Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

As I said a couple of pages back, some think they did just that. Not me though. There was nothing on that knife at any time. But just because we may not know the precise intention it doesn't mean there wasn't anything. They may simply have wanted to look at Raf's computer for anything incriminating, or look around for stuff. Who knows? What we know is that a computer expert (in fact a team of experts) found evidence of activity at a time when no one was home.

Not daring to dispute but for those that maintain the PLE were framing the Kids before Nov. 5/6 they have some splayin to do. According to the experts the police were in Raf's apartment unannounced and messed with his computer perhaps wiping out history that could have exonerated him, correct?

It makes no sense that they wouldn't have planted evidence as I said and the frame would have been complete. I say their unauthorized and unmentioned sojourn proves they were not planting (framing) evidence and as always just incompetent.

 

[carbonjam72]

Not daring to dispute but for those that maintain the PLE were framing the Kids before Nov. 5/6 they have some splayin to do. According to the experts the police were in Raf's apartment unannounced and messed with his computer perhaps wiping out history that could have exonerated him, correct?
It makes no sense that they wouldn't have planted evidence as I said and the frame would have been complete. I say their unauthorized and unmentioned sojourn proves they were not planting (framing) evidence and as always just incompetent.

I think the computers were destroyed after being collected, when the examining police "experts" fried the computer drives one at a time.

This also happened in another controversial case, IIRC, I think there were also flip flopping verdicts, recently guilty again, IIRC. (Sorry for lack of cites, I know this is a bugaboo for you).

I don' think "planting" evidence, is the same thing as Steph's 'happy accidents' in the lab, or destroying exculpatory evidence on computers and then shrugging and saying, "what are you gonna do?", or even re-using the same tramp heroin addict as a witness in 3 murder cases, and saying, "well, that's his testimony, I just present it in court, its the judges who convict". (I'm facetiously paraphrasing, so no cites).

 

[Strozzi]

Not daring to dispute but for those that maintain the PLE were framing the Kids before Nov. 5/6 they have some splayin to do. According to the experts the police were in Raf's apartment unannounced and messed with his computer perhaps wiping out history that could have exonerated him, correct?

It makes no sense that they wouldn't have planted evidence as I said and the frame would have been complete. I say their unauthorized and unmentioned sojourn proves they were not planting (framing) evidence and as always just incompetent.

If I set aside the alleged attempt by Napoleoni on Nov 4 to get Amanda to pick out a knife in her kitchen drawer that would be good to use to murder someone, I see no indication of framing until Raffaele was taken to his apartment at about 2 am where police officer Finzi? seized the big knife from his kitchen drawer. They thought at that time that the two had been involved in the murder, so it wasn't framing them - it was just helping frame the evidence.

If the police did enter Raffaele's apartment at about 10 pm on Nov 5 when Raffaele and Amanda were at police headquarters, it appears more likely that they were looking around for something compromising. Not wiping blood on anything, as no blood was claimed. I have not seen a claim that his computer files were copied - it might be that while in the flat one of the police touched the keyboard without going deep into it.

Napoleoni's alleged attempt on Nov 4 to get Amanda to pick out a knife in her kitchen drawer may have been to see if Amanda unhesitatingly, deliberately reaches for one in particular, rather than to deliberately get her prints or DNA on a knife. If Amanda had complied with Napoleoni's request but picked out a butter knife or spatula, Napoleoni might have initially thought the girl has no idea what she's doing but after conferring with Mignini or Giobbi Napoleoni would have realized that she is dealing with a very astute personality who can take advantage of even the most professional of police.

Any of Amanda's kitchen utensils with her prints or DNA on it, the defense could have argued, would have had no probative value as it was Amanda's kitchen. But then again, this is Amanda's house and since she is the alleged murderer her prints and DNA on objects and surfaces in her own home are naturally proof of guilt, according to the prosecution's thinking.

 

[Grinder]

I think the computers were destroyed after being collected, when the examining police "experts" fried the computer drives one at a time.

This also happened in another controversial case, IIRC, I think there were also flip flopping verdicts, recently guilty again, IIRC. (Sorry for lack of cites, I know this is a bugaboo for you).

I don' think "planting" evidence, is the same thing as Steph's 'happy accidents' in the lab, or destroying exculpatory evidence on computers and then shrugging and saying, "what are you gonna do?", or even re-using the same tramp heroin addict as a witness in 3 murder cases, and saying, "well, that's his testimony, I just present it in court, its the judges who convict". (I'm facetiously paraphrasing, so no cites).

I don't remember or totally understand but viewing something the cops allegedly erased a history of movie watching which was not wiped by the cooking of the hard drives.

The singular point I'm addressing is the framing of the kids. If they were framing early on, before the 5/6 then clearly putting a wee amount of Mez' blood on a knife and maybe down the sink. Why would they fabricate a hopelessly small amount of dna on the knife (for Anglo no dna at all on knife) instead of a little wipe near the handle that WOULD HAVE TESTED POSITIVE FOR BLOOD?

It remains obvious to me that they thought they had the killers and with the addition of the statements had plenty to arrest them.

 

[anglolawyer]

Not daring to dispute but for those that maintain the PLE were framing the Kids before Nov. 5/6 they have some splayin to do. According to the experts the police were in Raf's apartment unannounced and messed with his computer perhaps wiping out history that could have exonerated him, correct?

It makes no sense that they wouldn't have planted evidence as I said and the frame would have been complete. I say their unauthorized and unmentioned sojourn proves they were not planting (framing) evidence and as always just incompetent.

I brought this up in response to Katy's demand for proof that any planning went into the night's events. Clearly, if the cops were demanding Raffaele's presence while at the same time conducting a black op in his flat, they must have had a plan, right? I mean, you don't think these were random, unconnected events, do you? If not, then what was the plan? I ask without knowing the answer, not to be smart, but there must have been one and it must have involved a whole bunch of people.

 

[carbonjam72]

Don't touch that knife!

If I set aside the alleged attempt by Napoleoni on Nov 4 to get Amanda to pick out a knife in her kitchen drawer that would be good to use to murder someone, I see no indication of framing until Raffaele was taken to his apartment at about 2 am where police officer Finzi? seized the big knife from his kitchen drawer. They thought at that time that the two had been involved in the murder, so it wasn't framing them - it was just helping frame the evidence.

If the police did enter Raffaele's apartment at about 10 pm on Nov 5 when Raffaele and Amanda were at police headquarters, it appears more likely that they were looking around for something compromising. Not wiping blood on anything, as no blood was claimed. I have not seen a claim that his computer files were copied - it might be that while in the flat one of the police touched the keyboard without going deep into it.

If it in fact occurred, Napoleoni's alleged attempt on Nov 4 to get Amanda to pick out a knife in her kitchen drawer may have been to see if Amanda unhesitatingly, deliberately reaches for one in particular, rather than to deliberately get her prints or DNA on a knife.

The latter, the defense could have argued, would have had no probative value as it was Amanda's kitchen. But then again, this is Amanda's house and since she is the alleged murderer her prints and DNA on objects and surfaces in her own home are naturally proof of guilt, according to the prosecution.

I think the knife reaching incident is documented in Amanda's book, and mentioned by Raf as well. I think Mignini also uses it to spin her 'feelings of guilt' or some such. So I don't think the fact that the incident occurred is being disputed by any of the people there.

Its the intent that I (we) are disputing here. Bearing in mind that Stef made Kercher's DNA magically appear on the knife Finzi pulled at random from Raf's kitchen, I think that's the conundrum.

How could the police and Finzi know any knife "would do"? Unless they were just trying to use it to scare Raf, without tests at all? Or, unless they knew that Stef could induce whatever results were needed at will (which would be pretty stunning if you think about it).

As for some innocent explanation for trying to get Amanda to pick out a knife that could be used in a murder, the issue isn't whether Amanda's prints/DNA could be incriminating of itself, but in conjunction with Kercher's DNA on the blade.

It is weird though that Raf's knife tested negative for blood. What did they think would happen? If they were aware that Stef would induce a DNA match, it shows they were unaware of the implications of a negative result for blood on Raf's kitchen knife.

A thorough investigation is what is needed. Is Italy willing to go there? I hope so, but not hopeful.

 

[carbonjam72]

I don't remember or totally understand but viewing something the cops allegedly erased a history of movie watching which was not wiped by the cooking of the hard drives.
The singular point I'm addressing is the framing of the kids. If they were framing early on, before the 5/6 then clearly putting a wee amount of Mez' blood on a knife and maybe down the sink. Why would they fabricate a hopelessly small amount of dna on the knife (for Anglo no dna at all on knife) instead of a little wipe near the handle that WOULD HAVE TESTED POSITIVE FOR BLOOD?

It remains obvious to me that they thought they had the killers and with the addition of the statements had plenty to arrest them.

This would be shocking, and "game over" as far as intentional framing goes. Is this documented anywhere? Does anyone know?

 

[Grinder]

This would be shocking, and "game over" as far as intentional framing goes. Is this documented anywhere? Does anyone know?

Not worth it to me to find but there was long conversation about the police accessing Raf's computer and going to a movie, Stardust IIRC, which wiped out the previous access time. No one thought it was intentional just more crack work by the PP.

ETA- View from Wilmington - The last undisputed computer interaction is at 9:08 and the last disputed one was at 9:26 in the first trial. However, Raffaele’s screensaver log file indicates usage of his computer much later than this. The police inadvertently lost meta-data such as the time at which the Stardust file was accessed, data that might have given Amanda and Raffaele a more complete alibi.

Seattle PI Specifically, a computer engineer who analyzed Sollecito's computer and Internet provider records testified that his review indicated someone navigated on Sollecito's computer while he and Knox were being questioned by police. Specifically, the computer revealed that the movie "Stardust" had been downloaded, and then a few hours later, at 1 a.m. and 2:47 a.m., someone surfed the Web twice and viewed a story about Kercher's killing on the Italian wire service news agency ANSA.

 

[RoseMontague]

This would be shocking, and "game over" as far as intentional framing goes. Is this documented anywhere? Does anyone know?

It was documented (IIRC) in the RS computer supplement delivered to the Hellmann court. My recollection this report was ruled have been submitted too late for consideration. Something like 140 files or so overwritten from what I remember. There may have been mention of this in the last minute requests for additional testing/investigation made to the Massei court as well (that were all denied).

 

[Strozzi]

Not worth it to me to find but there was long conversation about the police accessing Raf's computer and going to a movie, Stardust IIRC, which wiped out the previous access time. No one thought it was intentional just more crack work by the PP.

ETA- View from Wilmington - The last undisputed computer interaction is at 9:08 and the last disputed one was at 9:26 in the first trial. However, Raffaele’s screensaver log file indicates usage of his computer much later than this. The police inadvertently lost meta-data such as the time at which the Stardust file was accessed, data that might have given Amanda and Raffaele a more complete alibi.

Seattle PI Specifically, a computer engineer who analyzed Sollecito's computer and Internet provider records testified that his review indicated someone navigated on Sollecito's computer while he and Knox were being questioned by police. Specifically, the computer revealed that the movie "Stardust" had been downloaded, and then a few hours later, at 1 a.m. and 2:47 a.m., someone surfed the Web twice and viewed a story about Kercher's killing on the Italian wire service news agency ANSA.[/I]

So the perpetrator who surreptitiously entered Raffaele's flat while Raffaele was being interrogated at police headquarters specifically looked at an Italian wire service article about the Kercher murder. That suggests the perpetrator was following breaking news about the murder. Kind of suggests the perpetrator wasn't just a random intruder. Lucky for him he got out of there before Officer Finzi and team showed up shortly thereafter!

Finzi and his teammates probably used department-issued cell phones. I wonder if their monthly cell phone bills /records are still available in government archives or the carrier's archives. It would be interesting to see what other police phones they called as they were leaving police headquarters shortly after 2 am for Raf's place. Wonder if the records show which cell towers carried the signal? Maybe one serving Raf's building?

 

[Kaosium]

This would be shocking, and "game over" as far as intentional framing goes. Is this documented anywhere? Does anyone know?

Massei, p. 308-310, which I put in a spoiler box below. Note that this computer was not fried, it's Raffaele's sister's which was the one he was using the night of the murder, the damage done to this computer was due (mainly) to the 'last access data' being overwritten.

THE TECHNICAL REPORT FROM THE SOLLECITO DEFENCE TEAM CONSULTANTS

The Sollecito Defence Team consultants, Dr Michele Gigli and Dr Antonio D’Ambrosio (this latter was cross-examined in the 26-Sep-2009 hearing) are of the contrary view, with respect to the analysis carried out by the Postal Police, in reference to the possibility that there was human interaction with the Web in the time period with which we are concerned.
The consultants had available to them a copy of the magnetic hardware [i.e., the hard drive] from the Apple MACKBOOKPRO computer obtained by the Postal Police using the Encase software; they used another copy for carrying out their investigations, and they analysed the log files furnished by the company Fastweb.

The Defence [team] had entrusted them with the task of verifying whether there had been interactions on specific days and in specific time periods, [and] having relevance, with reference to the time period between 22:00 and 05:00 on 1-2 November 2007.

The result of their analysis led them to the following conclusions.
Starting with the data according to which the Fastweb log files under heading "L" of the report (traffic extraction concerning port 80-http-) show 4 seconds of connection to Apple’s international site (from 00:58:50 to 00:58:53) the following reconstruction was provided:
It is claimed that at around 00:58, while the user was probably launching a multimedia file with the Quick Time application (or alternatively with the iTunes application to listen to some music), this software, on opening, contacted Apple’s server.

At this point, the opening of an ad-type window occurred (a list of multimedia files sold by Apple) after which this "window," coming directly from Apple, was closed (due to a lack of interest by the user, one might say).

All of this left traces in the log files (cf. the related "L" cited, where the evidencing [of this] is reported) and not in the computer hardware, with respect to which Sollecito’s consultants agree fully with the investigation carried out by the Postal Police using the Encase system, which provides, as has been noted, the time of last access to the "Amelie" video file launched in the late afternoon of the 1st November 2007.

The human interaction with the Apple server would be limited to the four seconds reported in the log files, without explaining [che sia dato sapere] what the user did immediately afterwards, and whether or not a video or music file was watched or listened to.

The uncertainty surrounding the "afterwards" depends on a loss of data connected with the P2P sharing that Raffaele Sollecito had with the Internet.
For example, it was explained, it has been positively confirmed that in the afternoon of 1-Nov-2007, the download completed for the multimedia file ‚Stardust‛ that the user had requested from the Internet using the P2P system.

The files requested were six in number (those in the Stardust series), where the user had played the first three downloads, evidently of good quality, so as to cancel the download of the further copies.

But the Stardust files remained on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer in a folder shared with the Internet, such that, for these, a "last access" occurred right on the night of 6Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questura [Police Headquarters].

The fact that the Encase system registers a "last modified" entry during the night of 6-Nov-2007 for the Stardust files constitutes the confirmation that there has been a loss of data.

It can be said, indeed, when there was a last access, but the information of when the file was previously launched has been lost.
Bringing the Giglio-d'Ambrosio report into the framework of the present case, it is possible to draw the following conclusions.

In the abstract, it can be hypothesised that a viewing of the Stardust file (and others as well) downloaded from the Internet and shared with the Internet, could have been launched even after 22:00 of the 1-Nov-2007. In fact, no one will ever know if this actually occurred, as the Encase system supplies the information limited to the last access, where the access in question is not even referable to the computer user but [can be referred] to anyone at all around the world [quisque de populo] with a P2P program requesting the sharing of the files from the dedicated folder on Sollecito’s computer.

Whether the file was actually played or not must remain in the world of hypothesis, where in any case the so-called file launch (of which Encase supplies the last access to) could have taken place, still in the abstract, in the succeeding days, up until the late afternoon of 5 November when Raffaele and Amanda went to the Questura, not necessarily having had to occur right in the final hours of 1-November-2007.

The only certain data that comes out of the Giglio-D’Ambrosio report is of that four second interaction with the Apple server, caused by the opening of the http://www.apple.com website home page (a secondary hypothesis made by the technical consultants): equivalent to an intention to browse the Internet followed by an immediate renunciation or else by the closing of an ad-type window generated directly by Apple, which the Quick Time application (or else iTunes) had, according to reconstruction by the consultants, opened.

Nonetheless, it is possible to infer from the technical report that the opening of the so-called window is something absolutely tied with launching the Quick Time application, which allows the playing of a film, independently of any confirmation of whether the playing then took place, and at what time.
And so, the certainty that is reached is limited to the fact that, at most, starting from 00:58 on 2 November a certain use of the computer was made, where however its usage in the preceding hours can only be ascertained by a crystal ball.

In conclusion, [the Court] takes note that around 1am on the night of 2-Nov-2007, Raffaele Sollecito could have found himself in front of the computer; in the opinion of the Court, the time thus mentioned is however after the hour of Meredith Kercher’s death and nothing prevents the holding that Amanda and Raffaele could have, at that hour, returned home again, after the murder [a cose fatte], to the apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

windowserver dot log

Computer enthusiasts might find the following link to be helpful. It may be tangential to the present discussion, but I think it has some relevance. I am not knowledgeable in this area, but the writer knows about computer forensics and sounds critical of the prosecution's work.

 

[carbonjam72]

It was documented (IIRC) in the RS computer supplement delivered to the Hellmann court. My recollection this report was ruled have been submitted too late for consideration. Something like 140 files or so overwritten from what I remember. There may have been mention of this in the last minute requests for additional testing/investigation made to the Massei court as well (that were all denied).

Probably the most remarkable feature of the case for me is the request for examination of exculpatory evidence being denied by judges, and then followed by convictions of "guilt beyond reasonable doubt".

It's like they very deliberately do not want to know the truth that their police are corrupt. It shows an very deliberate effort to protect the authorities from allegations of wrongdoing, even to the point of allowing wrongful convictions.

Not even Hellman was willing to turn over that rock. It shows how deep the problem runs.

 

[Numbers]

Probably the most remarkable feature of the case for me is the request for examination of exculpatory evidence being denied by judges, and then followed by convictions of "guilt beyond reasonable doubt".

It's like they very deliberately do not want to know the truth that their police are corrupt. It shows an very deliberate effort to protect the authorities from allegations of wrongdoing, even to the point of allowing wrongful convictions.

Not even Hellman wasn't willing to turn over that rock. It shows how deep the problem runs.

IMO, the Hellmann court conviction of Amanda for calunnia was to prevent any criminal charges being brought against the police for their actions during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation.

 

[carbonjam72]

Where will an Italian investigation of Kercher case focus?

Massei, p. 308-310, which I put in a spoiler box below. Note that this computer was not fried, it's Raffaele's sister's which was the one he was using the night of the murder, the damage done to this computer was due (mainly) to the 'last access data' being overwritten.

THE TECHNICAL REPORT FROM THE SOLLECITO DEFENCE TEAM CONSULTANTS

The Sollecito Defence Team consultants, Dr Michele Gigli and Dr Antonio D’Ambrosio (this latter was cross-examined in the 26-Sep-2009 hearing) are of the contrary view, with respect to the analysis carried out by the Postal Police, in reference to the possibility that there was human interaction with the Web in the time period with which we are concerned.
The consultants had available to them a copy of the magnetic hardware [i.e., the hard drive] from the Apple MACKBOOKPRO computer obtained by the Postal Police using the Encase software; they used another copy for carrying out their investigations, and they analysed the log files furnished by the company Fastweb.

The Defence [team] had entrusted them with the task of verifying whether there had been interactions on specific days and in specific time periods, [and] having relevance, with reference to the time period between 22:00 and 05:00 on 1-2 November 2007.

The result of their analysis led them to the following conclusions.
Starting with the data according to which the Fastweb log files under heading "L" of the report (traffic extraction concerning port 80-http-) show 4 seconds of connection to Apple’s international site (from 00:58:50 to 00:58:53) the following reconstruction was provided:
It is claimed that at around 00:58, while the user was probably launching a multimedia file with the Quick Time application (or alternatively with the iTunes application to listen to some music), this software, on opening, contacted Apple’s server.

At this point, the opening of an ad-type window occurred (a list of multimedia files sold by Apple) after which this "window," coming directly from Apple, was closed (due to a lack of interest by the user, one might say).

All of this left traces in the log files (cf. the related "L" cited, where the evidencing [of this] is reported) and not in the computer hardware, with respect to which Sollecito’s consultants agree fully with the investigation carried out by the Postal Police using the Encase system, which provides, as has been noted, the time of last access to the "Amelie" video file launched in the late afternoon of the 1st November 2007.

The human interaction with the Apple server would be limited to the four seconds reported in the log files, without explaining [che sia dato sapere] what the user did immediately afterwards, and whether or not a video or music file was watched or listened to.

The uncertainty surrounding the "afterwards" depends on a loss of data connected with the P2P sharing that Raffaele Sollecito had with the Internet.
For example, it was explained, it has been positively confirmed that in the afternoon of 1-Nov-2007, the download completed for the multimedia file ‚Stardust‛ that the user had requested from the Internet using the P2P system.

The files requested were six in number (those in the Stardust series), where the user had played the first three downloads, evidently of good quality, so as to cancel the download of the further copies.

But the Stardust files remained on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer in a folder shared with the Internet, such that, for these, a "last access" occurred right on the night of 6Nov-2007, at 02:47, during the time period in which Raffaele and Amanda were being held in the Questura [Police Headquarters].

The fact that the Encase system registers a "last modified" entry during the night of 6-Nov-2007 for the Stardust files constitutes the confirmation that there has been a loss of data.

It can be said, indeed, when there was a last access, but the information of when the file was previously launched has been lost.
Bringing the Giglio-d'Ambrosio report into the framework of the present case, it is possible to draw the following conclusions.

In the abstract, it can be hypothesised that a viewing of the Stardust file (and others as well) downloaded from the Internet and shared with the Internet, could have been launched even after 22:00 of the 1-Nov-2007. In fact, no one will ever know if this actually occurred, as the Encase system supplies the information limited to the last access, where the access in question is not even referable to the computer user but [can be referred] to anyone at all around the world [quisque de populo] with a P2P program requesting the sharing of the files from the dedicated folder on Sollecito’s computer.

Whether the file was actually played or not must remain in the world of hypothesis, where in any case the so-called file launch (of which Encase supplies the last access to) could have taken place, still in the abstract, in the succeeding days, up until the late afternoon of 5 November when Raffaele and Amanda went to the Questura, not necessarily having had to occur right in the final hours of 1-November-2007.

The only certain data that comes out of the Giglio-D’Ambrosio report is of that four second interaction with the Apple server, caused by the opening of the http://www.apple.com website home page (a secondary hypothesis made by the technical consultants): equivalent to an intention to browse the Internet followed by an immediate renunciation or else by the closing of an ad-type window generated directly by Apple, which the Quick Time application (or else iTunes) had, according to reconstruction by the consultants, opened.

Nonetheless, it is possible to infer from the technical report that the opening of the so-called window is something absolutely tied with launching the Quick Time application, which allows the playing of a film, independently of any confirmation of whether the playing then took place, and at what time.
And so, the certainty that is reached is limited to the fact that, at most, starting from 00:58 on 2 November a certain use of the computer was made, where however its usage in the preceding hours can only be ascertained by a crystal ball.

In conclusion, [the Court] takes note that around 1am on the night of 2-Nov-2007, Raffaele Sollecito could have found himself in front of the computer; in the opinion of the Court, the time thus mentioned is however after the hour of Meredith Kercher’s death and nothing prevents the holding that Amanda and Raffaele could have, at that hour, returned home again, after the murder [a cose fatte], to the apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30.

In conclusion, [the Court] takes note that around 1am on the night of 2-Nov-2007, Raffaele Sollecito could have found himself in front of the computer; in the opinion of the Court, the time thus mentioned is however after the hour of Meredith Kercher’s death and nothing prevents the holding that Amanda and Raffaele could have, at that hour, returned home again, after the murder [a cose fatte], to the apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30.

Thanks Kaosi and Chris,

These references to computer analysis are great.

btw, the highlighted from Massei, shows the presumption of guilt, not the presumption of innocence. Obviously Raf being in front of his computer at 1am on Nov 2 2007, is also wholly consistent with Amanda and Raf never having left their apartment. Yet Massei insists since it is theoretically possible they might have committed the murder and returned home, it is therefore acceptable for the Massei court to conclude that is beyond reasonable doubt what did happen.

The sickness of these idiot judges goes way past group think, IUAM.

Anyway, I fully expect that the early investigation, and the court processes, are now falling under investigation in search of scapegoats.

I believe the destruction of the computers, ie, exculpatory evidence, will be one area of focus. Because its an easy way to blame a low level employee for the grand fiasco - if only they had done their job right.

So here is my guess for the focus of a review of the Kercher case which I expect is already underway:

Destruction of computers (exculpatory evidence)-
Crime scene investigation & evidence collection -
Stef's magical lab results and suppressed data-
Unwarranted Investigatory assumptions (Break-in was staged) -
Refusal to test evidence as requested, or should have been by common sense (semen stain, window glass, downstairs lab results) -
Use of Tramp and unreliable witnesses -
The Interrogation (where's the recording) and Interpreter's influence -
Biscotti's representation of Rudy Guede in Germany (who paid, was he sent?)

 

[carbonjam72]

'Burning Man'?

IMO, the Hellmann court conviction of Amanda for calunnia was to prevent any criminal charges being brought against the police for their actions during the Nov. 5/6, 2007 interrogation.

I agree. And tossing a bone to cassation so they could confirm without anyone complaining Amanda had spent time in jail unjustly.

Totally about saving face, and a denial of justice. But I think it shows the constraints Hellman faced. Hellman discussing his being ostracized after the acquittals, is chilling really.

You ever see the movie, I think its called 'Burning Man'? A policeman comes to investigate a crime on an island where the locals practice an ancient pagan festival, that involves burning alive inside a giant strawman effigy the visitors they have lured to the Island?

Feels like the Perugia story. On the surface, its all chocolates, jazz and renaissance art. Underneath, a medieval superstitious witch hunting populace lusting for victims, while barely and reluctantly modern in thought and actions.

 

[carbonjam72]

Who will play Mignini?

I agree. And tossing a bone to cassation so they could confirm without anyone complaining Amanda had spent time in jail unjustly.

Totally about saving face, and a denial of justice. But I think it shows the constraints Hellman faced. Hellman discussing his being ostracized after the acquittals, is chilling really.

You ever see the movie, I think its called 'Burning Man'? A policeman comes to investigate a crime on an island where the locals practice an ancient pagan festival, that involves burning alive inside a giant strawman effigy the visitors they have lured to the Island?

Feels like the Perugia story. On the surface, its all chocolates, jazz and renaissance art. Underneath, a medieval superstitious witch hunting populace lusting for victims, while barely and reluctantly modern in thought and actions.

Speaking of which - my new casting choice to play Mignini in George Clooney's Monster of Florence movie: Nathan Lane.

 

[Bill Williams]

Speaking of which - my new casting choice to play Mignini in George Clooney's Monster of Florence movie: Nathan Lane.

James Woods has to be in the cast somewhere....

 

[carbonjam72]

James Woods has to be in the cast somewhere....

Curatolo?

 

[Bill Williams]

Curatolo?

I'm holding out for Rooney Mara to play Frank Sfarzo.