Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[spartacus]

It has been rumored how the clasp was stored and that it was improper storage which led to its demise. Both claims have not been verified. Perhaps these details have been presented to the court today. I thought there was more DNA extracted from the clasp which could be tested but on that I may have misunderstood.

From the many media articles today it appears that the experts have received all documentation they have asked for and have stated that there was cooperation from the scientific police.

What evidence has Stefanoni destroyed?

the clasp was stored in liquid and no one with knowledge of dna storage disagrees that it should have been stored in dry conditions and would be able to last for years. No there is not more dna to be tested on the bra clasp. Stefanoni destroyed the bra clasp (put it in liquid and it rusted). Yes it looks like they are claiming they have all the evidence.

 

[Justinian2]

My suggestion would be to contact the DA's office. They might have some interest in this one.

This is the way the cop entered the incident into his log. "Justinian2 came in to [sic] station [sic] and turned in to [sic] baggies [sic] of a substance that he believes to be drugs."

Did you notice that the cop used the word to instead of the word two? This is the cop's primary language! I hope he was attempting humor by saying baggies instead of bags. Imagine now the screw ups that would happen when translating between two languages as in Amanda's case? The irony is that doctors should be handling the problems of these people, not the bottom ten percent of a high school graduating class.

My suggestion would be to contact the DA's office. They might have some interest in this one.

Every time I try to take a case like to this to a higher authority, I find that there isn't a higher authority. Government is a bunch of dead ends. Furthermore, flying back and forth between the states doesn't leave me in my home state long enough to even file any action and be there when the government agency can handle it. I'm in the make money mode.

I'm not trying to get Snow White in trouble. I think her problem is that she picks men that are losers. She probably also has a drug problem. Maybe a time in jail would clean her up. However, the police, judges and prison guards are the trash of society and are less competent in their 'profession' then the average high school graduate would be.


Amanda's case got screwed up by reliance on the same type of people that have screwed up Snow White's case.

The majority of the people in this world are not very intelligent. We seem to lose sight of that fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't see either Curatolo or this guy as reliable. Of course Massei found Curatolo to be reliable and credible and Mignini well, "full stop". We now see that Mignini knew Curatolo's legal issues as he admitted to that in the CNN interview.

I don't agree with the defense strategy at all on this one, as I have stated before.

I find it astonishing (I know I shouldn't by now, but I still do) that the groupthinkers^TM continue to willfully misinterpret the Mignini interview, to the extent that they actually think it portrays him in a strong, "prosecutorial" light. Any fool can see that the unedited version of his rambling, confused "explanations" make him look like he is getting somewhat desperate and grasping for self-justification. As others have said, I also think it's highly interesting that he now seems obsessed with the so-called staging element of the case - it certainly looks like it's the last straw he has to grasp at to keep the prosecution story alive.

Regarding the new witnesses, as I said earlier, I disagree with Aviello being called - unless the defence has actually found solid evidence to back up his claims (which I consider to be pretty unlikely). But I think that calling Alessi might be a good move. His testimony about Guede's remarks appears to be corroborated by three other inmates; unless all four have some vested interest in lying about what Guede said, I'd consider that this is potentially powerful testimony for the defence.

 

[billyryan]

Jailhouse snitches who have nothing to gain and maybe a lot to loose are still better than snitches who lie under oath in the hope of avoiding becoming jailhouse inmates

 

[LondonJohn]

So pilot, what exactly did Vechiotti say, and how do you know?

I mean, given you that said it was a FACT, I must presume you have better access to information than I do.

Pilotpadron is wrong, by the looks of things. Barbie Latza Nadeau's report on today's proceedings for the Daily Beast reports Vecchiotti as saying "We just want maximum collaboration". Now, I don't trust Latza Nadeau's powers of reasoning about this case, but I do trust her to accurately convey and translate words that were said in the courtroom.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...tragicomedy-of-her-appeal/?cid=hp:mainpromo5#

ČINJENICA!

 

[katy_did]

And it looks like your little "gotcha" above might per haps turn out to be a translation error. Ach, schade!!

It looks like (sorry Pilot ) TGcom and Nadeau are in disagreement on this one. Having said that, the only actual quote from TG is "maximum cooperation" (or collaboration, if you prefer). Who knows what the full statement from the expert was?

Davanti ai giudici uno degli esperti ha sottolineato la "massima collaborazione" fornita dalla polizia scientifica...

In front of the judges, one of the experts underlined the "maximum cooperation" provided by the scientific police...

I can't see any way to interpret that as the experts needing total cooperation from the police, it reads as if this is what they were given (see Jools' translation on this one also). A mistranslation from Nadeau or a misinterpretation/typo from TGcom? Nadeau's interpretation makes a bit more sense given what we've learned so far about the delay, but I wouldn't automatically assume she was right. Hopefully Frank was in Court, and will post to clear it up.

 

[Matthew Best]

Nadeau's interpretation makes a bit more sense given what we've learned so far about the delay, but I wouldn't automatically assume she was right. Hopefully Frank was in Court, and will post to clear it up.

Or perhaps Pilot will be back to let us know his source. It must be pretty reliable as he insisted that his version was not just a fact, but a FACT.

 

[billyryan]

I find it astonishing (I know I shouldn't by now, but I still do) that the groupthinkers^TM continue to willfully misinterpret the Mignini interview, to the extent that they actually think it portrays him in a strong, "prosecutorial" light. Any fool can see that the unedited version of his rambling, confused "explanations" make him look like he is getting somewhat desperate and grasping for self-justification. As others have said, I also think it's highly interesting that he now seems obsessed with the so-called staging element of the case - it certainly looks like it's the last straw he has to grasp at to keep the prosecution story alive.

Regarding the new witnesses, as I said earlier, I disagree with Aviello being called - unless the defence has actually found solid evidence to back up his claims (which I consider to be pretty unlikely). But I think that calling Alessi might be a good move. His testimony about Guede's remarks appears to be corroborated by three other inmates; unless all four have some vested interest in lying about what Guede said, I'd consider that this is potentially powerful testimony for the defence.

When these five take the witness stand and give evidence,will the prosecution have to put Rudy in the witness stand to contradict them,something they might be very nervous of doing,they have already put Curatolo in the stand to lie and they have been found out,failure by the prosecution to call Rudy would be to accept the evidence of the five jail house witnesses.The defence won't call him and the prosecution might be afraid too

 

[katy_did]

Or perhaps Pilot will be back to let us know his source. It must be pretty reliable as he insisted that his version was not just a fact, but a FACT.

Well yes, Pilot being so kind as to reveal his infallible source would of course be the most effective way of clearing it up.

 

[pilot padron]

Amanda's fan club tells us that Antonio Curatolo is not a reliable witness because he's a homeless, incarcerated heroin dealer. Now the defense comes up a heinous monster that beat a baby to death with a shovel and we're supposed to believe what he says is trustworthy.

Next, it seems the defense received a letter from yet another convict, this time making the claim that Meredith was a heavy drug user who was murder by unnamed (of course) drug dealers she owed money to. I wonder who leaked this bit of information?

Which was there more of today, desperation or hypocrisy?

Despite the fact that “jailhouse snitches” are widely regarded as the least reliable form of evidence in a criminal case Amanda’s defense will get this animal out of prison for a least a day. I know the cult of Amanda thinks there is no other victim in the world except Amanda Knox. But here’s a photo of a real victim, 17-month old Tommaso Onofri, the child murdered by Amanda’s new “super witness”.

[qimg]http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/tommy.jpg[/qimg]

So very true and so very sad.

The 'home team majority, a.k.a. Amanda and Edda forever fan club here' made a cottage industry out of repeatedly verbally dumping dung on Mr Curatolo, and high fiving each other with glee here while so doing.

Now we are asked to join these same posters in tossing scented rose petals and assorted fragrant flowery fronds at the feet of another horrendous *convicted* murderer whose only defect is he happened to beat a child to death with a shovel.
But this cretin could ??? help Amanda while manipulating himself into a rare free day out in the real world.

The obvious agenda driven lack of consistency sickening.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It looks like (sorry Pilot ) TG.com and Nadeau are in disagreement on this one. Having said that, the only actual quote from TG is "maximum cooperation" (or collaboration, if you prefer). Who knows what the full statement from the expert was?



I can't see any way to interpret that as the experts needing total cooperation from the police, it reads as if this is what they were given (see Jools' translation on this one also). A mistranslation from Nadeau or a misinterpretation/typo from TG.com? Nadeau's interpretation makes a bit more sense given what we've learned so far about the delay, but I wouldn't automatically assume she was right. Hopefully Frank was in Court, and will post to clear it up.

This is from ABC today:

At today's hearing, the experts also requested they be allowed to consult documents relating to the identification of the alleged murder weapon -- the knife found in Sollecito's kitchen -- and the testimony of the police who searched Sollecito's house that day.

The court today granted their requests, ruling that these documents be handed over to the experts and that the final report must be submitted to the court by June 30 so that it can be discussed at a July 25 hearing.

 

[christianahannah]

the clasp was stored in liquid and no one with knowledge of dna storage disagrees that it should have been stored in dry conditions and would be able to last for years. No there is not more dna to be tested on the bra clasp. Stefanoni destroyed the bra clasp (put it in liquid and it rusted). Yes it looks like they are claiming they have all the evidence.

I seem to recall in the Massei Motivations that Stefanoni testified to extracted DNA of the clasp, which she said was ample, and that this was the extra, not that the clasp could be retested. This extracted DNA was refrigerated and she testified as to it is kept in the best conditions but that changes could happen to the molecule.

I may have read her testimony incorrectly. I am sorry but I do not have access to the motivations at this time (English or Italian) so cannot give reference.

Has there been an official document or statement from the experts concerning storage of the clasp?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

As I have stated earlier Alessi and Aviello statements contradict each other which is a puzzling defence strategy. I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of what happened in the trial the defence witnesses could ultimately neutralise each other’s witnesses. It seems like a contradictory strategy from Raffaele’s defence team and Amanda’s defence team.

 

[katy_did]

This is from ABC today:

At today's hearing, the experts also requested they be allowed to consult documents relating to the identification of the alleged murder weapon -- the knife found in Sollecito's kitchen -- and the testimony of the police who searched Sollecito's house that day.

The court today granted their requests, ruling that these documents be handed over to the experts and that the final report must be submitted to the court by June 30 so that it can be discussed at a July 25 hearing.

From Nick Pisa in the Daily Mail:

Earlier two court-appointed independent DNA experts had told how they had asked repeatedly for information on methods used to collect evidence from police forensic scientists but had only just received it last week.

Stefano Conti explained they had asked for documents related to the seizure of a 30cm kitchen knife from the apartment of Knox's co-accused and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 25. [...]

Mr Conti told the court: 'We only received the email with the requested attachments a few days ago after having requested it in March. We need to check and see if there was the possibility of contamination.'

Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito's lawyer, said: 'It is fundamental and essential that all material is made available. This is an important and decisive record of the DNA data.'

Hmmm... Based on this, I'd be surprised if the experts said they'd received full cooperation from the scientific police (unless they just meant they'd finally received it now?).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So very true and so very sad.

The 'home team majority, a.k.a. Amanda and Edda forever fan club here' made a cottage industry out of repeatedly verbally dumping dung on Mr Curatolo, and high fiving each other with glee here while so doing.

Now we are asked to join these same posters in tossing scented rose petals and assorted fragrant flowery fronds at the feet of another horrendous *convicted* murderer whose only defect is he happened to beat a child to death with a shovel.
But this cretin could ??? help Amanda while manipulating himself into a rare free day out in the real world.

The obvious agenda driven lack of consistency sickening.

Where are you seeing all of this love for these witnesses? I know you like to exaggerate (like saying that I have been banned from every single website I ever posted on, except for my own), but I'm just curious where you are getting your information here.

 

[LondonJohn]

So very true and so very sad.

The 'home team majority, a.k.a. Amanda and Edda forever fan club here' made a cottage industry out of repeatedly verbally dumping dung on Mr Curatolo, and high fiving each other with glee here while so doing.

Now we are asked to join these same posters in tossing scented rose petals and assorted fragrant flowery fronds at the feet of another horrendous *convicted* murderer whose only defect is he happened to beat a child to death with a shovel.
But this cretin could ??? help Amanda while manipulating himself into a rare free day out in the real world.

The obvious agenda driven lack of consistency sickening.

So very sad.

What was the source for your FACT about the independent experts saying they received "maximum cooperation" from the scientific police? Do you think your "source" was correct? Or would you like to withdraw your FACT, per haps?

Maybe you can farm some additional incorrect FACTS for us....

 

[LondonJohn]

From Nick Pisa in the Daily Mail:



Hmmm...

Based on this, I'd be surprised if the experts said they'd received full cooperation from the scientific police (unless they just meant they'd finally received it now?).

Strangely, I was about to make the very same point, when I refreshed the page and saw that you'd made it...

I think it's unequivocally clear that the independent experts had been asking Stefanoni for the source DNA data for almost two months, with no success. It's also apparent that Stefanoni had attempted to convince the court that the independent experts had everything they needed (in the same way as she seemingly pulled the wool over Massei's eyes in the first trial), but that Hellmann essentially ordered her to turn over the data that the independent scientists were requesting. It appears from this that the relevant data files have just been provided within the past week.

 

[LondonJohn]

I seem to recall in the Massei Motivations that Stefanoni testified to extracted DNA of the clasp, which she said was ample, and that this was the extra, not that the clasp could be retested. This extracted DNA was refrigerated and she testified as to it is kept in the best conditions but that changes could happen to the molecule.

I may have read her testimony incorrectly. I am sorry but I do not have access to the motivations at this time (English or Italian) so cannot give reference.

Has there been an official document or statement from the experts concerning storage of the clasp?

"Changes" don't happen to molecules of properly-stored DNA material. That's why cold case reviews are able to test DNA on fabrics/swabs that have been properly stored for years, and sometimes many decades. If Stefanoni did try to claim that (and I personally don't remember her saying it), then she's either too stupid to be doing her job, or she's a liar.

 

[Alt+F4]

As I have stated earlier Alessi and Aviello statements contradict each other which is a puzzling defence strategy. I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of what happened in the trial the defence witnesses could ultimately neutralise each other’s witnesses. It seems like a contradictory strategy from Raffaele’s defence team and Amanda’s defence team.

Indeed. How many murder trial have there been where the prison informant wasn't a lying rat?

 

[LondonJohn]

As I have stated earlier Alessi and Aviello statements contradict each other which is a puzzling defence strategy. I wonder if we are going to see a repeat of what happened in the trial the defence witnesses could ultimately neutralise each other’s witnesses. It seems like a contradictory strategy from Raffaele’s defence team and Amanda’s defence team.

They don't necessarily contradict each other, do they? Guede's alleged statement to Alessi was that Knox and Sollecito were not participants in the murder. But he didn't explicitly rule out other unidentified participants, AFAIK.

Having said that, I do think that the testimony of Aviello currently sounds fantastic (in the more literal sense of the word) and unbelievable. That's why I'd say that unless the defence teams have some sort of solid corroborating evidence to support Avielo's claims, it seems like a mistake to bring him into proceedings.

It is, however, potentially possible for the court to accept the testimony of both Alessi and Avielo without any contradiction. In this scenario, Avielo's brother and an accomplice would have been the murderers whom Guede says he discovered when he returned to Meredith's room from the bathroom. My personal view, however, is that Guede was the sole murderer, and that Avielo's testimony is unreliable. But I guess we'll only know more when Avielo appears before Hellmann's court.

BTW, it bears re-iterating that the Supreme Court ruling in Guede's case (that Guede was one of a group of attackers) has zero impact on Knox's and Sollecito's trials - no matter how much some of the pro-guilt commentators would like to convince others (and themselves) that this is the situation. Anyone who thinks that Guede's ruling influences the legal case against Knox or Sollecito either has no idea about jurisprudence or is deliberately misleading others.