Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Onofarar]

I think strongly that it's a botched application of PhTh in a Kastle-Meyer test. This test should only be performed on very small areas at a time - it looks to me as if some idiot has sprayed down the whole room in virtually one go, which would make it near-impossible to interpret the results properly.

The reason why I don't think that this photo shows the result of a cyanoacrylate test is that it's very difficult indeed to test whole rooms using this method. The room would have had to have been sealed entirely airtight before the fumes were released (cyanoacrylate is otherwise known as superglue). This type of testing is almost always carried out in a laboratory environment, where specific items are placed into a designated sealed container, or larger objects are sometimes placed in a specially sealed room within the lab.

LJ you are forgetting that Italy (to quote that noted science expert Maresca) was establishing new frontiers in forensic science methods and showing the rest of the world how these things should be done.

 

[Onofarar]

To repeat back, your argument is that we are looking at nothing more than a picture of pink watercolors, effectively. We are just seeing where they put the chemical, nothing more.

That is correct.

 

[Onofarar]

Yes, indeed, and I think it was you that long ago was arguing the disco buses were not running that night as well. I'm pretty sure I saw it back in the last thread long before the appeal team announced which we first saw on the Shock two months ago.

What I'm wondering is if they could have any 'surprises' in the appeal. Machiavelli said they weren't bound by the theories of the first trial, and Massei didn't exactly abide by the prosecutions theory, so what kind of case could they put together? They would seem to have little to work with, the defense will know what's coming this time and it's almost like walking into the shadow of death for the prosecution.

What they have going for them is the fact they got a conviction the first time. They can't really introduce new 'evidence' without risking total meltdown. A new 'witness' perhaps? Someone they round up willing to say they were in the mysterious car and say they saw Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda enter and leave? A 'better' witness statement from Rudy, as I still don't quite get why they couldn't get him to go all the way last time?

What could they try? No one wants to walk into an ambush on all fronts, there must be some prosecution plan.

One thing I expect Mignini & Comodi to do is coach Toto that he was mistaken when he said it was disco buses. For some spurious reason (poor lighting ?) he will now recall it was local transit buses or tourist buses returning from tours, or -(fill in the blank with your own theory). I expect they will follow Toto up with some "expert" who will give Toto further cover by corroberating the ease of mis-identifying the buses at night.
After all anybody who has lived on a park bench for ten years probably hasn't has his eyes checked by a doctor in a while.
But of course his vision was 20/20 when he looked down on the basketball court and saw AK and RS standing there.

 

[Withnail1969]

One thing I expect Mignini & Comodi to do is coach Toto that he was mistaken when he said it was disco buses. For some spurious reason (poor lighting ?) he will now recall it was local transit buses or tourist buses returning from tours, or -(fill in the blank with your own theory). I expect they will follow Toto up with some "expert" who will give Toto further cover by corroberating the ease of mis-identifying the buses at night.
After all anybody who has lived on a park bench for ten years probably hasn't has his eyes checked by a doctor in a while.
But of course his vision was 20/20 when he looked down on the basketball court and saw AK and RS standing there.

Poor Lighting is out as an excuse. Toto was reading L'Expresso. And they definitely weren't transit buses. They stopped at 22:00 that night. Which leaves 'tourist buses'. At 23:00. In November. On an Italian national holiday. Picking up people who resembled disco goers but were actually tourists. Where were the tourists staying? Where were they going at that time? Why didn't they have any luggage?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Here is one report in the American press regarding the request to dismantle the knife. Conti is one of the forensic scientists appointed by the court to review the evidence:

Babycondor

Thank you for the link.

The request for dismantling the knife came from the geneticist Conti in open court and not from either defence teams. My question is did either defence teams in their appeal submissions make a formal request to dismantle the knife for further examination?

There were legal arguments in December the defence and prosecution made their cases for and against amongst other things the re-examination of DNA results for the bra clasp and knife, dismantling the knife was not raised by either defence teams.

Does anyone have a translation of the defence teams appeal submission?

 

[Withnail1969]

Babycondor

Thank you for the link.

The request for dismantling the knife came from the geneticist Conti in open court and not from either defence teams. My question is did either defence teams in their appeal submissions make a formal request to dismantle the knife for further examination?

There were legal arguments in December the defence and prosecution made their cases for and against amongst other things the re-examination of DNA results for the bra clasp and knife, dismantling the knife was not raised by either defence teams.

Does anyone have a translation of the defence teams appeal submission?

The defence requested a full review of the forensic evidence pertaining to the knife. They did not specifically mention opening up the handle.

Where are you going with this argument? It wasn't the defence who objected to re-examining and opening the knife, but the prosecution. Why do you think they objected? Surely we all want to know the truth?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The defence requested a full review of the forensic evidence pertaining to the knife. They did not specifically mention opening up the handle.

Where are you going with this argument? It wasn't the defence who objected to re-examining and opening the knife, but the prosecution. Why do you think they objected? Surely we all want to know the truth?

Withnail1969

I am not going anywhere merely stating that neither defence teams made the request in their appeal submissions, therefore, the request from Dr Conti was outside the scope of their appeal submission. In addition, a full review of the original examination and results and as we all know they did not dismantle the knife.

 

[Withnail1969]

Withnail1969

I am not going anywhere merely stating that neither defence teams made the request in their appeal submissions, therefore, the request from Dr Conti was outside the scope of their appeal submission. In addition, a full review of the original examination and results and as we all know they did not dismantle the knife.

OK, but what point is it you want to make? What's your position on all this?

 

[RoseMontague]

Babycondor

Thank you for the link.

The request for dismantling the knife came from the geneticist Conti in open court and not from either defence teams. My question is did either defence teams in their appeal submissions make a formal request to dismantle the knife for further examination?

There were legal arguments in December the defence and prosecution made their cases for and against amongst other things the re-examination of DNA results for the bra clasp and knife, dismantling the knife was not raised by either defence teams.

Does anyone have a translation of the defence teams appeal submission?

I have Google translations available on my docstoc page. Taking the handle apart is something that is just common sense similar to testing the stain on the pillow. It should have been done as a matter of course.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

OK, but what point is it you want to make? What's your position on all this?

Withnail1969

I was not impressed with the defence in the trial and this latest example of them not thinking shall I say outside the box re-enforces my view. During the trail the defence teams did not act in unison, one glaring example I recall was their expert consultants contradicting each other as to whether Meredith was stabbed from the front or back, for me a head slapping moment.

As for my position, I accepted the verdict of the original trial. However, I fully accept the legal process that in this appeal the defence have a further opportunity to do what they failed to do in the trial which is raise reasonable doubt at worst or refute the prosecutions case, having said that this “mistake” as I see it about dismantling the knife does not demonstrate they have learnt any lessons from the trial.

I am not a lawyer, but a reasonable question would be is why didn't they request dismantling the knife?

Why didn't any of their consultant advise them to do so?

What else over the next few months have they not thought of?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I have Google translations available on my docstoc page. Taking the handle apart is something that is just common sense similar to testing the stain on the pillow. It should have been done as a matter of course.

RoseMontague

Okay, if as you say it is common sense why didn't the defence request it? Further why did they not make the point that the original examination was incomplete because the knife had not been dismantled?, this is the point I think is being missed, it is the job of the defence to refute the prosecutions case to act on their clients best interests, do you think this is an example of them doing so?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Independence

Withnail1969

I am not going anywhere merely stating that neither defence teams made the request in their appeal submissions, therefore, the request from Dr Conti was outside the scope of their appeal submission. In addition, a full review of the original examination and results and as we all know they did not dismantle the knife.

CoulsdonUK,

I respectfully disagree. The defense asked for an independent review of the evidence as part of the original trial (not sure about the appeal). At first I questioned the court's decision to appoint Dr. Conti and another scientist. Now it seems that they are really acting independently. I think it makes legal, as well as scientific, sense to let them.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague

Okay, if as you say it is common sense why didn't the defence request it? Further why did they not make the point that the original examination was incomplete because the knife had not been dismantled?, this is the point I think is being missed, it is the job of the defence to refute the prosecutions case to act on their clients best interests, do you think this is an example of them doing so?

It is common sense for the police to check the handle, not the defense. The prosecution is looking for proof of a murder and blood in the handle would certainly be better than a dozen too lows and a negative test for blood. The defense doesn't care either way because they know there is no blood. It shows the police were again less than thorough bordering on incompetent. Conti asked to check it because he knows it should have been done already.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I respectfully disagree. The defense asked for an independent review of the evidence as part of the original trial (not sure about the appeal). At first I questioned the court's decision to appoint Dr. Conti and another scientist. Now it seems that they are really acting independently. I think it makes legal, as well as scientific, sense to let them.

RoseMontague

I am not debating whether it was right or not that the police did not dismantle the knife, more the simple fact that they did not and the defence teams had their opportunity to raise this point in their appeal submissions, they failed to do so, why? If as you state the analysis is unsafe then that will be reflected in the independent report, will it not?

My point is not being addressed, why didn't the defence raise these points in their appeal submissions, there are protocols and procedures that govern how cases are dealt with and this is context that all parties have to work within.

For the sake of debate can you address the points I have raised?

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague

I am not debating whether it was right or not that the police did not dismantle the knife, more the simple fact that they did not and the defence teams had their opportunity to raise this point in their appeal submissions, they failed to do so, why? If as you state the analysis is unsafe then that will be reflected in the independent report, will it not?

My point is not being addressed, why didn't the defence raise these points in their appeal submissions, there are protocols and procedures that govern how cases are dealt with and this is context that all parties have to work within.

For the sake of debate can you address the points I have raised?

My answer does address your points. The defense is not in the business of helping the prosecution look for incriminating evidence. There are plenty of examples of incompetence in the forensic investigation already. This one is a minor issue as far as the defense is concerned.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I respectfully disagree. The defense asked for an independent review of the evidence as part of the original trial (not sure about the appeal). At first I questioned the court's decision to appoint Dr. Conti and another scientist. Now it seems that they are really acting independently. I think it makes legal, as well as scientific, sense to let them.

Halides1

Surely the context now is the appeal and the scope of whatever has been submitted by defence? Yes Dr Conti demonstrated his independence by making the request. However, my point still remains that neither defence teams or their expert consultants did and that is where the request should have come from via their appeal submissions?

Can you offer and opinion as to why none of this was raised by the defence, given it's obvious importance?

 

[RoseMontague]

Halides1

Surely the context now is the appeal and the scope of whatever has been submitted by defence? Yes Dr Conti demonstrated his independence by making the request. However, my point still remains that neither defence teams or their expert consultants did and that is where the request should have come from via their appeal submissions?

Can you offer and opinion as to why none of this was raised by the defence, given it's obvious importance?

It is not important to the defense. It should have been important to Stefanoni. My opinion is she already knew there was nothing there and didn't bother with it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My answer does address your points. The defense is not in the business of helping the prosecution look for incriminating evidence. There are plenty of examples of incompetence in the forensic investigation already. This one is a minor issue as far as the defense is concerned.

RoseMontague

Do you have an opinion as to why the defence did not raise these issues?

Is not the defences primary role to refute the prosecutions case to act in their clients best interest, to raise the element of reasonable doubt in the juries minds?

Given the above how is missing this opportunity in their clients overall best interests?

 

[billyryan]

One thing I expect Mignini & Comodi to do is coach Toto that he was mistaken when he said it was disco buses. For some spurious reason (poor lighting ?) he will now recall it was local transit buses or tourist buses returning from tours, or -(fill in the blank with your own theory). I expect they will follow Toto up with some "expert" who will give Toto further cover by corroberating the ease of mis-identifying the buses at night.
After all anybody who has lived on a park bench for ten years probably hasn't has his eyes checked by a doctor in a while.
But of course his vision was 20/20 when he looked down on the basketball court and saw AK and RS standing there.

They already done a deal with Toto and have reneged on it,either that or someone else within the system in Perugia is making sure they can not honour their deal.

What toto should tell the court and the world is that he lied at the request of the police and how much they paid him and with whom he done the deal

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague

Do you have an opinion as to why the defence did not raise these issues?

Is not the defences primary role to refute the prosecutions case to act in their clients best interest, to raise the element of reasonable doubt in the juries minds?

Given the above how is missing this opportunity in their clients overall best interests?

Stefanoni should have tested it to look for incriminating evidence. The defense already knows nothing is there. The independent expert is wondering why Stefanoni didn't test it, not why the defense didn't ask for it to be tested.