Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

That's an interesting point. If that was the case then why didn't Mignini include that in his slander suit against them? He slapped them on both the family and at least one of the defense lawyers, did he not?

How could Mignini slap them with a slander suit over this when there is no evidence that anyone ever said that they were denied the DNA files?

 

[Kaosium]

How could Mignini slap them with a slander suit over this when there is no evidence that anyone ever said that they were denied the DNA files?

There is evidence, just a few posts upwards. Perhaps you should re-read the recent posts in this thread.

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank details the first motion:

The problem in discussion was indeed that according to Tagliabracci the DNA on the bra clasp was not enough to have a reliable test. And Stefanoni suggested Comodi to say that instead it was the perfect quantity, being 1.4 nanograms. An ideal quantity. But that revealed a problem: why nobody else knew that measure?

Mrs Stefanoni has been kind of secretive in this trial, when she was done with the tests she just provided the mere results. The defense had to ask additional data. And the charts arrived. But still more data were missing. But the defense didn't really manage to put their finger on the problem in court --a problem we've always been dealing here, when we were reasoning that we don't know how that chart was created. Or that the compulsory presence of the parties was only formally respected, and we have to trust Stefanoni

Bongiorno, immediately followed by Dalla Vedova, filed to Massei the request of immediate suspension of the trial until all missing data --quantities, registries, rough copies-- were produced, with the understanding that they will probably request that this evidence be declared invalid. The judge accepted the request.

And the second motion here:

Knox and Sollecito's defenses enjoyed the same reading during the summer. They found the bunch of papers hard to use since the 300+ pages were not even numbered. But the return policy of the publisher wasn'tclear, so they kept it and passed it over to their experts.

Also they were not satisfied with data, which they thought were still not sufficient to justify the result. Apparently the defenses gave a big importance to this lack of data. Indeed I heard they had promised for today big issues (why nobody tells me things?).

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.

But the time for vacations is over and Massei doesn't make gifts anymore, he doesn't feel like hearing subtleties. And came back with his ruthless verdict: the trial continues, the DNA results are fine like this. Whether we like it or not we have to trust Stefanoni.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/07/day-of-rebellion-for-knox-and-sollecito.html

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

 

[RoseMontague]

I think the most honest answer is that based on the information publically available it is uncertain if the prosecution denied DNA data to the defense.

I would agree that it is an honest answer but I don't feel it is the most accurate answer. I would say a better answer is that it is almost certain the defense was not provided the fsa files.

ETA: Halkides gave that Comodi quote on 23 October:

“Deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi brushed off the request for all forensic documentation and added: ‘They have everything they need. That is enough.’”

 

[el buscador]

I think the most honest answer is that based on the information publically available it is uncertain if the prosecution denied DNA data to the defense.

Can the prosecution itself deny access to anything? I thought is was the judge who decided these matters?

 

[Amazer]

Can the prosecution itself deny access to anything? I thought is was the judge who decided these matters?

You shouldn't let small details get in the way of a juicy story.

 

[Alt+F4]

I would agree that it is an honest answer but I don't feel it is the most accurate answer. I would say a better answer is that it is almost certain the defense was not provided the fsa files.

That's for the links to Frank's blog. Rose, do you know, was Frank able to write this information down while he was watching the trial?

ETA: Halkides gave that Comodi quote on 23 October:

You are referring to Bob Graham's story in the Telegraph on April 17, 2010. Is this a direct quote from Comodi herself given to The Telegraph in response to Mellas' statement? Or is this what Mellas said she said? The article isn't clear on this point and I can find no reference to it anywhere accept The Telegraph.

 

[RoseMontague]

Can the prosecution itself deny access to anything? I thought is was the judge who decided these matters?

See that quote from Frank above saying that Massei denied the defense request. The defense fought for full discovery from the beginning even before the trial started and only got some of the information they needed halfway through the trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

withholding evidence

Can the prosecution itself deny access to anything? I thought is was the judge who decided these matters?

The prosecution can withhold evidence. One way to do this is to misrepresent to the judge what they actually have. This is what D.A. Nifong did, for example.

 

[RoseMontague]

That's for the links to Frank's blog. Rose, do you know, was Frank able to write this information down while he was watching the trial?
You are referring to Bob Graham's story in the Telegraph on April 17, 2010. Is this a direct quote from Comodi herself given to The Telegraph in response to Mellas' statement? Or is this what Mellas said she said? The article isn't clear on this point and I can find no reference to it anywhere accept The Telegraph.

It is in quotes which I take to mean it is a quote, yes. I consider Frank to be an excellent source on what went on in the courtroom.

 

[Danceme]

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.

Perhaps this is why it didn't work, they asked for the entire trial to be cancelled, Massei said no. Asking for the DNA to be invalidated was just a sub-claim. Sounds like an elaborate ruse to me.

 

[RoseMontague]

Perhaps this is why it didn't work, they asked for the entire trial to be cancelled, Massei said no. Asking for the DNA to be invalidated was just a sub-claim. Sounds like an elaborate ruse to me.

A tactical error almost certainly. They had just asked for files and received some of them. As I stated earlier they should have asked for these specific files both in the first motion and no excuse in the second. Not having the motions I don't know if they were that specific but it does sound like they asked for too much and got nothing.

 

[Alt+F4]

It is in quotes which I take to mean it is a quote, yes. I consider Frank to be an excellent source on what went on in the courtroom.

I'd like to know when Bob Graham interveiwed her and what else she said. What a scoop!

As for Frank, I'm under the impression that criminal trials are open to the public as they are in the U.S. and that Frank was present in the court room during the trial. Am I wrong?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Welcome Onofarar. Regarding your IIRC, I don't remember Mr. Moore stating he used his FBI contacts to obtain a copy of the video's. My personal opinion is that after he stated an interest in the case he was provided copies by some of the supporters of Amanda who had already obtained copies from Amanda's defense team. There is plenty of video out there and I know Charlie has posted quite a bit of it here in the past. I believe Mr. Moore when he said investigating violent crimes was his life and I understand his concerns after watching video of the evidence collection in this case just based on some of the clips I have seen.

He used FB (Facebook) contacts rather than FBI contacts. He has examined all the crime scene video from Nov 2 and 3 as well as several hundred high-resolution photos and other direct evidence. This guy is a bona fide expert who spent 25 years as an FBI agent. He feels so strongly about Amanda and Raffaele's innocence that he gave up his job rather than abandoning his support for them.

 

[Danceme]

A tactical error almost certainly.

I don't believe it was a tactical error, those lawyers are not that dumb. Perhaps it was more a tactic designed to draw attention to the defense position on the DNA and lead the jury to believe it could be proved erroneous if only they could get those fsa files. I suspect by calling for a complete mistrial they were simply bluffing.

 

[Alt+F4]

He used FB (Facebook) contacts rather than FBI contacts. He has examined all the crime scene video from Nov 2 and 3 as well as several hundred high-resolution photos and other direct evidence. This guy is a bona fide expert who spent 25 years as an FBI agent. He feels so strongly about Amanda and Raffaele's innocence that he gave up his job rather than abandoning his support for them.

Charlie, I thought he was already retired from the FBI. What job did he give up? He supports Amanda and Raffaele on a full time basis?

 

[RoseMontague]

I'd like to know when Bob Graham interveiwed her and what else she said. What a scoop!

As for Frank, I'm under the impression that criminal trials are open to the public as they are in the U.S. and that Frank was present in the court room during the trial. Am I wrong?

I am not a big fan of Bob Graham but Frank I trust. If you have something showing Frank's version is a load of rubbish feel free to post it and we can go from there. I'll concede your point on Graham just because I don't particularly care to stand up for him.

 

[Alt+F4]

I am not a big fan of Bob Graham but Frank I trust. If you have something showing Frank's version is a load of rubbish feel free to post it and we can go from there. I'll concede your point on Graham just because I don't particularly care to stand up for him.

I'm not saying at all that Frank's version is a load of rubbish, I'm just asking where he gets his information from, if you or someone else knows. I was under the impression he was present at the trial and was reporting first-hand. I'm not sure if this is correct or not.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't believe it was a tactical error, those lawyers are not that dumb. Perhaps it was more a tactic designed to draw attention to the defense position on the DNA and lead the jury to believe it could be proved erroneous if only they could get those fsa files. I suspect by calling for a complete mistrial they were simply bluffing.

The possible bluff was telling the judge at the first motion that they would probably call in a later motion to invalidate the DNA data. It wasn't a bluff because that is what they did, it was just denied.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm not saying at all that Frank's version is a load of rubbish, I'm just asking where he gets his information from, if you or someone else knows. I was under the impression he was present at the trial and was reporting first-hand. I'm not sure if this is correct or not.

That is my understanding as well.