Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, which parts of the trial did you attend?

None. Which is why I don't claim absolute certainty. I have however had access to various court documents, emails, diaries, statements and transcripts, and as I said, we had our own reporter attending the trial and I have also read every media story (including a great many Italian ones) and blog on the case as well as benefited from a certain degree of inside information on the case. This has all been reinforced by the application of logic, rigorous debate and a genuine desire for the truth and have been willing to adjust my understanding where I have found I've made mistakes. I am therefore confident in my opinions, as they are informed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I apologize in advance if the questions I am about to ask have already been answered in previous posts (I have been away and upon my return to JREF there are now two threads to read - I am reading backwards but don't know how long I shall continue doing so).

1. In the appeal document of Amanda what DNA evidence is included and what is the argument made towards that evidence?

2. Is there mention of the electronic files not being given to the defense included in the appeal?

3. Are the statements of Amanda included in the appeal?

4. Is the defense asking for an independent review of the forensic evidence?

5. And last, is there a link to the appeal document or a summary of the document?

Well, these are all things we'll know when the appeal actually starts.

There's been mention of a couple more witnesses, but aside from that, I've seen nothing to indicate to me that their arguments will differ very much at all from the main trial except for one area...the defence are going to present the possibility of multiple attackers (in contradiction of the Lone Wolf attack they argued so hard for in the main trial...as well as all the advocates of Amanda and Raffaele on this board). I think such a drastic change of strategy is a mistake. It's going to be interesting.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Just curious, what is the thought on how Amanda’s bare footprints got onto the floor, the ones that were revealed by luminal? Where did the blood come from that was on her foot? I wouldn’t mind hearing both side of this because I have no idea.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Just curious, what is the thought on how Amanda’s bare footprints got onto the floor, the ones that were revealed by luminal? Where did the blood come from that was on her foot? I wouldn’t mind hearing both side of this because I have no idea.

There is no proof that those prints were blood. In fact there is no proof that those prints even belong to Amanda. Foot print samples were not taken from two of the other residents.

These stains are undated. There is no way of proving when the prints were put on the floor.

Here is an excellent article that discusses the luminol.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

 

[Amazer]

There is no proof that those prints were blood. In fact there is no proof that those prints even belong to Amanda. Foot print samples were not taken from two of the other residents.

These stains are undated. There is no way of proving when the prints were put on the floor.

Here is an excellent article that discusses the luminol.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

Wouldn't those prints at least be from after the time the floor was last cleaned by the females in the cottage? If so, does anyone have any idea when the women in the cottage last swabbed the floor?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, these are all things we'll know when the appeal actually starts.

There's been mention of a couple more witnesses, but aside from that, I've seen nothing to indicate to me that their arguments will differ very much at all from the main trial except for one area...the defence are going to present the possibility of multiple attackers (in contradiction of the Lone Wolf attack they argued so hard for in the main trial...as well as all the advocates of Amanda and Raffaele on this board). I think such a drastic change of strategy is a mistake. It's going to be interesting.

Fulcanelli does not know what the defense strategy will be. He read a couple of articles on the subject. I honestly do not know what Raffael's lawyers will do. They fought very strongly for Amanda during the trial so I would ignore any rumors of separation. Other than that. it is a wait and see situation.

I do know the basic strategy of Amanda's defense. She is innocent and that will become even more clear on appeal. Her defense team will present a very strong argument. We are currently working on the break down of Amanda's appeal. I will post the relevant points on the Injustice site this week.

 

[christianahannah]

Thank you Fulcanelli and Bruce for your answers.

Bruce would you mind posting a link at JREF when you have completed the relevant points of the appeal?

 

[Mary_H]

There was at least the interpreter with her and Raffaele was not required to be there. It wasn't his house. Witnesses are frequently required to accept conditions of responsibility and confidentiality. I don't have a cite but I'm certain anyone here who has been a witness would provide you with the corroboration you need.

Trust me, I am familiar with such requests for confidentiality. They are usually made by the respondent for the protection of the respondent, at the expense of the complainant. In this case, Amanda would be the complainant and the respondent would be anyone who doesn't want other poeple to know what they're up to.

Third parties, like investigators, who are objective or indifferent should be transparent; they have no business asking for confidentiality. Under normal circumstances, I can understand why police might want to keep their investigation under wraps, but as early news reports show, the police in Perugia were anything but discreet with even the most private of information.

It's a good thing Amanda did not honor anyone's request for confidentiality, or we'd have even less knowledge of what happened in the first few days after the crime than we have now.

I don't know that they ever did ask her that. We'll have to await the translation of the Massei Report. It was Amanda who wanted everyone on her spam list to know her opinion of Meredith.

Oh, I see -- it's a matter of trustng Amanda's word about what the police said. Well, I'm sure that will be cleared right up by the Massei report, which obviously will know better than Amanda does about what happened at a scene at which she was present but Massei was not.

I can't remember what you said before about the term "spam list" but I gather you are trying to characterize her list of 25 people as the entire contents of her address book? I have more than 25 people in my extended family just in Seattle; my address book is many times larger. I am sure Amanda's was the same.

I don't know any of that either.

I can understand your wish to deflect Amanda's own words with idle musings about police actions. The alibi email was hers alone and was not contingent upon any actions of the police or the PM. She alone was responsible for its contents and the method of its distribution.

You will see, once the Massei Report is available in translated form, that the court did take this communication into account.

I am not quite following you here. Can you expand on your meaning?

 

[Malkmus]

I see that at least one person was mislead.

He is educated in the field he works in. That field is computer science and he is an expert in that. He does not study DNA. He studies and works in making computer software (perhaps hardware) to interpret the results of DNA testing. That is his job. He is apparently very good at it.

Jason Gilder’s Specialties:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques.

As I said, you can read anything into my posts that you like. Gilder is a computer scientist. He applies his knowledge of computers to DNA testing, certainly. It is still computer knowledge. If no one was led to believe that he was competent to judge Stefanoni's work then that is fine. I was concerned that they might be.

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.

I find it rather incredible that anyone here is trying to dispute whether Dr. Glider is suited to critique Dr. Stefanoni's analysis of DNA evidence in the Kercher case. Not only is the company he works for aimed at evaluating DNA testing results, but he's the very guy who wrote the program which analyzes the DNA testing results in question... and if that wasn't enough, he himself has used the program to analyze the results of "over 800 DNA cases"! so he doesn't just write the software, he uses it. In other words, when the results of DNA testing are thought to be questionable, such as one where LCN DNA testing was used, this guy is called in to evaluate the results, part of which includes using the program he wrote. The very purpose of Dr. Glider's position is to evaluate the work of people like Dr. Stefanoni!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have more than 25 people in my extended family just in Seattle; my address book is many times larger. I am sure Amanda's was the same.

I don’t know, seemed Amanda didn’t make or have a lot of friends, she only seemed to make three while in Purgia, one’s dead, one’s serving a 25 year sentence because of her and the other one sued her. You wouldn’t think there would be much of a line up to befriend her.

 

[Mary_H]

I don’t know, seemed Amanda didn’t make or have a lot of friends, she only seemed to make three while in Purgia, one’s dead, one’s serving a 25 year sentence because of her and the other one sued her. You wouldn’t think there would be much of a line up to befriend her.

Har-dee-har-har, Sherlock.

 

[Malkmus]

I don’t know, seemed Amanda didn’t make or have a lot of friends, she only seemed to make three while in Purgia, one’s dead, one’s serving a 25 year sentence because of her and the other one sued her. You wouldn’t think there would be much of a line up to befriend her.

This might have been clever had anyone actually been talking about the number of friends Amanda made in Italy. But they weren't. So, it's just another non sequitur response intended to misrepresent the topic, or trolling, whichever.

 

[LondonJohn]

Jason Gilder’s Specialties:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques.



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.

I find it rather incredible that anyone here is trying to dispute whether Dr. Glider is suited to critique Dr. Stefanoni's analysis of DNA evidence in the Kercher case. Not only is the company he works for aimed at evaluating DNA testing results, but he's the very guy who wrote the program which analyzes the DNA testing results in question... and if that wasn't enough, he himself has used the program to analyze the results of "over 800 DNA cases"! so he doesn't just write the software, he uses it. In other words, when the results of DNA testing are thought to be questionable, such as one where LCN DNA testing was used, this guy is called in to evaluate the results, part of which includes using the program he wrote. The very purpose of Dr. Glider's position is to evaluate the work of people like Dr. Stefanoni!

I agree. And I'd re-iterate: Dr Gilder DOESN'T NEED to come to the table with a prior academic history in pure biology in order to be termed an expert in DNA testing. And to call the co-authorship argument as some sort of evidence to support the claim of Gilder's lack of expertise in DNA testing seems to me to be......well, I won't say what it seems to me to be. Besides which, his single-authored theses tend to support the argument that he wasn't the "silent author" type on the co-authored papers.

Some people (myself included, I'd like to think) are prepared to quickly concede when they've either misinterpreted or used inaccuracies in the course of making an argument. But many people, it seems, don't share that willingness to admit they were wrong......

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

Hi Fulcanelli,
What I find hard to believe is that Mr. Curatolo, who had been a witness in a murder trial back in 2001, DID NOT approach the police as he saw them working that day doing their investigation into the murder of Miss Kercher.

Anyone that would have been in the area would, in my opinion, have asked any one of the # of police officers "what was up?", "what's goin' on?" I bet there isn't THAT many murders in Perugia, so the investigation must have been a scene that Mr. Curatolo would have noticed, he who notices everything...

Curatolo, being holder of an incredible memory, should have easily "remembered" from his participation in the 2001 murder trial that witness testimony is vital, and should have been, in my opinion, the 1st witness to have come forward that same day, November 2, 2007...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

Jason is the first full-time employee of Forensic Bioinformatics and he is the primary author of the Genophiler® automated software analysis system.

That tells me that he's a systems engineer.

[He's] the very guy who wrote the program which analyzes the DNA testing results...

Are you sure about that? The systems engineer would normally be involved with managing the design, production, and testing phases of a software project. He would do that within the scope defined by the forensic scientists.

The very purpose of Dr. Glider's [sic] position is to evaluate the work of people like Dr. Stefanoni!

It's more likely that Dr Gilder's position is similar to that of the project manager of the software in the machine employed by Dr Stefanoni.

Has Forensic Bioinformatics been engaged by the defence teams? They have been brought into this discussion as though they were hired to advocate for the defence. That's typically what the company does.

 

[RWVBWL]

Originally Posted by 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)
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtop...lo+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"
__________________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
Is the key word here not the word "still"? Does that word not imply that these masks and costumes were a hangover in some way from the night before? And if so, why would people still be wearing masks and costumes from the previous might's festivities, and/or why would they have put them on again?

And where were all these kids in masks and costumes going on the night of the 1st November? After all, we know that on the 31st October the kids in masks/costumes were mostly going to Halloween parties in the local bars (or perhaps in people's houses). Were there also Halloween parties on 1st November? I don't think so. And they almost certainly wouldn't have been going to "All Saints' Day" parties.

Maybe the PMF "man on the ground" COULD be coloured in some way in his recollection......? However, if there's truly independent (and reliable) verification that significant numbers of people were indeed walking round Perugia on the evening of 1st November wearing masks and costumes, then I will happily apologise, correct and retract.......
__________________________________________________________________________

Hi LondonJohn,
With regards to this debate between Fiona and yourself, I wonder why I have not found any mention by Miss Allesandra Formica of masked kids in costume on the night of the murder of Miss Kercher.
Miss Formica, who went to the police soon ater the murders of her own free will, without the "help" of newspaper journalists, is pretty credible, in my opinion.
She simply states that her guyfriend was bumped by a person of colour who did not want to be seen.
I would have thought that Miss Formica, during her court testimony would have also made mention of the many kids in masks and costumes still out and about if that was the case that night.

Lastly, I would think that if it still a night of masks and costumes, that this person whom Miss Formica testified in trial that she saw, who might be someone involved in this murder, would have been in a mask too, to better conceal his identity...
Hmmm?
RWVBWL

 

[stilicho]

Hi Fulcanelli,
What I find hard to believe is that Mr. Curatolo, who had been a witness in a murder trial back in 2001, DID NOT approach the police as he saw them working that day doing their investigation into the murder of Miss Kercher.

I thought you were one of the ones to excuse AK and RS for being reluctant to phone the police (instead calling her mother, Meredith, Filomena, and his sister) yet suddenly Curatolo should have leapt into action although he didn't see blood or a broken window. How is it that you hold a disinterested homeless man to higher standards than honours student Amanda and tactical knife collector Raffaele?

 

[LondonJohn]

A word on the Amanda Knox "round robin" email and the mention of Meredith's sexual practices:

I have been repeatedly left open-mouthed (LITERALLY, a couple of those times) at the attempts to claim that AK was volunteering salacious details of Meredith's sex life in this email. WHATEVER you think of Amanda Knox - and whether you think that she's as guilty as sin or as pure as an angel - there is, in my opinion, only one way to interpret that email. I'd make the following points:

1) AK was most probably wrong (in my view) to send that email in the first place. I'm imagining that her friends and acquaintances back home were wondering what was going on, and that they had read/seen certain stuff in the media, so she felt that she needed to give them a personal appraisal of what was going on. However, she'd probably have been far better off not saying anything at that point (even though she was probably not being considered a suspect at that time).

2) 25 recipients of an email does not, in my opinion, constitute a spam list. I've sent personal emails to distribution lists similar in number to this plenty of times - and the content has been relevant to each and every recipient.

3) Even a rudimentary analysis of the email's contents makes it very clear (in my eyes) that AK is attempting to tell her friends/acquaintances what's been going on, coupled with her feelings about what's been going on. It might also be read with hindsight as a first attempt to "plant a stake in the ground" regarding AK's involvement (or, in this case, non-involvement) in the crime. But it's also perfectly possible to read the email as an honest attempt to give people a first-hand account of what's going on in the investigation of a significant crime with international dimensions - and it's a situation in which AK undeniably has an automatic "front row seat" by virtue of her living with the murder victim.

4) The part of the email that's been at the heart of the debate deals with the KIND OF questions that the police asked AK. As I see it, the text in question is AK informing people what's involved in the investigation, and what her role in it has been up to that point. This is, after all, the area that she's best-placed to comment on, since many other areas of the investigation would be second-hand or hearsay to her.

5) She specifically writes about the kind of questions the police asked her. My take on this is that she felt people would be interested in how the Perugia police were going about investigating the murder. She also specifically attributes the line of questioning about anal sex and Vaseline to the police, and she then immediately expresses distaste and mild revulsion at the police's line of questioning in this area. At no point does she either speculate on Meredith's sexual practices or pass comment on Meredith's sexual practices - she's specifically passing disapproving comment on the police's line of questioning. She seems to me to be wondering aloud a) why Meredith's like/dislike of anal sex might have anything to do with the murder investigation, and b) why she (AK) in particular was being asked this question (i.e. why did the police think that she might know the answer to this question in the first place, and why were the police not instead asking it of her boyfriend?).

6) I have to believe at this point that the police actually DID ask AK these questions about Meredith and anal sex. And if the DID ask these questions of her, then her email is simply a reporting (a somewhat incredulous reporting) of that. To take a more extreme example to illustrate the point: Imagine if the police had asked AK whether Meredith had ever been dealing drugs from her bedroom. AK might have replied to the police that she didn't know. Then, in her "round robin" email, AK might have said something like "...and then the police asked me if Meredith dealt drugs from her room! WTF?!" To me, this would signify that AK found the question extreme and inappropriate. It would in no way signify to me that AK either believed that Meredith WAS dealing drugs from her bedroom, nor that she (AK) even held an prior views on the matter. And nor would it signify to me that AK was deliberately trying to titillate her friends with lurid tales of drug dealing.

So, to me, this repeated attempt to denigrate AK through suggesting that she clearly gained some sort of vicarious pleasure by reporting lurid and salacious details of Meredith's sex life is both grossly unfair and a misrepresentative smear. And I would hope that many people on BOTH sides of the fence regarding AK's conviction and/or culpability might share that view. After all, as I see it, EVEN IF one thinks that AK is a murderer who lied about her whereabouts on the night of the crime and who is rightly serving a life sentence, one cannot (and should not) interpret this particular passage of this particular email in such an unpleasantly negative light towards AK.

 

[RWVBWL]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
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?
__________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Fulcanelli
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.
__________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Agatha
It appears Curatolo's statements are not available.

The PMF post to which Fulcanelli linked says:

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

Quote:
"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.
(highlights mine)

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. "
__________________________________________________________________________

Hi Agatha,
Regarding the above posting, I found it hard to believe that the poster does not concur with what Mr, Frank Sfarzo writes here, of which I will post only this part:

"Curatolo was so worried about fixing the time that besides recalling that he goes to check it to the electronic board --on the other side of the square-- he added, today, that he also checks it on his own watch. But he had always stated not to have a watch. So Massei asked him to show his watch. And he didn't have it. Massei asked him if he could be more precise about his arrival time because 21:30-22:00 was a bit vague. And he did get more precise, much more precise: 21:27-21:28!
This is Antonio Curatolo, he can tell you exactly what you want to hear, he can tell you anything and the opposite of anything. He, as I always said, is simply a psychiatric case.
Now everyone realizes it. Even those who went to interview him and found him totally rational and credible. Even the judge Micheli, probably, while reading about today's hearing. Everyone was laughing at him in the courtroom."

More here: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post.html

Personally, I find it VERY HARD TO BELIEVE that Mr. Curatolo can "remember" that he did arrive at 9:27 or 9:28pm and that he saw Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox that particular night. I also find it very hard to believe that Mr. Curatolo did not "remember" that eyewitness accounts are very important and that he should go and tell that information to the police when he saw them doing their investigation into Miss Kercher's murder later on that day. This is from a former witness in a murder trial back in 2001? Come on!

As I wrote a moment ago,
Mr. Curatolo should have been the 1st witness to have come forward, in my opinion...
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

I thought you were one of the ones to excuse AK and RS for being reluctant to phone the police (instead calling her mother, Meredith, Filomena, and his sister) yet suddenly Curatolo should have leapt into action although he didn't see blood or a broken window. How is it that you hold a disinterested homeless man to higher standards than honours student Amanda and tactical knife collector Raffaele?

Curatolo presumably saw a bunch of cops and read about the crime in his daily paper. Amanda and Raffaele did not have those advantages.