Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

I quoted the exact passage from the judgement for you. Massei states the windows are double glazed, and this is disputed by nobody including Nara Cappezalli herself. If you doubt this basic fact, then you doubt the entire Massei report.

I haven't seen Nara say this. If she does and you think it would be worth my while I'll gladly hunt down the quote. As for Massei, he doesn't say that the window is double glazed. He says that the defences request is premised on them being double glazed. Perhaps this is an artefact of the translation?

You claim the request for testing was an 11th hour request. I do not accept that without a citation. Please provide one.

p.20 Massei. October 9, 2009. That's less than two months before the verdict. The trial had been going on for around 9 months by that point. It was 12 months since the initial indictment and two years since the murder.

I couldn't care less about documentaries you may or may not have watched on daytime TV where some kind of audio testing may or may not have occurred. Totally irrelevant. Now please answer my question as to whether it was reasonable for the court to refuse permission for audiometric tests. I think this is the third time i have asked you this question.

I haven't refused and their is no justification for your confrontational attitude. Right now I don't have enough information to answer with certainty. My view, ill-considered as it is, is that the defence waited until all the forensic evidence had already been heard and then asked to stop the trial because these tests were essential, even though they could have asked for them previously if they'd wanted them. I remember saying 6 months ago that if in preparing for the appeal the requests were made again, in good time, and again declined, then I find it significant. Were they made again?

 

[Withnail1969]

I haven't seen Nara say this. If she does and you think it would be worth my while I'll gladly hunt down the quote. As for Massei, he doesn't say that the window is double glazed. He says that the defences request is premised on them being double glazed. Perhaps this is an artefact of the translation?

See above. Nara states her windows are double glazed. Why are you wasting everybody's time with this non-issue?

 

[shuttlt]

Fair enough. I'm sure she knows whether her own house is double glazed. I guess there is a possibility that double paned isn't the same as double glazed, but I'd be a bit of a **** to try and push that without evidence. I withdraw the point for the moment.

I stand by what I said about how late in the day it all was though.

 

[Withnail1969]

..

 

[shuttlt]

See above. Nara states her windows are double glazed. Why are you wasting everybody's time with this non-issue?

The case is made up of non-issues. The volume of data is immense. Is it really possible to debate the broad scope of the case in one go? Anyway, the reason I'm talking about this is because you picked Massei's handling o the issue of whether or not she could hear anything back in post 17867.

 

[shuttlt]

..

Was it not a bit crazy raising all these desperately important issues so late in the day?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

prosecution was not forthcoming with information

I'd have to read this bit of the judgement. I'll try and do that at least soon.

Was this part of all that 11th hour activity when, most of the way through the trial, there were a bunch of
requests for more information and more tests and to throw out the case because the information was vital to the defence? This was never my focus, but at the time I assumed it had all been thrown out, as much as anything because the issue was raised so late in the day.

shuttit,

The defense did not even know how much DNA was on the clasp until the summer of 2009, more than 18 months into the process. In other words, they did not know what they did not know until then. Therefore, calling this 11th hour is misleading.

 

[Withnail1969]

The case is made up of non-issues.

No it isn't. It's made up of lies and misinformation. The ludicrous and untested claim that Nara Cappezalli, a senior citizen, could hear leaves rustling and in which direction people were running 300 metres away on a windy night through double glazing is just one of those lies. It's a physical impossibility, which was why the kangaroo court refused independent testing.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie,

I agree. The problems in determining an exact frequency are lack of uniformity in defining contamination and even in recording contamination events. I also think that the lack of frequent glove changes with respect to the Rome lab makes them more prone to contamination than a lab where gloves are changed in between handling one piece of evidence and the next.

I agree, because Stefanoni herself was responsible for some of the most careless evidence handling at the crime scene. Why should anyone believe she was more careful in the lab?

 

[Dan O.]

Nara was the prosecutions witness. Would it have been too much bother for them to verify the claims of their own witnesses before having them testify? It seems that they were just throwing untested claims in front of the court to see what would stick.

 

[Withnail1969]

Nara was the prosecutions witness. Would it have been too much bother for them to verify the claims of their own witnesses before having them testify? It seems that they were just throwing untested claims in front of the court to see what would stick.

The big problem for the court was that they were so stupid they allowed all of it to stick, thus leading them into unresolveable problems when their nutter 'witnesses' contradicted each other.

 

[shuttlt]

The big problem for the court was that they were so stupid they allowed all of it to stick, thus leading them into unresolveable problems when their nutter 'witnesses' contradicted each other.

Doubtless it will all come out in the wash at the appeal, unless the appeal court is stupid too.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lack of discovery

Was it not a bit crazy raising all these desperately important issues so late in the day?

Raffaele's appeal (pp. 51-57) indicates that the defense was repeatedly denied access to information. This went back at least as far as Dr. Pasquali's requesting information about the DNA profiling in June of 2008.

 

[shuttlt]

No it isn't. It's made up of lies and misinformation. The ludicrous and untested claim that Nara Cappezalli, a senior citizen, could hear leaves rustling and in which direction people were running 300 metres away on a windy night through double glazing is just one of those lies. It's a physical impossibility, which was why the kangaroo court refused independent testing.

Again, won't this come out at the appeal when the tests confirm she couldn't have heard what she claimed?

 

[Withnail1969]

Doubtless it will all come out in the wash at the appeal, unless the appeal court is stupid too.

Curatolo is certainly toast because he lied about the disco buses. Cappezalli will be toast as long as audiometric tests are permitted. Quintavalle, even on what's written in the Massei report, is a clear liar and opportunist.

But the appeal court is just the same bunch of Perugia yokels as last time. No way they'll admit they were wrong regardless.

 

[shuttlt]

Raffaele's appeal (pp. 51-57) indicates that the defense was repeatedly denied access to information. This went back at least as far as Dr. Pasquali's requesting information about the DNA profiling in June of 2008.

Thanks Halides. I will read it. If the defence are STILL being denied access to information then that would be troubling.

 

[shuttlt]

Halides,

Read it. God, I hate Google translate. I wish we'd had that kind of information when we were going round and round this point on the last thread. That looks like some good information. It looks like exactly what I was asking you and Charlie and others for all those months ago.

 

[Onofarar]

Thanks Halides. I will read it. If the defence are STILL being denied access to information then that would be troubling.

Hi shuttlt! Well they still don't have the fsa files from HFCB's DNA testing in her contamination proof lab in Rome. The defense had its request denied to have Amanda's hard drive analyzed by the manufacturer to see if any info can be recovered - all costs to do so to be borne by the defense. Those are two examples there are others.
(FYI - HFCB = Hot Forensic Chick Babe)

 

[shuttlt]

Hi shuttlt! Well they still don't have the fsa files from HFCB's DNA testing in her contamination proof lab in Rome. The defense had its request denied to have Amanda's hard drive analyzed by the manufacturer to see if any info can be recovered - all costs to do so to be borne by the defense. Those are two examples there are others.
(FYI - HFCB = Hot Forensic Chick Babe)

Thanks. I'm going to back off and maybe read Halides's site to catch up on what's been going on. If only for (and not necessarily restricted to) the sake of completeness it would be nice to have this stuff. It's hard to imagine that the hard drives are beyond some kind of data recovery.

Back soon.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

human translation of a paragraph or so

Halides,

Read it. God, I hate Google translate. I wish we'd had that kind of information when we were going round and round this point on the last thread. That looks like some good information. It looks like exactly what I was asking you and Charlie and others for all those months ago.

shuttit,

Here is a human translation of a portion of this passage:

“But there is more. The lack of full discovery was also found during the course of the trial:
- on July 18 2009, during cross-examination of the technical consultant of Raffaele Sollecito’s defence, Prof. Adriano Tagliabracci, there was an astonishing coup de theatre, in which the prosecution formulated a question which generated the suspicion that the Public Minister was in possession of further laboratory data never made available to the defence. In particular, the data relative to the quantity of the extract used for genetic analysis of the biological material found on the bra clasp of the victim;
- confronted with the reaction of the defence, the office of the Public Minister had to admit that there existed documents compiled by the scientific police never deposited at the conclusion of the investigations (contravening in this way the provision of Article 415 bis c.p.p.), nor sent to the Gup with the request for trial (in violation of Article 416, paragraph 2, c.p.p.).
In other words, the office of the PM denied a complete discovery of the documents of the investigation, extending this breach in the rights of the defence into the trial!”