Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

IIRC, Charlie has all of this and a great deal more on his wiki. I've forgotten the precise details. He did have much detailed documents about what happened to the drives. I contributed a tiny bit including photos and manuals of the device that was used to clone the drive images for forensic examination.
I seem to recall that it was 4 drives that were damaged but really only 3 that might have mattered. We joked at the time that Filomena running back into the cottage to retrieve her laptop was a smart thing or the idiot tech would have destroyed hers as well,

Sorry I'm not being of more help Grinder in your search.

The police confiscated Filomena's computer within a day or two and damaged her's as well, but the data was also recovered. I think I read that her's had a problem when the police got a hold of it. I really don't know why they had to look at hers and not Laura's or all the boys' downstairs or the british girls. Now they should have checked it for prints and maybe DNA but why the contents?

Thanks for your efforts. I think it is clear that really still people of the mind that the computers were destroyed in terms of recovering the data.

To be clear it isn't a big deal in terms of guilt or innocence I just think it is interesting what things on both sides were allowed to be wrong when they could have been corrected early on.

 

[Grinder]

Or as Marasca-Bruno put it in Section 4 of their report, a section the English-language guilters never quote, but a section that now holds sway in Italy....

​

Lo and behold, what does the Marasca-Bruno report actually do in Sections 9.2/9.3? They actually do try to assemble that "Intrinsically contradictory" synoptic almagam of the "even-ifs" contained in the intrinsically contradictory oscillations in this case. English-language guilters then take that section (9.4ff) as if it was the conclusion of the report.

Even the "sole certainty" mentioned in the first paragraph, Knox's guilt in relation to Lumumba, is starting to fall apart. Cf. Mignini being censured by his peers for denial of counsel to suspects/arrestees.

None of this is very funny.

And I thought Mignini was censured for not following the law having to do with holding Raf in jail after arrest without allowing him to see a lawyer.

I didn't know it had anything to do with the interrogations and in particular the one of Amanda.

You see we learn new facts every day.

 

[Bill Williams]

And I thought Mignini was censured for not following the law having to do with holding Raf in jail after arrest without allowing him to see a lawyer.

I didn't know it had anything to do with the interrogations and in particular the one of Amanda.

You see we learn new facts every day.

Only peripherally, young lad, only peripherally. Yet the lawyers representing the pair in the lifetime of professional and ECHR hearings to come have tucked the text of the first censure into the front folder of their briefcase.

The house that Mignini built....

 

[acbytesla]

The police confiscated Filomena's computer within a day or two and damaged her's as well, but the data was also recovered. I think I read that her's had a problem when the police got a hold of it. I really don't know why they had to look at hers and not Laura's or all the boys' downstairs or the british girls. Now they should have checked it for prints and maybe DNA but why the contents?

Thanks for your efforts. I think it is clear that really still people of the mind that the computers were destroyed in terms of recovering the data.

To be clear it isn't a big deal in terms of guilt or innocence I just think it is interesting what things on both sides were allowed to be wrong when they could have been corrected early on.

is it? I'm not really sure I agree with this conclusion. The drive that they failed to recover the data from was Amanda's. As has been said, what if there are time stamps that show user activity from 9 pm to 3 am?

No offense Grinder, but I find it amusing that you are interested in the drives now. There was a time when nothing interested me more about this case. As I mentioned, I was convinced of foul play. This kind of thing just doesn't happen. It's unheard of really. As an IT broker, I bought probably 10, 000 used computers or more during the years that I worked there. I also bought every kind of datacom equipment imaginable. We had a staff of techs who's job was to test and disassemble those computers into parts. We then sold the parts or totally reconfigured systems. Drives did fail, but rarely. Something had to be very wrong for a tech to pull the drives from 4 previously functioning computers and all of a sudden they don't work. In my mind it HAD to be sabotage. I think Charlie talked me out of that way of thinking. But it took some investigation and discussion to get me to change my mind.

Charlie or Dan (it's been a long time) explained to me the different connectors and power differences between the notebook drives and desktop. My background is much more focused on servers, data center gear and high end UNIX workstations (much better margins)

He said that it was hooked up wrong to the power. This seemed very unlikely since the plugs and receptacles are always keyed so this is impossible. It was only after some investigation of the cloning equipment that we decided that it might be possible.

And then I didn't really care much about it. The drives probably wasn't part of the plot to frame Amanda and Raffaele, just a case of really bad luck and massive stupidity.

 

[Grinder]

is it? I'm not really sure I agree with this conclusion. The drive that they failed to recover the data from was Amanda's. As has been said, what if there are time stamps that show user activity from 9 pm to 3 am?

What is not important is the fact that people thought all the disks were fried and not retrieved. Since Amanda never said she was on her computer, your point is specious.

No offense Grinder, but I find it amusing that you are interested in the drives now. There was a time when nothing interested me more about this case. As I mentioned, I was convinced of foul play. This kind of thing just doesn't happen. It's unheard of really. As an IT broker, I bought probably 10, 000 used computers or more during the years that I worked there. I also bought every kind of datacom equipment imaginable. We had a staff of techs who's job was to test and disassemble those computers into parts. We then sold the parts or totally reconfigured systems. Drives did fail, but rarely. Something had to be very wrong for a tech to pull the drives from 4 previously functioning computers and all of a sudden they don't work. In my mind it HAD to be sabotage. I think Charlie talked me out of that way of thinking. But it took some investigation and discussion to get me to change my mind.

Well I looked at the issue back in 2008 but what you keep missing is that the drives' data was recovered except for Amanda's but people didn't know that as I have demonstrated through quotes from a lot of sources including CD and NB in their books published years after the defense expert's report.

Charlie or Dan (it's been a long time) explained to me the different connectors and power differences between the notebook drives and desktop. My background is much more focused on servers, data center gear and high end UNIX workstations (much better margins)

Once again, while the technical aspects may be of great interest that is not what I've been talking about. When the crime had just occurred as demonstrated by the Van Sandt article from Dec. of 2007, it was known that the drives had been damaged and "beyond repair". It was only three months later in March of 2008 that the report came out that two of three had been recovered. But years later people were still of the mind that they not yielded their data, but it appears they had.

And then I didn't really care much about it. The drives probably wasn't part of the plot to frame Amanda and Raffaele, just a case of really bad luck and massive stupidity.

Ah yes the plot to frame.

 

[acbytesla]

What is not important is the fact that people thought all the disks were fried and not retrieved. Since Amanda never said she was on her computer, your point is specious.

Ah yes the plot to frame.

What if Amanda was wrong? And her memory was faulty about that evening? Maybe she jumped on her computer for a moment or two and just forgot? Not saying that happened, but what if? I'm on mine all the time, it's almost unconscious thing with me. Also Amanda and Raffaele consumed cannabis that evening. It can effect memory.

I get point you are trying to make. I really do. You're saying that members of the PIP exaggerated or omitted the salient point that almost all the data was recovered. Personally, I find the total ineptitude of the investigators and techs more interesting.

I DON'T believe the frying of the 4 drives was part of a plot to frame Amanda...but I did. I saw a movie and TV episode recently that had similar plots. A sniper shoots 5 different people in what looks like a crazed gunman killing random people without motive. But actually only 4 of the victims were random. One was deliberate. The other 4 was killed to hide the fact that it was a premeditated murder.

Could they have fried 4 drives accidently to hide the fact that that they were deliberately sabotaging a single drive?

 

[Desert Fox]

In many cases, it hard to say. . . .For example, evidence that would exonerate some of the parents with the Kern County child abuse cases just happened to disappear only to be found in the boxes of a retired police officer.

 

[Grinder]

What if Amanda was wrong? And her memory was faulty about that evening? Maybe she jumped on her computer for a moment or two and just forgot? Not saying that happened, but what if? I'm on mine all the time, it's almost unconscious thing with me. Also Amanda and Raffaele consumed cannabis that evening. It can effect memory.

I'm sure you forget many things Look it is a big stretch to suggest that because she ws stone she forgot she was on her computer. If they did find a history of her on the computer but not online, what exact time would give her an alibi? There really is no time that would suffice unless it was for hours between 9:30 and 11:30, hell the PGP don't accept Curatolo for an alibi for those hours or if they do they just say she was killed later.

I get point you are trying to make. I really do. You're saying that members of the PIP exaggerated or omitted the salient point that almost all the data was recovered. Personally, I find the total ineptitude of the investigators and techs more interesting.

If that is more interesting to you that's more interesting to you. I'm only trying to explain what interest i having in this not implying that it is more interesting.

I'm not actually pointing fingers per se but first off just saying that I'm amazed that the report of defense expert in 3-2008 should have put an end to the idea that 3 computers couldn't be recovered. I don't know when the report went public but certainly by the end of 2009 yet someone like myself that followed daily never heard of it and authors close to the defense didn't know about it. Now there certainly were people that could have let us know, but that's not my focus.

I DON'T believe the frying of the 4 drives was part of a plot to frame Amanda...but I did. I saw a movie and TV episode recently that had similar plots. A sniper shoots 5 different people in what looks like a crazed gunman killing random people without motive. But actually only 4 of the victims were random. One was deliberate. The other 4 was killed to hide the fact that it was a premeditated murder.

Could they have fried 4 drives accidently to hide the fact that that they were deliberately sabotaging a single drive?

I suppose but that would imply that something really exonerating was on it which Amanda has never claimed and that the technicians have all kept their mouths shut. I think it more likely Meredith was the one killed to hide the fact the killer had another target.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm sure you forget many things Look it is a big stretch to suggest that because she ws stone she forgot she was on her computer. If they did find a history of her on the computer but not online, what exact time would give her an alibi? There really is no time that would suffice unless it was for hours between 9:30 and 11:30, hell the PGP don't accept Curatolo for an alibi for those hours or if they do they just say she was killed later.

I actually agree with all this. Especially the part about the PGP. It's also why you have to say the judges decision of not pursuing recovery of Amanda's data as its not likely to provide any valuable datat.

I suppose but that would imply that something really exonerating was on it which Amanda has never claimed and that the technicians have all kept their mouths shut. I think it more likely Meredith was the one killed to hide the fact the killer had another target.

I was just screwing with you on that point...sorry.

 

[Grinder]

I actually agree with all this. Especially the part about the PGP. It's also why you have to say the judges decision of not pursuing recovery of Amanda's data as its not likely to provide any valuable datat.

Yes, but it is funny such a small request was denied. It is like the stain, why not test it? Now if the defense had asked for the entire house to be swabbed and DNA tested for LCN levels, there would be good reason not to allow it.

I was just screwing with you on that point...sorry.

Tesla I was just pushing back In the grand scheme of things, if the PLE had come up with that theory of the murder it might have been more believable.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, but it is funny such a small request was denied. It is like the stain, why not test it? Now if the defense had asked for the entire house to be swabbed and DNA tested for LCN levels, there would be good reason not to allow it.

A thousand dollars here, a thousand dollars there. Pretty soon we're talking about some serious money.

Tesla I was just pushing back In the grand scheme of things, if the PLE had come up with that theory of the murder it might have been more believable.

If the PLE had done a lot of things.

 

[JREF2010]

This seemed very unlikely since the plugs and receptacles are always keyed so this is impossible.

It was always a big deal to me, because Ive done harddrives too and to fry several was sketchy. In a homicide case with "experts" was shocking. I recall someone posting the pictures and detailed info too.

Anyway I looked for a long time, and I cant find the small piece. It was the house arrest, as I recall, a transcript piece that included a defense statement request, then the judge responding (translated). I might look some more, for my own peace, mystery in all this.

The first mentioning of the burnt hard drives is 2007-2008, so what I was looking for might have been Matteini after all, with the house arrest hearing transcript, but there was also the Judge Ricciarelli court and a SC court too. Id forgotten about, and a Supreme Court and Riciaelli all happening before Micheli. What I was searching for was before Micheli. So that puts some time stamp on it.

The only transcripts I could find was Matteini's Summary (not the full hearing ) and the Report, which didnt include the hardrive banter. 'Im believing now it was Matteini who denied the requests as the Judge felt it wasnt important for the case, at that time. If anyone cares to help find it, I'm stumped now!

Hard-drive data recovered-
Beside not finding what I was looking for, the most interesting and detailed piece I stumbled across was what Grinder mentioned already. The recovery of the two drives and only Amandas was totally impossible to recover, by three very credible companies. Seems odd No photos were leaked to the press and nothing much seemed to have made an impact in any of the cases following the info.

It is odd, it was 2008? But its confusing, because in Raffaeles book, which is much later than 2008, he makes the statement "to this day I believe the computers data could have been the alibi"...which makes it sound like he doesnt consider the hard drive recovered? Surely Raffaele would know or accepts the data is all there or isnt?

Some links are gone..... 404 even PMF is short on 2007-2008 and other sites shutdown (Perugia Shock etc..)

ciao

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure the defense made much of Amanda's computer. They had much more important issues to deal with, for example the DNA. I couldn't really believe they were convicted and many on the defense side must of felt the same.

I appreciate that the frying of the BIOSs was a big deal and showed incompetence but not crucial evidence on the drives. IIRC there was much discussion that the defense asked too late (Old Mach).

 

[JREF2010]

"Critical" might be in the eyes of the beholder....

Defense did request it as an issue is what I was trying to find, though I forget why now?ha
But here Amandas Defence and its March 2008, os it was requested and discussed as compromised and the Defense did bring attention to it early.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/computer_consultant_report.pdf

 

[Grinder]

Oct. 2013 - Another false claim was that the police “destroyed three hard drives”. About this, I also pointed out that it was an incorrect assertion, actually the police damaged the drive control boards but they did not destroy the drives and their contents, and in fact they had actually recovered the content of two of them.
What I said can be checked in the documentation:
Originally Posted by defence computer expert report
(..) Following authorisation from the Preliminary Investigative Judge, the three disks have been sent to the Italian head office of the Krollontrak company http://www.krollontrack.com, to proceed with the recovery.
(…)
Following notification from Prof Bernaschi, concerning the arrival of the three disks, after activity at the Krollontrak company, a new meeting had been advised to verify the recovery of the data on the three disks the subject of expert examination.
The two disks belonging to R Sollecito’s computer and Meredith Kercher’s Apple computer, the Fujitsu and the Hitachi, have been recovered, in terms of their contents, following activity at the Krollontrak company, then furnished to Prof Bernaschi, while the attempt at recovering data from the Toshiba disk belonging to Miss Amanda Knox’s computer had not been possible (…)
However you probably go on believing this false claim. You probably believed Sollecito’s when lied in his book about this, suggesting that the police destroyed the hard drive content of his Asus laptop, and thus complained that by doing this they “destroyed the evidence that would exculpate him”: in fact, the drive was recovered, the content was entirely saved, copied, analysed and there was just no evidence of his alibi inside it.

Well he had some stuff right

 

[Grinder]

"Critical" might be in the eyes of the beholder....

Defense did request it as an issue is what I was trying to find, though I forget why now?ha
But here Amandas Defence and its March 2008, os it was requested and discussed as compromised and the Defense did bring attention to it early.
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/computer_consultant_report.pdf

I went to the Italian link and then Bing translator but I don't see a request for further testing that was denied. It is long. On what page do they make a request to a judge?

 

[Desert Fox]

I have talked to a number of people in cyber security and they do have trouble believing that the frying of the hard drives actually happened on purpose.

 

[Grinder]

I have talked to a number of people in cyber security and they do have trouble believing that the frying of the hard drives actually happened on purpose.

Why would they have fried all of them? What would have been the motive to fry any of them except Raf's? Raf's was the key machine yet most if not all data was retrieved. I'm sure they could have toasted his so that nothing could be recovered.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why would they have fried all of them? What would have been the motive to fry any of them except Raf's? Raf's was the key machine yet most if not all data was retrieved. I'm sure they could have toasted his so that nothing could be recovered.

Look, all I am telling you is what answer I got when I asked. Maybe they are wrong but assuming that they are right, motive does not really matter. Often when we have crimes, motive does not matter if we have evidence they committed the crime.

 

[JREF2010]

Why would they have fried all of them? What would have been the motive to fry any of them except Raf's? Raf's was the key machine yet most if not all data was retrieved. I'm sure they could have toasted his so that nothing could be recovered.

You remove the alibi, you destroy the defence case, you ruin the pictures of Amanda and Merdith smiling together in pictures at the Chocalte Event...

The pc's as Raffaeles alibi is discussed in great length in Judge Ricciarelli's report.
Alot of critical timestamps attributed to cell phones and internet times.

Eye witness's left off at 8:40pm, Popovic stops by Raffaels and sees Amanda.
Across town Sophie sees Meredith leave her at 8:55pm or so..