Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

The simple fact remains it was not dismantled and the defence did not request it in their appeal submission.

 

[Withnail1969]

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.

Stefanoni didn't open the knife because in my opinion she noticed it had not been cleaned. Therefore she knew there could be nothing incriminating inside the handle.

 

[Chris C]

The simple fact remains it was not dismantled and the defence did not request it in their appeal submission.

The simple fact remains that the prosecution is the one that protested breaking the knife apart, not the defense.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The simple fact remains that the prosecution is the one that protested breaking the knife apart, not the defense.

ChrisC

Yes they did I believe I have provide a reasonable explanation as to why namely it was not in their appeal submission.

 

[Withnail1969]

ChrisC

Yes they did I believe I have provide a reasonable explanation as to why namely it was not in their appeal submission.

Paint it how you like, it's the prosecution who want to hide the truth. And we know why.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Dear All

If anyone can provide evidence from the appeal submission stating that either defence teams did indeed request the dismantling of the knife, I would be proved wrong. However, if no such evidence exist then I have provide a reasonable explaination as to why the prosecution objected.

 

[katy_did]

ChrisC

Yes they did I believe I have provide a reasonable explanation as to why namely it was not in their appeal submission.

I think it's not so much that it wasn't in the appeal submissions (though it wasn't; for some reason I'd thought it was, but I guess I was getting confused with objections raised by the defence in Court) but that it fell outside the task given to the experts by the Court. I think it was a fair decision by Hellmann, and that if the experts do put forward a formal request to dismantle the knife he'll agree to it.

Although the prosecution may have been technically correct in their objection to the dismantling of the knife, that Comodi and Maresca reacted so strongly and immediately to the request from the experts is quite revealing. The defence were happy for further testing to go ahead, the prosecution were not - kind of the opposite of what you'd expect.

 

[RoseMontague]

The simple fact remains it was not dismantled and the defence did not request it in their appeal submission.

The simple point is that Stefanoni did a piss poor job (again) in what to collect and test as well as how to collect and test it and the appeals point this out already numerous times.

If what you are getting at is this "dirty blade" theory of Frank's and others that would somehow disprove that the knife was well cleaned, I am not buying that and I don't believe the defense lawyers or experts are proposing that either. The fact is that this knife was looked at in person by defense experts and the dirty part was not noted. As I have said previously, it is tea-stainig, color bleeding, or simply a photographic shadow or illusion in the pictures. The dirty part gets bigger or smaller in every photo I have seen.

 

[Kaosium]

christianahannah,

The first reference to house of horrors that I can find (quick search) is in this unbiased article from the Daily Mail in November of 2007, well before the release of the photo. Of course if a policeman used the term originally, he might have had the photograph of the bathroom in mind. Just speculation. If the term were Nick Pisa's invention, then probably not.

"Compulsive liar Foxy Knoxy"

"Cannabis-smoker Sollecito"

But:
"Married father-of-one Lumumba"

It's like that noble bastion of integrity in journalism, the Daily Mail already has an inkling the charges against Lumumba will be cleared, and hints about the alibi and what will become Rudy are noted.

It will take nine more days for the police to release him if I recall correctly.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Paint it how you like, it's the prosecution who want to hide the truth. And we know why.

Withnail1969

It is not a question of paining anything, it is what it is, namely the defence did not make the request and the prosecution objected to what would have been changing the reference of re-examining the knife as carried out by Dr Stefanoni.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The simple point is that Stefanoni did a piss poor job (again) in what to collect and test as well as how to collect and test it and the appeals point this out already numerous times.

If what you are getting at is this "dirty blade" theory of Frank's and others that would somehow disprove that the knife was well cleaned, I am not buying that and I don't believe the defense lawyers or experts are proposing that either. The fact is that this knife was looked at in person by defense experts and the dirty part was not noted. As I have said previously, it is tea-stainig, color bleeding, or simply a photographic shadow or illusion in the pictures. The dirty part gets bigger or smaller in every photo I have seen.

RoseMontague

The context of this particular topic centred around the prosecutions objections to Dr Conti's request to dismantle the knife, I have provide an explanation which has not been disproved. Your opinion of Dr Stefanoni performance is exactly that an opinion, it remains to be seen what the Dr Conti's and his colleagues findings will be.

 

[Withnail1969]

Withnail1969

It is not a question of paining anything, it is what it is, namely the defence did not make the request and the prosecution objected to what would have been changing the reference of re-examining the knife as carried out by Dr Stefanoni.

You're making the assumption, which you expect us to accept, that a comprehensive re-examination of the knife would not include removing the handle, and that the defence knew this when they wrote the appeal documents.

I don't accept your assumption.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You're making the assumption, which you expect us to accept, that a comprehensive re-examination of the knife would not include removing the handle, and that the defence knew this when they wrote the appeal documents.

I don't accept your assumption.

The defence did not submit a request to dismantle the knife, this is not my opinion but a simple fact, therefore, it does not require your acceptance. If however, someone provides evidence that contradicts what I have written I will accept that fact.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Dear All

One further point is that no one has commented on my opinion of the defence in the trial and on the subject of dismantling the knife.

Just a general question really what are your opinions or observations of the defence teams so far?

 

[Kaosium]

Another great post.
BTW -I've changed my mind the Pulitzer should be for the overall quality of the body of your work on this site.

Thanks, but two words: Frank Szarfo

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.

Yes, it sounds like that's what they will try. The city buses won't work, too big. I can't remember, I'll look it up sometime, but Frank wrote something about running into Toto and at that point Curatolo was already saying he mixed up the buses, but I can't remember at that point if he was saying city buses or tourist buses. I reposted it when Shuttlt came back, sometime on the last thread. It would be funny if it went from disco buses to city buses and then to tourist buses, these clowns are shameless.

 

[Withnail1969]

Thanks, but two words: Frank Szarfo




Yes, it sounds like that's what they will try. The city buses won't work, too big. I can't remember, I'll look it up sometime, but Frank wrote something about running into Toto and at that point Curatolo was already saying he mixed up the buses, but I can't remember at that point if he was saying city buses or tourist buses. I reposted it when Shuttlt came back, sometime on the last thread. It would be funny if it went from disco buses to city buses and then to tourist buses, these clowns are shameless.

The city buses are irrelevant. They stopped running at 10 pm.

 

[Dan O.]

Dear All

If anyone can provide evidence from the appeal submission stating that either defence teams did indeed request the dismantling of the knife, I would be proved wrong. However, if no such evidence exist then I have provide a reasonable explaination as to why the prosecution objected.

You are already proved wrong. The defense is saying that the knife is not incriminating evidence and have asked for it to be reviewed. They are confident that an independent scientific review will conclude that the knife was not used in the murder. It is not the defense's job to tell the scientific experts how to do their job.

Did these experts even need to ask the court's permission to open the knife handle? The expert handling the hard drives didn't seem to have any qualms shipping the drives to three different recovery companies and finally dismanteling the drive to look inside. Cracking the handle off the blade is no more destructive to the evidence than wiping the blade with a cloth to extract trace DNA.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague

The context of this particular topic centred around the prosecutions objections to Dr Conti's request to dismantle the knife, I have provide an explanation which has not been disproved. Your opinion of Dr Stefanoni performance is exactly that an opinion, it remains to be seen what the Dr Conti's and his colleagues findings will be.

I am not responding to your explanation of why the prosecution objected. If you look at my replies I am disputing your characterization of the lack of a request to dismantle the knife handle by the defense as a defense mistake.

Should the handle have been dismantled and tested? I think everyone can see that would have been a common sense thing to do on the police side.

Should the defense have asked that this be done? Nope. It would just be another opportunity to find something that is not there, in my opinion.

If it is dismantled and nothing is found does that help the defense case?
In my opinion it does not.

Is the knife dirty or clean? I think it is clean.

Is the prosecution objection to the dismantling of the handle legit? In my opinion it is. This whole thing does make them seem a little silly however. I think the court can easily see that this just shows the lack of a quality investigation regarding the knife. Other than that the court has recognized the prosecutions objection as one that can be considered and did not dismiss it out of hand. The defense did the smart thing not objecting and I don't believe they will push for taking the handle apart. The prosecution did the correct thing by objecting but they should not have been in that position in the first place.

 

[christianahannah]

I think it's not so much that it wasn't in the appeal submissions (though it wasn't; for some reason I'd thought it was, but I guess I was getting confused with objections raised by the defence in Court) but that it fell outside the task given to the experts by the Court. I think it was a fair decision by Hellmann, and that if the experts do put forward a formal request to dismantle the knife he'll agree to it.

Although the prosecution may have been technically correct in their objection to the dismantling of the knife, that Comodi and Maresca reacted so strongly and immediately to the request from the experts is quite revealing. The defence were happy for further testing to go ahead, the prosecution were not - kind of the opposite of what you'd expect.

I don't know that one can infer anything from the reactions of either side (prosecution or defense). One side wants this, the other objects. One side says yes, the other says no. Such is the way of trials.

I believe the request of Conti was objected to because it was out of the scope of the appeal request. I believe if a further request is made to dismantle the knife it will be granted by Hellmann (his first inclination was to grant the request before the objection by the prosecution). I also believe that if Hellmann grants some of the requests he held in reserve there will be much arguing from both sides as to how those requests will be carried out and by whom.

 

[Kaosium]

Dear All

If anyone can provide evidence from the appeal submission stating that either defence teams did indeed request the dismantling of the knife, I would be proved wrong. However, if no such evidence exist then I have provide a reasonable explaination as to why the prosecution objected.

Why wouldn't the court-appointed forensic experts be the ones to determine what is necessary to determine the legitimacy of the DNA evidence? What the defense requests might be interesting to them, but it's not like they're in charge of the examination, they can just bring up suggestions and hope the forensic experts hear them.

What I found odd was that it was the experts who wanted to do it, and the prosecution which objected. Who is the prosecution to tell the court-appointed forensic experts what they can do, just because the defense didn't bring it up?