Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

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........

Don't ask me. It's Katy's cat, not mine. I wonder what it's name is and what became of the poor critter.

 

[katy_did]

very funny.

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

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Blimey. I don't know how hard people slam their doors in your apartment building, but the sheer level of force required to transmit sufficient vibration through to a neighbouring apartment as to cause an external mouse to physically move (unless that mouse is resting on glass covered in oil perhaps....) is waaaaaay above that which could be generated by slamming a door. You can do an experiment to check this if the spirit moves you.

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.

I would say that the computer evidence points strongly to the contention that a human interacted with Sollecito's laptop's keyboard inside his apartment between 10.04pm and 10.14pm that night, and pulled up a web page in the process. We know that Sollecito was not in his apartment at that time, and nor was Knox. We know that nobody else had lawful access to his apartment (other than perhaps the cleaner, whom I think we can exclude). Therefore I think it's fair to suppose that someone entered Sollecito's apartment at this time who had no right to be there, and worked on his laptop for ten minutes.

If this "someone" had been a burglar or just a nutter, then it's hard to see why they would have gone to the trouble of covertly (and expertly) entering the apartment, looking on Sollecito's laptop for 10 minutes, maybe doing other things that were not noticeable in hindsight, not taking anything, then leaving. On the other hand, I would argue (as does AL) that the police would have had the means, motive and opportunity to make such an entry, and it's not hard to imagine why they might have been interrogating Sollecito's laptop. Not to mention other nefarious things they might have done..........

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][/QUOTE]

 

[katy_did]

Blimey. I don't know how hard people slam their doors in your apartment building, but the sheer level of force required to transmit sufficient vibration through to a neighbouring apartment as to cause an external mouse to physically move (unless that mouse is resting on glass covered in oil perhaps....) is waaaaaay above that which could be generated by slamming a door. You can do an experiment to check this if the spirit moves you.

Sorry LJ, you can't just claim that it would take gale force gusts of wind sweeping the apartment and destroying everything in sight to wake a laptop from sleep. A very slight movement of an external mouse will do it. You're arguing from incredulity here, not evidence.

I would say that the computer evidence points strongly to the contention that a human interacted with Sollecito's laptop's keyboard inside his apartment between 10.04pm and 10.14pm that night, and pulled up a web page in the process. We know that Sollecito was not in his apartment at that time, and nor was Knox. We know that nobody else had lawful access to his apartment (other than perhaps the cleaner, whom I think we can exclude). Therefore I think it's fair to suppose that someone entered Sollecito's apartment at this time who had no right to be there, and worked on his laptop for ten minutes.

If this "someone" had been a burglar or just a nutter, then it's hard to see why they would have gone to the trouble of covertly (and expertly) entering the apartment, looking on Sollecito's laptop for 10 minutes, maybe doing other things that were not noticeable in hindsight, not taking anything, then leaving. On the other hand, I would argue (as does AL) that the police would have had the means, motive and opportunity to make such an entry, and it's not hard to imagine why they might have been interrogating Sollecito's laptop. Not to mention other nefarious things they might have done..........

Do I take it then that you have no evidence a webpage was accessed?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

As I said, do a proper controlled experiment if you're not convinced. Get a laptop, connect an external mouse and place the mouse on any normal surface. Get the laptop into sleep mode (such that mouse movement could wake it). Then try banging doors in another room, and see if it moves the mouse sufficiently to wake the laptop (and, by the way, leave the door to the room containing the laptop open throughout, in order to ensure that it's not air pressure from opening the door that might be moving the mouse....). I am very highly confident that you will not be able to bang a door, or hit a wall, or stamp on the floor, hard enough to make the mouse move in another room.

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.

No. This is not about the user settings. It's about info sent to windowserver.log. And in the case of OSX, there's a fixed four minutes of inactivity of the keyboard which prompts a message to windowserver.log. And, as I explained in a previous post, this four-minute issue actually means that there have to have been at least three separate interactions between 10.04pm and 10.14pm.

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.

The Milani Report explicitly mentions the ISP's log files in regard to this, but doesn't mention the exact nature of the activity. However, I definitely remember that the webpage accessed was an online newspaper report about the case. I'll look for the appropriate supporting evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry LJ, you can't just claim that it would take gale force gusts of wind sweeping the apartment and destroying everything in sight to wake a laptop from sleep. A very slight movement of an external mouse will do it. You're arguing from incredulity here, not evidence.

Woah hang on! I didn't expect you to be engaging in straw man arguments! Shame.......

I repeat: an external mouse at rest on a normal surface (i.e. normal furniture or a mousemat, not a very slick surface) simply will not move in response to a door banging or a gust of wind. There is too much friction inertia. It's a matter of physics. And I repeat again: try it properly for yourself.

Besides all that, as I've stated before, I'm virtually certain that the keyboard activity logged within windowserver.log refers specifically and exclusively to the keyboard of the machine. Mouse movements would be logged differently. I am not certain of this though, since I am not sufficiently familiar with OSX. But maybe someone who is familiar can give a definitive answer on this point.

Do I take it then that you have no evidence a webpage was accessed?

Again, I'm surprised at your tone! As I said, the Milani report states that there was internet activity. And I definitely recall that there was evidence that an online newspaper article about the case was pulled up at this time. As I said, I will try to find that precise evidence.

 

[katy_did]

As I said, do a proper controlled experiment if you're not convinced. Get a laptop, connect an external mouse and place the mouse on any normal surface. Get the laptop into sleep mode (such that mouse movement could wake it). Then try banging doors in another room, and see if it moves the mouse sufficiently to wake the laptop (and, by the way, leave the door to the room containing the laptop open throughout, in order to ensure that it's not air pressure from opening the door that might be moving the mouse....). I am very highly confident that you will not be able to bang a door, or hit a wall, or stamp on the floor, hard enough to make the mouse move in another room.

Nooooo, if you want me to accept it would take hurricane level gusts of wind to wake a laptop, link me to actual evidence - tests, studies, whatever. At this point it's simply my assertion against yours, and I've already said I've experienced just what you're saying is impossible, that is to say a laptop waking from sleep without direct human interaction.

No. This is not about the user settings. It's about info sent to windowserver.log. And in the case of OSX, there's a fixed four minutes of inactivity of the keyboard which prompts a message to windowserver.log. And, as I explained in a previous post, this four-minute issue actually means that there have to have been at least three separate interactions between 10.04pm and 10.14pm.

Based on reading Raffaele's earlier appeal document, I'm not at all sure you're correct on this, actually. But I'd need to read more to find out. I'll take your word for it for the moment.

The Milani Report explicitly mentions the ISP's log files in regard to this, but doesn't mention the exact nature of the activity. However, I definitely remember that the webpage accessed was an online newspaper report about the case. I'll look for the appropriate supporting evidence.

Yes, it mentions internet activity and claims a webpage was accessed, but gives no further details. Funny that. I think it's wise to be a bit sceptical about accepting any and all claims from court documents, even if they come from the defence.

The interaction you're thinking of when a newspaper report was accessed happened the next day, after the police had seized Raffaele's laptop.

 

[katy_did]

Woah hang on! I didn't expect you to be engaging in straw man arguments! Shame.......

Hmmmm...

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........

I repeat: an external mouse at rest on a normal surface (i.e. normal furniture or a mousemat, not a very slick surface) simply will not move in response to a door banging or a gust of wind. There is too much friction inertia. It's a matter of physics. And I repeat again: try it properly for yourself.

Besides all that, as I've stated before, I'm virtually certain that the keyboard activity logged within windowserver.log refers specifically and exclusively to the keyboard of the machine. Mouse movements would be logged differently. I am not certain of this though, since I am not sufficiently familiar with OSX. But maybe someone who is familiar can give a definitive answer on this point.

Again LJ, this is just your experience against mine. By all means give me some actual evidence...

Again, I'm surprised at your tone! As I said, the Milani report states that there was internet activity. And I definitely recall that there was evidence that an online newspaper article about the case was pulled up at this time. As I said, I will try to find that precise evidence.

I only repeated the question I'd already asked, as you hadn't answered it.

There was a record of internet activity - I think it was probably the file sharing program. Had there been evidence of a webpage being opened then I'm sure that would've been included in the report. As I say above, the newspaper report was pulled up the next day, when the police had the laptop at the police station.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's funny that professor Milani is willing to trash his reputation by asserting that it is 'certain' there was physical interaction with the computer at 10.04 without considering cats, wind, earthquakes, slamming doors etc. when these are all apparently equally obvious explanations for the observed phenomena. It's also funny that, AFAIK, there has been no evidence in rebuttal from the ILE ...

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmmmm...

Again LJ, this is just your experience against mine. By all means give me some actual evidence...

I don't know what you want to see as evidence. Are you looking for an academic research paper into the levels of force (and the means by which this force is generated) that are sufficient to cause an external mouse to move enough to rouse a computer from sleep mode?

You are suggesting that a mouse can be moved by something such as a door slamming in a neighbouring apartment. I am saying that this could never (under normal circumstances) create sufficient force to cause a mouse to shift sufficiently to wake a computer, unless you're living in a building that is not structurally sound (in which case, leave the building immediately ). I am saying that you could prove this to yourself easily by means of a simple experiment. For the record, now that you're carrying on about it, I've just done such an experiment. It's impossible to slam a door in another room - no matter how hard I try - such that a mouse moves and wakes a computer.

I only repeated the question I'd already asked, as you hadn't answered it.

There was a record of internet activity - I think it was probably the file sharing program. Had there been evidence of a webpage being opened then I'm sure that would've been included in the report. As I say above, the newspaper report was pulled up the next day, when the police had the laptop at the police station.

If this activity were related to file sharing, then there would have been evidence from the ENCASE interrogation of the hard disc. I don't believe there was any such evidence. But you may be right about the news report. I'll look for the relevant evidence.


Regardless of all this, I believe the evidence suggests pretty conclusively that there was human physical interaction with the computer between 10.04pm and 10.14pm on 5th November. Sollecito's defence expert, Milani, agrees with this proposition:

"the certainty that there has been an access to the computer when its owner was absent on the night of November 5, 2007."

Note the use of the word "certainty".

Oh and look, I've just found where Milani makes explicit reference to access to a web page:

"There is no mention of a sure access activity to the computer owned by Raffaele Sollecito, the browsing of a web page, occurred on November 5, 2007, while he was under interrogation"

So what you're apparently suggesting is that Milani is wrong (and professionally incompetent) to be using words such as "certainty", if (as you suggest) all this evidence could have been caused by slamming doors and automated file-sharing processes. I don't share your view. I share Milani's view.

 

[katy_did]

I don't know what you want to see as evidence. Are you looking for an academic research paper into the levels of force (and the means by which this force is generated) that are sufficient to cause an external mouse to move enough to rouse a computer from sleep mode?

You are suggesting that a mouse can be moved by something such as a door slamming in a neighbouring apartment. I am saying that this could never (under normal circumstances) create sufficient force to cause a mouse to shift sufficiently to wake a computer, unless you're living in a building that is not structurally sound (in which case, leave the building immediately ). I am saying that you could prove this to yourself easily by means of a simple experiment. For the record, now that you're carrying on about it, I've just done such an experiment. It's impossible to slam a door in another room - no matter how hard I try - such that a mouse moves and wakes a computer.

I've already said I HAVE experienced computers waking up for random bangs and noises, with no direct interaction on the computer itself. I've gone into a room after an hour or two to find my computer awake, though no one has been in there (unless the cops are breaking into my place without me knowing it too...) One person experiencing one thing and another something else doesn't prove very much, except perhaps that you live in a more structurally sound building than me.

If this activity were related to file sharing, then there would have been evidence from the ENCASE interrogation of the hard disc. I don't believe there was any such evidence. But you may be right about the news report. I'll look for the relevant evidence.


Regardless of all this, I believe the evidence suggests pretty conclusively that there was human physical interaction with the computer between 10.04pm and 10.14pm on 5th November. Sollecito's defence expert, Milani, agrees with this proposition:

"the certainty that there has been an access to the computer when its owner was absent on the night of November 5, 2007."

Note the use of the word "certainty".

Oh and look, I've just found where Milani makes explicit reference to access to a web page:

"There is no mention of a sure access activity to the computer owned by Raffaele Sollecito, the browsing of a web page, occurred on November 5, 2007, while he was under interrogation"

So what you're apparently suggesting is that Milani is wrong (and professionally incompetent) to be using words such as "certainty", if (as you suggest) all this evidence could have been caused by slamming doors and automated file-sharing processes. I don't share your view. I share Milani's view.

There was evidence from ENCASE about the internet connection; this is mentioned but not detailed in the report.

Yes, Milani does claim a specific webpage was opened, but he gives no evidence for it beyond that claim. I'm dubious. I think if there were evidence of a webpage being opened he would have included it. His use of the word "certainty" only means the computer definitely woke up at that time, about which there's no argument; even if it didn't, I still wouldn't accept a claim of "certainty" without evidence. I wonder if you'd be as accepting if a prosecution expert claimed to be certain about something...

 

[katy_did]

It's funny that professor Milani is willing to trash his reputation by asserting that it is 'certain' there was physical interaction with the computer at 10.04 without considering cats, wind, earthquakes, slamming doors etc. when these are all apparently equally obvious explanations for the observed phenomena. It's also funny that, AFAIK, there has been no evidence in rebuttal from the ILE ...

Physical interaction would include all of these things, I think. It only means something physical disturbed the computer; it doesn't have to mean that it was a cop's hand.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've already said I HAVE experienced computers waking up for random bangs and noises, with no direct interaction on the computer itself. I've gone into a room after an hour or two to find my computer awake, though no one has been in there (unless the cops are breaking into my place without me knowing it too...) One person experiencing one thing and another something else doesn't prove very much, except perhaps that you live in a more structurally sound building than me.

No - you're merely mentioning events in the past that you have put down to "random bangs and noises". This is a totally unscientific approach to trying to define the issue properly (not to mention the fact that there might have been other processes automatically starting on your computer, e.g. disc defragmentation or clutter cleaning, that might have woken your computer from sleep).

There's a good way to test this all out which has sufficient scientific rigour as to make it acceptable as evidence. Your way is not that way. The good way is to explicitly check by getting a laptop with a mouse, putting the mouse onto a normal surface, getting the laptop into sleep mode, then going next door and banging doors as hard as you possibly can (or stamp on the floor, or shout, or whatever).

If, when you come back in, the computer has awoken (and you can be sure that this was not due to e.g. a process starting), then this would be evidence that slamming doors, jumping on the floor, etc would be sufficient to make the mouse move enough to wake a computer. If, when you come back in, the computer is still asleep, then this would be evidence that slamming doors, jumping on the floor etc would not be sufficient.

There was evidence from ENCASE about the internet connection; this is mentioned but not detailed in the report.

I know. My point is that the ENCASE info would have been able to explicitly show that the internet activity was file sharing activity. I don't think that ENCASE showed this.

Yes, Milani does claim a specific webpage was opened, but he gives no evidence for it beyond that claim. I'm dubious. I think if there were evidence of a webpage being opened he would have included it.

I don't think he felt it was all that relevant, given that the important part here is that there was human interaction with the laptop at that time. And I think it would be extremely odd - not to mention extremely unprofessional to the point of misconduct - for him to make specific reference to a webpage if he did not have evidence that a webpage had been accessed. We would need to see the ISP logs for that. We know he's seen them.

His use of the word "certainty" only means the computer definitely woke up at that time, about which there's no argument;

No. It's absolutely clear that he used the term "access" to mean physical access by a person. Otherwise there would be no value to this evidence at all.

even if it didn't, I still wouldn't accept a claim of "certainty" without evidence.

There IS evidence. It's right there in the report.

I wonder if you'd be as accepting if a prosecution expert claimed to be certain about something...

If it was something about which I also had decent knowledge levels, and where there was good evidence to support the case, then of course I would. I'm very concerned about your insinuation here though. Are you seriously suggesting that either a) I have a blind deference to authority, or (more worryingly still) b) I am automatically predisposed to believing defence experts over prosecution experts (driven, I'm presuming, from a belief in Knox's/Sollecito's innocence)? If you think that I might think in this way, then I'm very disappointed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Physical interaction would include all of these things, I think. It only means something physical disturbed the computer; it doesn't have to mean that it was a cop's hand.

No. It's clear that his term "access to the computer" means access by a human being.

 

[anglolawyer]

Physical interaction would include all of these things, I think. It only means something physical disturbed the computer; it doesn't have to mean that it was a cop's hand.

So, are you saying his report can be interpreted as suggesting all of these things (cat, cop, earthquake etc) are equally likely? Not how I read it.

 

[MichaelB]

I just wanted to say I agree with Bruce and hope people will stop the tweeting and posting in comment sections. Asides from tweeting to guilters, there's no need to be tweeting at all anymore about the case. The psychos who are left are desperate for people to engage with so you're just playing into their hands by replying so they can keep tweeting hate and lies.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stardust memories

It's funny that professor Milani is willing to trash his reputation by asserting that it is 'certain' there was physical interaction with the computer at 10.04 without considering cats, wind, earthquakes, slamming doors etc. when these are all apparently equally obvious explanations for the observed phenomena. It's also funny that, AFAIK, there has been no evidence in rebuttal from the ILE ...

Someone should trawl through Perugia Shock circa 2009. There were one or two entries about computer interactions. I seem to recall reading that the last access time of Stardust was lost and that someone surfed the web and found an article about the case. The early continuation threads here would have some quotes from me and others. I have not kept current in this discussion, so perhaps Perugia Shock's entries have been superseded.

 

[analemma]

I just wanted to say I agree with Bruce and hope people will stop the tweeting and posting in comment sections. Asides from tweeting to guilters, there's no need to be tweeting at all anymore about the case. The psychos who are left are desperate for people to engage with so you're just playing into their hands by replying so they can keep tweeting hate and lies.

I posted this on JREF, or whatever it is called now.

Bruce
I am new here and I agree with you about the need to stop feeding the guilters.
I have noticed a very disquiting trend that involves the sequence of the news articles appear on the case when sorted by relevance that we probably need to address as a group.
I have noticed that the horrible "thin line" article has now become #2 on the selection list under the Google Search for "Amanda Knox"
I have already suggested that the guilters are clicking this article a thousand times a day as a tactic to keep their cause alive and if the article rises abover the Amanda Knox Wiki the public will select it and read it and believe it and the perception of guilt will remain forever.
If this ultimately happens I contend that the guilters will have won the perception battle, even though the guilters have lost the court and factual battle, snaching victory form the jaws of defeat.
What I propose is everybody on this forum and every advocate click a half dozen defined innocence sites every day in hopes of keeping these lies off of the top of teh google selections.
Once again, I agree about not arguing with them and ignoring them, but if they are AT THE TOP OF THE SELECTION I do not see how they can be ignored.
What does everyone think?

 

[LondonJohn]

I posted this on JREF, or whatever it is called now.

Bruce
I am new here and I agree with you about the need to stop feeding the guilters.
I have noticed a very disquiting trend that involves the sequence of the news articles appear on the case when sorted by relevance that we probably need to address as a group.
I have noticed that the horrible "thin line" article has now become #2 on the selection list under the Google Search for "Amanda Knox"
I have already suggested that the guilters are clicking this article a thousand times a day as a tactic to keep their cause alive and if the article rises abover the Amanda Knox Wiki the public will select it and read it and believe it and the perception of guilt will remain forever.
If this ultimately happens I contend that the guilters will have won the perception battle, even though the guilters have lost the court and factual battle, snaching victory form the jaws of defeat.
What I propose is everybody on this forum and every advocate click a half dozen defined innocence sites every day in hopes of keeping these lies off of the top of teh google selections.
Once again, I agree about not arguing with them and ignoring them, but if they are AT THE TOP OF THE SELECTION I do not see how they can be ignored.
What does everyone think?

I think that I have precisely zero interest (far less any motivation) in trying to sway public opinion. I also find it very hard to understand why anyone who wasn't intimately connected with Knox/Sollecito or their families would be emotionally motivated to try to influence public opinion.

To put it bluntly: why do you care if certain online articles are artificially given undue prominence by nutter pro-guilt commentators? Why do you care if nutter pro-guilt commentators flood twitter and comments sections with mendacious nonsense? Why should you care if some sections of the wider public read that stuff and are swayed by it?

The short answer is that you shouldn't care about any of that. I doubt that Knox or Sollecito themselves care about it (at least, I hope they don't), except for if it reaches criminal or civil-defamatory levels, in which case they have the machinery of the law to use to defend themselves. Who cares what the general public thinks? Something like 40% of Americans (IIRC) still think there was some sort of conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK, after all.....

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I should add for clarity that I could see a rationale for pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentators trying to control the public narrative prior to the Supreme Court acquittals - even though I never had the slightest interest in engaging in that sort of activity myself.

But now that the big-picture case is, to all intents, "won", the pro-guilt nutters can stamp their feet, lie, dissemble, misrepresent and bully all they like. They are wrong and they have been (and will continue to be) shown to be wrong. And their desired goal - the lengthy incarceration of Knox and Sollecito - will now never happen (and rightly so). So who cares how much they shout and scream about it?