Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Agatha]

This thread would be immeasurably improved if Fulcanelli and Bruce Fisher stopped personalising their arguments, and not just towards each other. Or failing that, put each other on ignore.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two separate quotes

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.





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

Fulcanelli,

The link you provided indicates that Ms. Comodi said "there's nothing more," on or before 14 September 2009. Bob Graham's article was from 17 April 2010 and appears to me to be a different, fresher quote from Ms. Comodi.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

It's a little unfair for me to say this about the particular poster to whom you replied here (since (s)he doesn't have a history in this area), but it's constantly of curious interest to me how many posters on here find it difficult to understand often-basic logic. I'm not putting myself up on some sort of pedestal as "Emeritus Professor of Logic and Reasoning", but it does seem to me that a decent grasp of logic (including at least a nodding understanding of conditional probabilities) is pretty essential in trying to sensibly analyse any complex criminal case...

 

[Fine]

Bruce Fisher,

Just how natural your video "re-enactment" looks will much depend on whether Rudy steps out---from Meredith's room--- into the hallway on his LEFT bloody shoe or his RIGHT bloody shoe (which ever it is). So would you kindly also post a link to a photograph of EXACTLY that first bloody footprint in the hallway, so we can see whether it's a left or a right shoeprint. I think you said earlier that you have a link to such a photo. Thanks.

///

 

[Amazer]

This thread would be immeasurably improved if Fulcanelli and Bruce Fisher stopped personalising their arguments, and not just towards each other. Or failing that, put each other on ignore.

Hear Hear!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Gilder

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,

Jason Gilder is a DNA forensic scientist. I have read portions of Chapter 3 of his Ph.D. dissertation, which deals with DNA degradation over time and its effects on forensic interpretation. The two links I provided on Dr. Hampikian make it clear that he was working with the Knox defense team. I have previously stated my understanding that the defense’s motion for a mistrial was based partly on the lack of release of information. IIRC, someone (possibly you) disagreed with my position.

Chris

In other words, I take the mistrial motion as an indication that the prosecution did not comply with the judge's motion completely. If others disagree, there we will have to leave it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Fiona,
Here is that quote from Frank that i remembered:

And yes, both defenses tried to do something, they explained that without raw data, without knowing the setting of the machine we still don't know how we got to that result. And they filed a claim to the judge. A little claim, simply the annulment of Micheli's decree of trial. Which means to cancel the whole process and send everyone home, free. As a sub-claim they asked to invalidate the sole DNA results.
So, following the request the judges went to deliberate.
It was a particular feeling pretending to believe that everything could just finish today, and in one hour or so we could all go toasting at the bar with tarallucci & vino, together with Amanda and Raffaele.

One thing is dreams, another the reality.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html

 

[LondonJohn]

And with that, you've just proved that you don't bother reading previous posts. I just answered that question today.

"And with that".....*flourish*...."ze case is SOLV-EDD". Hercule Poirot couldn't have put it better.

Fulcanelli has posted over 40 times today, by my calculations. So which post was it (approximate time)? And yes, I do other things with my life, so while I try to scan through posts upon my return, I'm inevitably going to miss things now and again. If he's provided a good link to Curatolo's witness statements and I've missed it, I'd suggest that the civil thing to do would be to write something like "I've already posted a link to what you're looking for", then to either re-post the link, or direct me towards it reasonably accurately. But then, I suppose that's too much to ask for - he simply couldn't resist adding in that I "don't bother".

Was the answer to that question a link to PMF? If so, I can't read the relevant information. And he knows full well why I can't read the relevant information.

And if his "answer to the question" was a generalised instruction to "read the court transcripts" (which I DID read, by the way), then that's not what I'm looking for. Firstly, I'm asking for an actual link to the witness statements themselves - not a general instruction as to where I might find them. And secondly, I want the full set of original statements - not just the ones that the prosecution chose to present in court.

Incidentally, did the defence get a full and complete bundle of ALL of Curatolo's statements to police (including any that might be of more help to the defence than the prosecution)? The principle of discovery would suggest that they did, but then I don't know how rigorously discovery is enforced in Italy. Did the defence introduce any of Curatolo's first statements to the police in any cross-examination of him?

 

[LondonJohn]

Can I ask what this was in regard to?

Oh - I was responding to a fair and sensible (in my opinion) post from Amazer (around #130 on this new thread), in which (s)he had asked Fulcanelli whether it was really necessary to embellish a reply (post #129) he'd given to Mary with more personal insults....

 

[Agatha]

"And with that".....*flourish*...."ze case is SOLV-EDD". Hercule Poirot couldn't have put it better.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5983952#post5983952

Post 163.
However, the link does go to PMF and you said you can't access that. Do you want me to c&p?

 

[LondonJohn]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5983952#post5983952

Post 163.
However, the link does go to PMF and you said you can't access that. Do you want me to c&p?

Thanks. Yes, C&P would be very helpful (provided it's not too much hassle). I presume that it still only refers to those parts of Curatolo's witness statements that the prosecution CHOSE to present in court, but even if this is the case, something would be better than nothing! DO you know where I might find access to the complete, unexpurgated list of Curatolo's police statements?

Incidentally, Fulcanelli knows that I can't read the link on PMF (for easily-discernible reasons that were of his own choosing), so his sneering reply to me is even more risible than it otherwise might have been......

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

The link you provided indicates that Ms. Comodi said "there's nothing more," on or before 14 September 2009. Bob Graham's article was from 17 April 2010 and appears to me to be a different, fresher quote from Ms. Comodi.

It's not a fresher quote. He's simply going back to what she said, or what he 'thought she said'[ or more accurately, what his mate Chris Mellas told him she had said) in court during the trial. It's called revising history.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli has posted over 40 times today, by my calculations. So which post was it (approximate time)? And yes, I do other things with my life, so while I try to scan through posts upon my return, I'm inevitably going to miss things now and again.

Then don't miss things. Read more and opine less. And I say this, since you are keeping tabs of the number of my posts (not too busy to do that in your 'busy life'), since a good many of my posts today were down to you, made to repeat the same point of fact to you over and over, which you kept ignoring.

Was the answer to that question a link to PMF? If so, I can't read the relevant information. And he knows full well why I can't read the relevant information.

That's your own fault. You were warned multiple times and you just gave the finger. Toodle pip.

 

[odeed]

The headings might be in English because the manufacturer of the instruments is Applied Biosystems, IIRC. The scientists I listed do not have the raw data and cannot reprocess it or analyze it in the way that they would like. If you searched this thread with my username and "Krane" as a search term, you should find an example of how this can be useful.

Comparing the electropherograms on http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=203 it looks like they had all the data they needed to recreate the results the prosecution had.

And since .fsa files are a format for Applied Biosystems software, what information was missing that the scientists needed?

ETA: Just seen Rose post up the page, reading that link.

 

[Agatha]

Thanks. Yes, C&P would be very helpful (provided it's not too much hassle). I presume that it still only refers to those parts of Curatolo's witness statements that the prosecution CHOSE to present in court, but even if this is the case, something would be better than nothing! DO you know where I might find access to the complete, unexpurgated list of Curatolo's police statements?

His word for word statement has never been published and what he has said differs depending what newspaper you read. That is why using newspapers to claim Curatolo said X or Y as a fact in his initial statements is perilous and should be avoided. The only solid ground is to look at his court testimony and Judge Massei's Motivations Report, since the court was also privy to Curatolo's statements to police as well as his court testimony.

It appears Curatolo's statements are not available.

The PMF post to which Fulcanelli linked says:

Here is Stewart Home's report from the courtroom when he was actually there to witness Mr. Curatolo on the stand:

"Perugia: Saturday, March 28, 2009

Today we heard from Antonio Curatolo, Fabrizio Giofreddi , Antonio Aiello, and Hekuran Kokomani.

1. Antonio Curatolo, is a fixture in Perugia. He is a vagrant that spends most of his time hanging around Corso Garibaldi (the street where RS lived) and Piazza Grimana (the piazza at the end of Corso Garibadi and within eyeshot of the start of house on Via della Pergola). The crowd murmured as he was helped in by court assistants, uncleansed, dressed in a dirty jacket, a old winter knit hat. His skin was dark against his long un-groomed white hair, beard and mustache. But once he opened his mouth, you knew that this guy was no slouch. He spoke clearly, concisely and directly, and was very certain of what he saw. His testimony never swayed and was consistent even under cross examination. In short, his appearance was one thing, his articulate convincing testimony was another.

He stated that he has been a regular (hobo for lack of a better term) around that part of Perugia for about 8-9 years. He testified that he was in Piazza Grimani around 9:30-10:00pm when he saw across the piazza two people, a man and a woman, which he described as a couple by the way they were sitting next to one and other etc. He was asked to describe them and he turned and looked at Amanda, just a few feet away, and said calmly, “it was her”, and then looked at RS, and said “and him.” He stated that having been in that area he had seen them before separately, but this was the first time he saw them together. But he was certain it was them. He said also that, although he did not watch them all the time, he did see them again “poco prima di mezzanotte” or “just before midnight” at the same place. He originally said that they were there from 9:30 through midnight, but clarified that they were there at 9:30-10:00pm and may have left around 11-11:30 and then returned just before midnight for sure. After midnight, he left the piazza to go to the park and sleep.

The next day, he arrived at his faithful piazza around 12:00pm and eventually around 1:30 or so saw the carabinieri pass, and the police, etc etc. and stated that he watched them at the scene including the CSI people dressed in the full-white suits.

Under cross examination, Buongiorno thought she had an easy target, but in fact he held up extremely well. She asked, “how could you possibly know it was 9:30”..he said because the sign next to the piazza has a digital clock. He also said I have a watch! (the court laughed) and I look at it often to check he time. He stated that “when I sat on the bench to read I looked at my watch and it was just before 9:30pm….and I saw them shortly afterwards.” He said he knows what he saw and he saw those two! No more questions. "

I have a favor to ask of our Italian speaking folks. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at the link below where Antonio Curatolo was interviewed by LA7 News and tell us your opinion?

Antonio Curatolo Interview 2009

I snipped bickering from LJ and from Tara on PMF out of the quotes; I wish people would see it doesn't advance their argument (on either side) at all.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

Jason Gilder is a DNA forensic scientist. I have read portions of Chapter 3 of his Ph.D. dissertation, which deals with DNA degradation over time and its effects on forensic interpretation. The two links I provided on Dr. Hampikian make it clear that he was working with the Knox defense team. I have previously stated my understanding that the defense’s motion for a mistrial was based partly on the lack of release of information. IIRC, someone (possibly you) disagreed with my position.

Chris

He is? Well that is odd because his profile says he is a computer scientist.

Dr. Jason Gilder graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Computer Engineering from Wright State University in 2001, a Master's degree in Computer Science from Wright State University in 2003, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from Wright State University in 2007. His thesis and dissertation were in the area of forensic DNA interpretation. Jason is the first full-time employee of Forensic Bioinformatics and he is the primary author of the Genophiler® automated software analysis system. He has used Genophiler® to analyze the electronic data in more than 800 DNA cases. Jason has provided testimony and gives several talks a year at CLE seminars. Jason continually performs research in the area of forensic DNA interpretation and has published multiple articles in the field.

 

[HumanityBlues]

He is? Well that is odd because his profile says he is a computer scientist.

Did you read the full quote you posted?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

LinkedIn

He is? Well that is odd because his profile says he is a computer scientist.

Chapter 3 of his thesis delves into statistics quite a bit. Here is his summary at LinkedIn, a professional networking site:

Jason Gilder’s Summary

Forensic Bioinformatics reviews cases involving forensic DNA testing. We employ an automated analysis system to provide an objective review while making the results easy to understand. We provide full consulting and testimony services. We also continue to perform research to better understand and define issues pertaining to forensic DNA testing and interpretation.
Jason Gilder’s Specialties:

Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques.

 

[Fiona]

Did you read the full quote you posted?

Yes of course I did.

 

[Fiona]

Chapter 3 of his thesis delves into statistics quite a bit. Here is his summary at LinkedIn, a professional networking site:

Jason Gilder’s Summary

Forensic Bioinformatics reviews cases involving forensic DNA testing. We employ an automated analysis system to provide an objective review while making the results easy to understand. We provide full consulting and testimony services. We also continue to perform research to better understand and define issues pertaining to forensic DNA testing and interpretation.
Jason Gilder’s Specialties:

Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques.

Yes. He is a computer scientist. That is what I said and that is what he is.