Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

I have the feeling we are somehow not connecting in these posts.

snip

Same here.

 

[LondonJohn]

You and I both recently brought over entertaining comments from the other side. Are you suggesting that no longer should be done?

I have rarely commented on articles but I have no issue for those that want to and certainly don't care a wit what Bruce wants.

Now if Big Dave gives an order...

No, I think it can be interesting to analyse pro-guilt commentators' posts, in order to a) address and refute their arguments, and b) try to understand more about the psychological mindset driving their position.

But that's very different from directly engaging with them in some sort of hand-to-hand combat on things like newspaper comments sections or twitter. My point is that I think many pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentators feel some sort of "need" to engage in the public arena at the source of the pro-guilt commentary, seemingly in order to try to sway public opinion back from the pro-guilt comments. I am arguing that there's no such need (and that even if there were a need, that should be up to Knox/Sollecito and their advisers), and that most pro-guilt commentators are looking for - and thrive upon - just this sort of "combat". That's why I think it's futile and maybe even counterproductive to engage in these back-and-forth battles.

 

[katy_did]

With a skeleton key? I have no idea. Do you think there aren't ways and means?


The report does not suggest there was activity all night. Whatever, he is a computer expert, I am not. He says there is certain manual interaction from 10.04 to 10.14 and that it is verified by three data sources, one of them external. If you have a reason for disputing the evidence of:

Professor Alfredo MILANI in collaboration with Doctor Antonio d’Ambrosio, Doctor Engineer Andrea Chiancone, Doctor Paolo Bernardi, Doctor Emanuele Florindi, Doctor Marina Latini and Doctor Engineer Valentino Santucci.,

hopefully supported by any relevant credentials you may possess, I'm all ears. Yes, mine is an argument from authority. It trumps yours from incredulity I think

I'd need to know what type of interaction it was - could it just have been the computer waking from sleep? If so then there are other explanations than it being used; my computer will randomly wake itself up on occasion, when someone slams a door hard, for example! Did Raf have a cat, or is that a myth?

I think you're wrong about the timing - it seems more likely 22:14 was when the computer went back to sleep, not that there was continuous activity from 22:04 to 22:14. In other words, a single activity, followed by the computer going back to sleep ten minutes later.

I've always been a bit sceptical about the defence claims over the computer. All the more so here, when it seems quite a big leap to go from a single activity on a computer, to "the police broke into Raffaele's apartment in some unspecified way to surf the web".

 

[katy_did]

Here's another reason to be sceptical: the report makes the claim that this access was surfing a webpage. That seems to be based solely on the fact the computer accessed the internet when it was woken up - there's no mention of any webpage being listed in the history, and I doubt the history was wiped after the cops got hold of the computer or we'd have heard about it (all the more so because they didn't bother to wipe it after they definitely surfed the web themselves the next day). In fact the single piece of evidence for this interaction at 22:04 given in the report is the keyboard log.

So I think this internet access must've happened automatically due to a torrent program being open and being activated once the computer woke up, not because someone was surfing the Internet, despite what the report claims.

If the interaction might've been caused by the computer waking from sleep, then it seems to me there are more likely reasons for that than the cops skilfully breaking into the apartment without leaving a trace to surf the web. Especially if the cat was home that night.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'd need to know what type of interaction it was - could it just have been the computer waking from sleep? If so then there are other explanations than it being used; my computer will randomly wake itself up on occasion, when someone slams a door hard, for example! Did Raf have a cat, or is that a myth?

I think you're wrong about the timing - it seems more likely 22:14 was when the computer went back to sleep, not that there was continuous activity from 22:04 to 22:14. In other words, a single activity, followed by the computer going back to sleep ten minutes later.

I've always been a bit sceptical about the defence claims over the computer. All the more so here, when it seems quite a big leap to go from a single activity on a computer, to "the police broke into Raffaele's apartment in some unspecified way to surf the web".

Here's another reason to be sceptical: the report makes the claim that this access was surfing a webpage. That seems to be based solely on the fact the computer accessed the internet when it was woken up - there's no mention of any webpage being listed in the history, and I doubt the history was wiped after the cops got hold of the computer or we'd have heard about it (all the more so because they didn't bother to wipe it after they definitely surfed the web themselves the next day). In fact the single piece of evidence for this interaction at 22:04 given in the report is the keyboard log.
So I think this internet access must've happened automatically due to a torrent program being open and being activated once the computer woke up, not because someone was surfing the Internet, despite what the report claims.

If the interaction might've been caused by the computer waking from sleep, then it seems to me there are more likely reasons for that than the cops skilfully breaking into the apartment without leaving a trace to surf the web. Especially if the cat was home that night.

If you say it was the cat the burden is on you to prove the cat. You are wrong to say this though.

While Raffaele Sollecito was under interrogation, there was with certainty an access activity to the computer under examination. This activity is proven both by the ENCASE files produced for the Postal Police expert report and by the windowserver.log file recording the activities on the keyboard, and also by the log files of the Internet provider.

What is a torrent programme and how does it cause a key on the keyboard to be depressed?

ETA and btw. this is absurd:

I've always been a bit sceptical about the defence claims over the computer. All the more so here, when it seems quite a big leap to go from a single activity on a computer, to "the police broke into Raffaele's apartment in some unspecified way to surf the web"

If there is a proof of manual interaction with Raffaele's computer at 10.04 p.m. on 5th Nov 2007 (and there is expert's evidence to that effect) at a time when the police were demanding Raffaele's presence at the questura and against a background of surveillance then who but the police would be responsible? That is not a leap. The cat is a leap. Go find the cat. I want photographs.

 

[Noztradamus]

The cat is a leap. Go find the cat. I want photographs.

You are asking the internet for photographs of a cat? Really?

 

[Strozzi]

Chris, I consider Stefanoni's claim about obtaining a positive quantification of DNA in 36B and her statement of the 36B sample size in front of Judge Micheli as much of a 'misstatement' as when I confuse my minivan with a Lamborghini.

Clearly the police and prosecution just make stuff up.

Challenged about how much DNA was found in 36B, Stefanoni replies with a large number to justify the sample size so as to be sufficiently large. IIRC, she said several hundred picograms when in fact it may have been more like 8, which scientifically-speaking is such a minute amount as to be the same as zero. Challenged how the DNA could survive a cleaning, she claims that at the location where she located the sample she observed a striation which sheltered the matter during cleaning. Challenged why other scientists could see no such striatuon, she claims she held it just right that light reflected off it revealing the striation.

Challenged that Raffaele's kitchen knife's blade is too large and wide to have created the stab wounds on the victim, Mignini without proof claims there were two knives. Challenged about multiple assailants, it is because there were two knives.

Challenged about Knox being hit in interrogation, Mignini says she may have been bumped.

They just make it up.

 

[anglolawyer]

You are asking the internet for photographs of a cat? Really?

Not a cat. The cat. Wiseguy

 

[katy_did]

If you say it was the cat the burden is on you to prove the cat. You are wrong to say this though.

While Raffaele Sollecito was under interrogation, there was with certainty an access activity to the computer under examination. This activity is proven both by the ENCASE files produced for the Postal Police expert report and by the windowserver.log file recording the activities on the keyboard, and also by the log files of the Internet provider.

What is a torrent programme and how does it cause a key on the keyboard to be depressed?

Hold on a sec, why is the burden on me to prove it was the cat or some other external happening (e.g. a door being slammed in the next door apartment) while the theory the cops broke into the apartment without leaving a trace to surf the web is the default doesn't-need-to-be-proven option?! The latter scenario seems way more unlikely.

A torrent program is a file sharing program which allows you to download files from the web, and other people to download files from you. If it's open, then it will download and upload files to/from the web automatically. So what may have happened is that the computer woke from sleep somehow - the cat or a door slamming in a nearby apartment (especially possible if Raffaele had an external mouse, which being a bit of a computer geek he probably did. Insert joke about the cat and the mouse here) - which activated the already open file sharing program, which automatically connected to the internet and started sharing files. This internet access was picked up by the ENCASE files and obviously in the log files of the internet service provider.

When I said the keyboard log is the only evidence presented, I meant this is the only evidence actually given in the report; for the rest he just says the interaction was picked up by the internet service provider and ENCASE, but gives no details.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you say it was the cat the burden is on you to prove the cat. You are wrong to say this though.

While Raffaele Sollecito was under interrogation, there was with certainty an access activity to the computer under examination. This activity is proven both by the ENCASE files produced for the Postal Police expert report and by the windowserver.log file recording the activities on the keyboard, and also by the log files of the Internet provider.
What is a torrent programme and how does it cause a key on the keyboard to be depressed?
ETA and btw. this is absurd:

I've always been a bit sceptical about the defence claims over the computer. All the more so here, when it seems quite a big leap to go from a single activity on a computer, to "the police broke into Raffaele's apartment in some unspecified way to surf the web"

If there is a proof of manual interaction with Raffaele's computer at 10.04 p.m. on 5th Nov 2007 (and there is expert's evidence to that effect) at a time when the police were demanding Raffaele's presence at the questura and against a background of surveillance then who but the police would be responsible? That is not a leap. The cat is a leap. Go find the cat. I want photographs.

This is the most important point.

The windowserver.log file shows that the keyboard was used. This requires physical depression of the keys on the keyboard.

Torrent programmes basically work (assuming that Sollecito (in this case) has the torrent programme up and running in the background on his machine) by telling other users that Sollecito (in this case) has a particular file (whether a movie, software, etc) available for others to grab from his machine. If another user decides that (s)he wants this file, then the torrent programme will automatically start a file copying process from Sollecito's machine to the other user's machine.

That's the only way in which torrent programmes can make certain processes - explicitly the copying of files from the hard drive - start without any prompting or interaction. But importantly, it has nothing to do with keyboard interactions.

The evidence of keyboard activity on Sollecito's computer around 10pm on 5th November can only mean one of two things:

1) The windowserver.log file is corrupted and simply wrong;
2) There were physical depressions of keys on Sollecito's computer keyboard at that time.

If we assume for a moment that we can disregard (1), then (2) can only have happened by a force on the keyboard. In turn, this can only have happened by

a) something inanimate happening to fall onto the keyboard, thus depressing some keys;
b) something aminate (cat?) stepping onto the keyboard;
c) the laptop perhaps falling, and the impact causing depression of one or more keys;
d) a human pressing keys on the keyboard.

Of the four options, I'd suggest that (d) is the most likely under the circumstances. If so, we have a human pressing keys on Sollecito's laptop keyboard within his apartment at around 10pm on 5th November. And since Sollecito (and Knox) was en route to the Police HQ at that point, and nobody else (bar perhaps the cleaner, who'd have had no reason to be there at that time) had access to Sollecito's apartment, it's entirely reasonable to suppose that someone gained covert entry into Sollecito's apartment at that time and pressed certain keys on that laptop keyboard.

And then you need to ask who would have had the means, motive and opportunity to do such a thing. Who, for example, would have know that Sollecito would not have been present? Who, for example, would have had the necessary skills and equipment to pick the lock of Sollecito's apartment door? Who, for example, might have stood to benefit from accessing Sollecito's laptop on that particular day?

And the answer is.....................................

 

[katy_did]

This is the most important point.

The windowserver.log file shows that the keyboard was used. This requires physical depression of the keys on the keyboard.

Torrent programmes basically work (assuming that Sollecito (in this case) has the torrent programme up and running in the background on his machine) by telling other users that Sollecito (in this case) has a particular file (whether a movie, software, etc) available for others to grab from his machine. If another user decides that (s)he wants this file, then the torrent programme will automatically start a file copying process from Sollecito's machine to the other user's machine.

That's the only way in which torrent programmes can make certain processes - explicitly the copying of files from the hard drive - start without any prompting or interaction. But importantly, it has nothing to do with keyboard interactions.

The evidence of keyboard activity on Sollecito's computer around 10pm on 5th November can only mean one of two things:

1) The windowserver.log file is corrupted and simply wrong;
2) There were physical depressions of keys on Sollecito's computer keyboard at that time.

If we assume for a moment that we can disregard (1), then (2) can only have happened by a force on the keyboard. In turn, this can only have happened by

a) something inanimate happening to fall onto the keyboard, thus depressing some keys;
b) something aminate (cat?) stepping onto the keyboard;
c) the laptop perhaps falling, and the impact causing depression of one or more keys;
d) a human pressing keys on the keyboard.

Of the four options, I'd suggest that (d) is the most likely under the circumstances. If so, we have a human pressing keys on Sollecito's laptop keyboard within his apartment at around 10pm on 5th November. And since Sollecito (and Knox) was en route to the Police HQ at that point, and nobody else (bar perhaps the cleaner, who'd have had no reason to be there at that time) had access to Sollecito's apartment, it's entirely reasonable to suppose that someone gained covert entry into Sollecito's apartment at that time and pressed certain keys on that laptop keyboard.

And then you need to ask who would have had the means, motive and opportunity to do such a thing. Who, for example, would have know that Sollecito would not have been present? Who, for example, would have had the necessary skills and equipment to pick the lock of Sollecito's apartment door? Who, for example, might have stood to benefit from accessing Sollecito's laptop on that particular day?

And the answer is.....................................

Are you sure that movement of the external mouse wouldn't have the same effect as the keys being pressed?

 

[anglolawyer]

Hold on a sec, why is the burden on me to prove it was the cat or some other external happening (e.g. a door being slammed in the next door apartment) while the theory the cops broke into the apartment without leaving a trace to surf the web is the default doesn't-need-to-be-proven option?! The latter scenario seems way more unlikely.

What do you mean, the cat? Surely, you should say a cat. No? The burden is on you because you claimed or suggested Raffaele had a cat. I haven't heard that before so just like I found the Milani report for you, you can find the cat for me. Seems only fair.

You are elevating the supposed difficulty of the cops 'breaking' in 'without leaving a trace' in order to buttress your point. Maybe they asked the landlady for a key? Maybe they have other means. We have heard they bugged Le Chic. There is testimony to that effect. We have not heard of any break-in at Le Chic, however. And as to leaving traces, Raf's apartment was sealed off by the cops after his arrest so no one but them would have been able to detect these traces of yours and the cops, if they broke in, would hardly have been interested. Anyway, they did leave a trace - on the computer.

A torrent program is a file sharing program which allows you to download files from the web, and other people to download files from you. If it's open, then it will download and upload files to/from the web automatically. So what may have happened is that the computer woke from sleep somehow - the cat or a door slamming in a nearby apartment (especially possible if Raffaele had an external mouse, which being a bit of a computer geek he probably did. Insert joke about the cat and the mouse here) - which activated the already open file sharing program, which automatically connected to the internet and started sharing files. This internet access was picked up by the ENCASE files and obviously in the log files of the internet service provider.

Thanks. How does that involve the keyboard?

When I said the keyboard log is the only evidence presented, I meant this is the only evidence actually given in the report; for the rest he just says the interaction was picked up by the internet service provider and ENCASE, but gives no details.

Noted.

 

[katy_did]

 

[Kauffer]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

1. No, you are misrepresenting my position. She was a suspect. So was Raffaele. They were effectively detained and subjected to high-pressure interrogation. You - and, more importantly for the case, the PLE (no offense to you) - are mixing up theory (legal formalisms) and practical reality (what the ECHR looks at, such as whether questioning is an "interview" or an "interrogation"). (A hint on the difference: people don't cry during interviews, they do during interrogations.)

2. No, they (PLE etc.) are misrepresenting ECHR case-law. See Brusco v France.

ETA: Excerpt, Brusco v France:
47....The argument that the applicant was heard as a witness is irrelevant, as purely formal, since the judicial and police authorities had kind as to suspect him of involvement in the offense.

Numbers is substantially correct. Yet it doesn't matter whether ILE had sufficient cause to treat her as a suspect before 5th Nov interrogations. The plain fact of the matter is that she was a suspect. We know this is true because amongst other reasons, Ficcara, Mignini and Hellmann told us. It's in the record of all the trial courts including the calunnia convicting court.

All of Amanda's procedural rights in Italian and International law were denied. The Gemelli court conducted a tortuous reasoning and concluded that in Italian law, some of Amanda's statements could be used to incriminate her for calunnia and some for murder. Yet, in the absence of a lawyer and a valid waiver, nothing, with reference to ECHR's post Salduz case law, which , within the constitution is the supreme source of law in Italy, is useable. Gemelli ignored the convention - in fact subordinated the convention to his interpretation of Italian law, whereas, the constitutional court decreed that he should have done the opposite.

The ECHR using Brusco v France is the final legal authority for the designation of suspect status. It's an objective test. But it's not really needed. For years, people have been trotting out that Amanda was a mere witness or person with knowledge etc. before 1:45. It's utter nonsense.

 

[anglolawyer]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=555&pictureid=9734[/qimg]

very funny.

Btw. did you notice the cop in the anti-static orange jump suit to the right?

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you sure that movement of the external mouse wouldn't have the same effect as the keys being pressed?

I am virtually certain. But even if movement of the external mouse were the cause, then what could have caused the external mouse to move? Definitely not a "gust of wind" or a "door slamming". Significantly more force than that would have been required to cause the mouse to move sufficiently to fire up the system.

There are two other very important things to consider here:

Firstly, OSX deactivates the keyboard (and sends the corresponding message to windowserver.log) if there's been no keyboard activity for four minutes. In this instance, however, we have the keyboard being activated at 10.04pm, and not deactivated until 10.14pm. This automatically therefore means that the first keyboard (or mouse, if you prefer) interaction was at 10.04pm, but the last interaction must have been at 10.10pm. And there must have been at least one further interaction between these times. This further diminishes the possibility of the keyboard (or mouse) operation having been caused by a random accidental external event.

Secondly, there's evidence that a specific web page was accessed within this time period. That could not have happened by accident, and nor could it have happened automatically.

In short, the evidence points very strongly to the proposal that a human was interacting with Sollecito's laptop between 10.04pm and 10.10pm on 5th November 2007, and that this activity included the retrieval of a specific web page.

 

[katy_did]

What do you mean, the cat? Surely, you should say a cat. No? The burden is on you because you claimed or suggested Raffaele had a cat. I haven't heard that before so just like I found the Milani report for you, you can find the cat for me. Seems only fair.

You are elevating the supposed difficulty of the cops 'breaking' in 'without leaving a trace' in order to buttress your point. Maybe they asked the landlady for a key? Maybe they have other means. We have heard they bugged Le Chic. There is testimony to that effect. We have not heard of any break-in at Le Chic, however. And as to leaving traces, Raf's apartment was sealed off by the cops after his arrest so no one but them would have been able to detect these traces of yours and the cops, if they broke in, would hardly have been interested. Anyway, they did leave a trace - on the computer.

The cat doesn't really matter, lol. Computers wake from sleep if the mouse moves slightly, which as I said could just be someone slamming a door in another apartment.

Plus as I said before, how does the police breaking in to use the web come to be the default option which doesn't need to be proved? Especially when Raffaele and Amanda may not have even arrived at the station by 22:04, and Amanda says they told her to go home once she arrived. Your theory seems more unlikely than slight movement of the mouse waking the computer.

Thanks. How does that involve the keyboard?

The computer waking up would've caused the file sharing program to start connecting to the internet without need for human interaction, assuming the program was already open. This means the keyboard log files are the only evidence of this interaction at 22:04, since the internet connection which was presumably also picked up by ENCASE doesn't prove anyone interacted with the computer.[/QUOTE]

 

[LondonJohn]

very funny.

Btw. did you notice the cop in the anti-static orange jump suit to the right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sollecito did not own a cat (or any other pet for that matter) did he?

So maybe a ninja cat stealthily broke into Sollecito's apartment, and stood on his laptop's keyboard at least three times between 10.04pm and 10.10pm, pulling up a web page in the process........

 

[anglolawyer]

I am virtually certain. But even if movement of the external mouse were the cause, then what could have caused the external mouse to move? Definitely not a "gust of wind" or a "door slamming". Significantly more force than that would have been required to cause the mouse to move sufficiently to fire up the system.

There are two other very important things to consider here:

Firstly, OSX deactivates the keyboard (and sends the corresponding message to windowserver.log) if there's been no keyboard activity for four minutes. In this instance, however, we have the keyboard being activated at 10.04pm, and not deactivated until 10.14pm. This automatically therefore means that the first keyboard (or mouse, if you prefer) interaction was at 10.04pm, but the last interaction must have been at 10.10pm. And there must have been at least one further interaction between these times. This further diminishes the possibility of the keyboard (or mouse) operation having been caused by a random accidental external event.

Secondly, there's evidence that a specific web page was accessed within this time period. That could not have happened by accident, and nor could it have happened automatically.

In short, the evidence points very strongly to the proposal that a human was interacting with Sollecito's laptop between 10.04pm and 10.10pm on 5th November 2007, and that this activity included the retrieval of a specific web page.

Thank you for these welcome reinforcements, LJ. Nerds are useful and should be nurtured

Now, I would like Katy and others to reflect on the implications assuming the cops did indeed enter Raffaele's apartment at around 10 p.m. that night. Does that not cast a glaring light on the events of the evening? I suggest it shows a deeply-laid plan was in operation, one which involved numerous participants in both unlawful entry and all-night interrogation. RBWVWL posted yesterday the quote from Matteini saying there was pressure to act because Edda was coming over.

The whole thing was a crooked set up. Obviously.

 

[katy_did]

I am virtually certain. But even if movement of the external mouse were the cause, then what could have caused the external mouse to move? Definitely not a "gust of wind" or a "door slamming". Significantly more force than that would have been required to cause the mouse to move sufficiently to fire up the system.

There are two other very important things to consider here:

Firstly, OSX deactivates the keyboard (and sends the corresponding message to windowserver.log) if there's been no keyboard activity for four minutes. In this instance, however, we have the keyboard being activated at 10.04pm, and not deactivated until 10.14pm. This automatically therefore means that the first keyboard (or mouse, if you prefer) interaction was at 10.04pm, but the last interaction must have been at 10.10pm. And there must have been at least one further interaction between these times. This further diminishes the possibility of the keyboard (or mouse) operation having been caused by a random accidental external event.

Secondly, there's evidence that a specific web page was accessed within this time period. That could not have happened by accident, and nor could it have happened automatically.

In short, the evidence points very strongly to the proposal that a human was interacting with Sollecito's laptop between 10.04pm and 10.10pm on 5th November 2007, and that this activity included the retrieval of a specific web page.

Totally disagree about there needing to be significant force to cause the mouse to move and wake the computer. If the mouse moves at all it will wake the computer - it's not as if it has to move, say, a centimetre for it to do so - and I know from experience it doesn't take much. I've come back into the room on occasion to find my computer awake for no discernible reason.

Wouldn't the length of time the keyboard took to shut down depend on Raffaele's settings? In any case, if the computer can be woken by the mouse moving, a second loud noise or vibration in the same space of time doesn't seem unlikely, especially if it was from the same cause. Certainly no more unlikely than the police breaking in theory.

Most importantly, where's your evidence a specific webpage was accessed? That would indeed be very much more significant than the computer simply waking from sleep.