]

I spoke with the authors and the signers of the open letter more extensively, as well as speaking with Chris Mellas again and the consistent story is that the files were asked for and not turned over to the defense. If some people here do not want to accept that this is true, that is not my concern.

Thanks Chris. Please award yourself kudos for your efforts. Are you able to say what, if any, response was received, when the requests were made, and when they took the issues of the fsa files to a judge?

 

[Kermit]

I spoke with the authors and the signers of the open letter more extensively, as well as speaking with Chris Mellas again and the consistent story is that the files were asked for and not turned over to the defense. If some people here do not want to accept that this is true, that is not my concern.

.
Halides1 !!

While you're here (I hope you don't have to duck out again until tomorrow), please tell us who engaged "Libby" Johnson to write her open letter with the unscientific preamble full of comments supportive of Amanda's and Raffaele's position.

 

[shuttlt]

.
Halides1 !!

While you're here (I hope you don't have to duck out again until tomorrow), please tell us who engaged "Libby" Johnson to write her open letter with the unscientific preamble full of comments supportive of Amanda's and Raffaele's position.

Halides, may I suggest you either answer this question, say you don't know, or say honour prevents you from answering. I am curious for your take on the preamble though, should you feel like giving it.

 

[Kermit]

I spoke with the authors and the signers of the open letter more extensively, as well as speaking with Chris Mellas again and the consistent story is that the files were asked for and not turned over to the defense. If some people here do not want to accept that this is true, that is not my concern.

.
What does "Libby" Johnson have to do with how many times these supposedly key files were asked for?

Did she have contact with Amanda's Italian defence team? Or is this information about the 4 requests really just from Chris Mellas (which is what I assume, and I'm fine with that .... it would surprise me that you consult "Libby" Johnson about defence requests).

 

[Alt+F4]

I spoke with the authors and the signers of the open letter more extensively, as well as speaking with Chris Mellas again and the consistent story is that the files were asked for and not turned over to the defense. If some people here do not want to accept that this is true, that is not my concern.

Well I'm sure that Amanda's legal team got this refusal in writing, correct?

 

[Dan O.]

Every time you explain this is sounds even more ridiculous. The investigators collected the bra properly. They had to have noticed that part of the bra was missing. They neglected to collect it. They were completely negligent in not collecting the clasp.

That is an understatement. They pointed to the missing part when they lifted it before putting it in the collection bag. The same cameraman had zoomed in on the clasp earlier when it was discovered under the body. Presumably the same forensic team was also there since there was testimony that they didn't move from room to room.

 

[Jungle Jim]

What is law in Italy regarding the sharing of evidence between the prosecutor and defense? In the U.S. the rules vary significantly depending on the case (criminal / civil) and jurisdiction (federal / state). In addition, each state has their own rules.

 

[shuttlt]

Kermit,

Can't we give Chris points for effort or something? He is clearly having email conversations with people involved in the case, and clearly feels bound by confidentiality in regard to those conversations. It seems to me one thing to say "unless I know the source I'm not going to take your information seriously" and another to keep beating him up over not revealing his sources. Personally I trust his honesty, but don't altogether trust his sources, or possibly his sources sources. His information is interesting, and a starting point for further investigation.

 

[shuttlt]

That is an understatement. They pointed to the missing part when they lifted it before putting it in the collection bag. The same cameraman had zoomed in on the clasp earlier when it was discovered under the body. Presumably the same forensic team was also there since there was testimony that they didn't move from room to room.

This is kind of embarrassing, but I have never watched the collection. Do we get audio of the guys in the camera car instructing the guys in the crime scene as to what to pick up?

 

[quadraginta]

The reference samples or the fsa files?

Why are you being deliberately obtuse and obstructive?

You said,

<snip>

I am not sure how you think that the defense could procure the reference samples of the investigators.

Which I highlighted in your post and to which I responded,

Maybe they could ask for them. Did they?

And then for some bizarre reason you say,

The reference samples or the fsa files?

It is quite obvious why engaging you in conversation is unproductive. You make every effort to insure that it will be.

Lets look at it again.

halides1; "I am not sure how you think that the defense could procure the reference samples of the investigators."

quadraginta; "Maybe they could ask for them. Did they?"

halides1; "The reference samples or the fsa files?"
​

It's like trying to communicate via Abbott & Costello routine.

Do you know whether the investigators' reference samples were taken?

Why should I? You brought the subject up. Are you saying they weren't? Or that they were and this was withheld (nefariously) from the defense? What exactly are you saying? Do you even know, yourself?

Are you trying to feign some state of impairment? You should be careful. The performance is very persuasive.