Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Agatha]

I grew up in London, and my suspicion is that LondonJohn is from somewhere near here also. I can't tell you why I suspect that, it's just an unfounded suspicion I have.

I also grew up in London. I suspect.... a conspiracy!

 

[Fiona]

Stewart Home, posting at PMF, does not agree with LondonJohn's assertion. It is possible to read his post in a way which denies his claim, so it is not definitive, but for what it is worth this is what he says (writing in response to somethink on Perugia Shock, I gather)

Give me a break! In Curatolo’s original deposition, he says he saw the buses for the disco and now and again he looked up (because of the noise) and saw the students passing by some with masks or dressed in black and some like witches, etc. This in fact matches Piazza Gimana that night perfectly. It’s is Thursday that the disco buses are there at 11:30 or so, and it was between Halloween and festa dei morti, there were tons of kids around that night in masks and costumes still. No doubt he was talking about November 1st. So he left out the masks and witches... big deal, it was not wrong. I was in Perugia… I don’t see any details in his testimony and/or deposition that were WRONG. In fact he was pretty darn on the mark!

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=121&p=7517&hilit=Curatolo+masks#p7517

To me this states quite clearly that Stewart Home was in Perugia on Nov 1st, 2007 and that there were "tons of kids around that night in masks and costumes, still"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

evidence should be reviewed, not hidden

Fulcanelli,

You have not quoted Ms. Comodi correctly, and the implication of her words is that not everything was released. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html
“Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0227/1224265260550.html
http://www.thepost.ie/story/text/eyidqlcwsn/
Since the time that RoseMontague posted the link to the Graham article, I posted a link on Dr. Greg Hampikian, and I have recently found an article written by Fiona Ness on 25 April 2010, from which I quote:

“The importance of DNA evidence in a conviction is highlighted in one of Hampikian’s cases - that of US student Amanda Knox. Knox was convicted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher after a high-profile trial in Italy in 2009. Knox’s conviction was partly based on a sample of her DNA discovered on a knife found in the house. However, Hampikian says he is appalled by the standard of DNA evidence used by the Italian courts to convict Knox in the case. ‘The amount of DNA present is far below the normal cut-off for many labs that I know of. A one off spurious piece of DNA evidence shouldn’t be treated as a gold standard profile from a high-profile source. The issue of this low-template DNA sample is really troubling me.’ Trying to obtain the evidence to have it retested, however, is proving difficult. ‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.” (emphasis added)

One of my sources for the prosecution’s refusal to turn over the files requested by Drs. Hampikian, Johnson, and Krane is a series of communications I have had with Jason Gilder, one of the signers of the letter. I am not sure exactly when I made this information available to the JREF forum, but it is probably within the last two months, possibly much more recent than that.

Chris

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

You have not quoted Ms. Comodi correctly, and the implication of her words is that not everything was released. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nda-Knoxs-lawyers-file-appeal-in-Perugia.html
“Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0227/1224265260550.html
http://www.thepost.ie/story/text/eyidqlcwsn/
Since the time that RoseMontague posted the link to the Graham article, I posted a link on Dr. Greg Hampikian, and I have recently found an article written by Fiona Ness on 25 April 2010, from which I quote:

“The importance of DNA evidence in a conviction is highlighted in one of Hampikian’s cases - that of US student Amanda Knox. Knox was convicted of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher after a high-profile trial in Italy in 2009. Knox’s conviction was partly based on a sample of her DNA discovered on a knife found in the house. However, Hampikian says he is appalled by the standard of DNA evidence used by the Italian courts to convict Knox in the case. ‘The amount of DNA present is far below the normal cut-off for many labs that I know of. A one off spurious piece of DNA evidence shouldn’t be treated as a gold standard profile from a high-profile source. The issue of this low-template DNA sample is really troubling me.’ Trying to obtain the evidence to have it retested, however, is proving difficult. ‘The discovery rules in Italy are different to what I’m used to. It’s fairly routine in the US that I send a request and get what I want. But in the Knox case I haven’t been able to get a copy of the standard operating procedures of the lab and without that, it’s hard to see if they even followed their own guidelines.’ Evidence, Hampikian says, is a matter of science, to be reviewed, not protected.” (emphasis added)

One of my sources for the prosecution’s refusal to turn over the files requested by Drs. Hampikian, Johnson, and Krane is a series of communications I have had with Jason Gilder, one of the signers of the letter. I am not sure exactly when I made this information available to the JREF forum, but it is probably within the last two months, possibly much more recent than that.

Chris

Their interpretation from the Italian is incorrect. Comodi was quite clear...there was nothing else, the defence had everything. Hence why the defence made no fuss.

REQUEST FOR MISSING DATA
– Giulia Bongiorno therefore requested the deposition of what on her advice is the missing data. “There’s nothing more,” was Prosecutor Manuela Comodi’s reply. (9)

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=19323#p19323

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fine, be pedantic


Regardless, Nov 1st is celebrated - therefore, the argument presented by Bruce, that Curatolo's mentioning of masks/costumes in his testimony is inconsistent with the night of the murder, is false.

Toto was talking about Halloween. You can try and spin it any way you like.

The night that Meredith was murdered, she called it an early night because she was still tired from the Halloween celebration. Meredith walked part of the way home with Sophie and finished the walk home alone.

There was no celebration going on in the streets when Meredith walked home. There was no celebration going on at all that night.

Toto is not a credible witness.

 

[Fiona]

One of my sources for the prosecution’s refusal to turn over the files requested by Drs. Hampikian, Johnson, and Krane is a series of communications I have had with Jason Gilder, one of the signers of the letter. I am not sure exactly when I made this information available to the JREF forum, but it is probably within the last two months, possibly much more recent than that.

Chris

You did say it was Jason Gilder, yes. He is a computer scientist, is he not?

Do you have anything to show that this group were parties to the trial? Were the entered as defence experts or in any other way formally involved in the trial? If they were then why did they not protest if the prosecution failed to comply with a court order: or did they protest to the judge? if they did can we see anything which shows it? If they were not party to the trial, on the other hand, then can you show any case where evidence is released to random people just for the asking? Is that what happens in America? I do not think it happens here

 

[Fiona]

Toto was talking about Halloween. You can try and spin it any way you like.

The night that Meredith was murdered, she called it an early night because she was still tired from the Halloween celebration. Meredith walked part of the way home with Sophie and finished the walk home alone.

There was no celebration going on in the streets when Meredith walked home. There was no celebration going on at all that night.

Toto is not a credible witness.

That is your opinion. It is not Stewart Home's opinion. He was there. Were you?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Stewart Home, posting at PMF, does not agree with LondonJohn's assertion. It is possible to read his post in a way which denies his claim, so it is not definitive, but for what it is worth this is what he says (writing in response to somethink on Perugia Shock, I gather)



http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=121&p=7517&hilit=Curatolo+masks#p7517

To me this states quite clearly that Stewart Home was in Perugia on Nov 1st, 2007 and that there were "tons of kids around that night in masks and costumes, still"

I should also quickly point out here, that Stewart is not responding to Curatolo's original deposition to police here, so it's not confirmation that Curatolo originally said this, rather it's a response to allegations made by some that he did say that (benefit of the doubt) and how that, if true, effects the credibility of his overall testimony.

The fact is, throughout that period, the various nightclubs and bars were running themes.

And yes, I can confirm that Stewart Home was actually there during that period. He lived and worked in Perugia (during the time of the murder) and also often attended hearings on behalf of PMF in order to report on the case. He was honourable and objective. If what he saw in court did not match PMF interpretation, he was always quick to say so and this was appreciated, for like him, we were interested only in the truth.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So you're saying he held his left foot in the air while he paused at the door to lock it before walking out? What, he didn't want to leave a bloody shoeprint at the door?

I am tasking you with proving your claim that Rudy locked the door before leaving the room. Given that Rudy, by this time, had blood on his shoes, there must shoeprints indicating that Rudy had paused at the door to lock it, unless you want to claim that Rudy was hopping on one foot (again) while he locked the door.

This is Tracking 101. Follow the trail of footprints - if there is no pause in the shoeprints at the door, then one cannot assert that Rudy paused to lock the door before exiting.

This is, strangely enough, the same reason it's not accepted that Rudy stopped to lock the door from the outside of the room - the shoeprints not only don't support this assertion, they indicate that there was no pause during the flight from Meredith's room.

Charlie is making a point that the Shoe prints do not provide conclusive information either way.

If you was the crime scene videos then you would know that the floor outside of Meredith's door was a very high traffic area. The floor had also been walked on before the police arrived and the door was broken. The evidence on the floor was certainly compromised by all of this activity.

When you look at the partial prints that are available, it is very plausible that Rudy closed and locked the door.

If you put one foot forward and stop momentarily, then start walking again, how could you possibly tell from that one shoe print if there was a "pause?"

That foot would remain in that position on the floor during the pause. Please tell me how you could look at that one print and see that the person had stopped for a moment.

 

[Fiona]

Is the question not rather about the way the print is facing? That seems to me to be what is at issue anyway

 

[Fulcanelli]

Toto was talking about Halloween. You can try and spin it any way you like.

The night that Meredith was murdered, she called it an early night because she was still tired from the Halloween celebration. Meredith walked part of the way home with Sophie and finished the walk home alone.

There was no celebration going on in the streets when Meredith walked home. There was no celebration going on at all that night.

Toto is not a credible witness.

Why are you calling him 'Toto'...are you 'trying' to be insulting? He actually has a name, please use it.

Curatolo never claimed there were celebrations going on in the streets. As I recall, what he actually said was that he recalled he had seen such things the night before (the 31st) and therefore knew Halloween was the night before and that the next day (the 2nd) the police were going around asking questions. That's how he knew the day was the day of the murder.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

That is your opinion. It is not Stewart Home's opinion. He was there. Were you?

I don't use PMF as a source. That site has been proven less than credible and it is run by a pathological liar.

 

[RoseMontague]

You did say it was Jason Gilder, yes. He is a computer scientist, is he not?

Do you have anything to show that this group were parties to the trial? Were the entered as defence experts or in any other way formally involved in the trial? If they were then why did they not protest if the prosecution failed to comply with a court order: or did they protest to the judge? if they did can we see anything which shows it? If they were not party to the trial, on the other hand, then can you show any case where evidence is released to random people just for the asking? Is that what happens in America? I do not think it happens here

The distinction here is that these new experts are getting the information from the defense team for further review. It is a case where the defense team has given them all they have (meaning the defense did not get the complete files from the prosecution).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Charlie is making a point that the Shoe prints do not provide conclusive information either way.

If you was the crime scene videos then you would know that the floor outside of Meredith's door was a very high traffic area. The floor had also been walked on before the police arrived and the door was broken. The evidence on the floor was certainly compromised by all of this activity.

When you look at the partial prints that are available, it is very plausible that Rudy closed and locked the door.

If you put one foot forward and stop momentarily, then start walking again, how could you possibly tell from that one shoe print if there was a "pause?"

That foot would remain in that position on the floor during the pause. Please tell me how you could look at that one print and see that the person had stopped for a moment.

You can actually tell a pause, since the stride becomes shorter. But that isn't really the point. The point is all his prints are facing away from and moving away from the door. In short, none of them are conducive with his stopping, turning and locking the door.

As for Charlie, he changes his view on what is important whichever way the wind is blowing. When he argues how guilty Rudy is, suddenly his footprints are extremely important. When anyone actually looks at them closely, they are suddenly not important. Go figure.

 

[Fiona]

I don't use PMF as a source. That site has been proven less than credible and it is run by a pathological liar.

Your choice: the question stands. Were you there? If you were not there then what are you basing your opinion as to whether people were in costume on the 1st or not on? What is the foundation which underpins your very strong assertion that Curatolo was wrong about the night or indeed was not a credible witness? Were you in court for that part of the evidence? Stewart Home was,

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Is the question not rather about the way the print is facing? That seems to me to be what is at issue anyway

Yes, the shoe print is angled toward the front door. Rudy took one step out of the room turning toward the front door, his right foot came down facing Meredith's door, he locked the door and left. He did stop at one point to possibly put on a coat.

The cottage is small. It would have been a normal motion to step out of the room toward the direction you were intending to go.

 

[Fiona]

The distinction here is that these new experts are getting the information from the defense team for further review. It is a case where the defense team has given them all they have (meaning the defense did not get the complete files from the prosecution).

Then why was this not raised in court? It is in direct defiance of a court order and so it should be fairly easy to deal with, should it not?

 

[odeed]

Amazer,

Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian were consultants for the defense team (I posted a link on Dr. Hampikian a couple of weeks ago). They and Dan Krane, another signer of the open letter, asked the defense lawyers to ask the prosecution to release the electronic data files, according to Jason Gilder, also a signer of the letter. These files are the basis for creating the DNA electropherograms, such as the one reproduced in the open letter, but the prosecution refused to release them. Some of the problems the letter noted with DNA evidence, the weak intensity of the knife electropherogram for example, are obvious from paper copies. But other things cannot be addressed without each expert starting with the raw data. Once the electropherograms get locked into paper form, it represents someone’s interpretation, not the data sets themselves. The analysis of DNA mixtures is an area in which one would expect experts to disagree.

I have heard arguments to the effect that we should believe the prosecution’s expert witnesses over the defense’s witnesses because they had access to all of the data. This argument never cut any ice with me with respect to DNA. The prosecution could easily rectify this situation by releasing this information, and this would level the playing field.

halides1

Above you say "These files are the basis for creating the DNA electropherograms, such as the one reproduced in the open letter", why would they need to request new data if they can already reproduce the DNA electropherograms from the data, also if the electropherograms in the open letter are from the Italian source, why are the headings in English and not Italian?

 

[Matthew Best]

Above you say "These files are the basis for creating the DNA electropherograms, such as the one reproduced in the open letter", why would they need to request new data if they can already reproduce the DNA electropherograms from the data, also if the electropherograms in the open letter are from the Italian source, why are the headings in English and not Italian?

A (the files) are needed to produce B (the electropherograms). If you have B, it doesn't mean you now have A.

 

[Fiona]

Yes, the shoe print is angled toward the front door. Rudy took one step out of the room turning toward the front door, his right foot came down facing Meredith's door, he locked the door and left. He did stop at one point to possibly put on a coat.

The cottage is small. It would have been a normal motion to step out of the room toward the direction you were intending to go.

So there are footprints of Guede's facing Kercher's door? I did not know that. I am now wondering why this has not been plainly stated because it is quite important