Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[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.

If you were an honest expert. You burnup one hard drive. Would you continue doing others, a second also burned up, then another?
come on...

This is the same group leaking sex lists with Aids scare tactics....

Maybe they wanted to destroy Raffales and they didnt get the job done right?
ha

Remember it wasnt the police experts who recovered anything....it was a independent party, like C&V with the DNA.
For all we know the Flying Squad and Prosecution team never thought it would get recovered.
Maybe they destroy hard drives all the time, and the judges dont allow recovery expenses.?

 

[JREF2010]

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?

Im still looking a little bit, getting distracted reading other articles.
But the timeframe is being focused. Its pre-Feb 2008 at least.

Frank Sfarzo had a piece on the polizia prosecution team surfing the internet on Raffaeles pc while Raff was in prison, so we know that erased some temp-data, but on purpose? whose to know?

 

[bagels]

The local police were pretty fishy. Everyone seems to forget they dug up a witness against Patrick proving his bar was shut down the whole night during the murder.

With that being said there was no computer alibi so it didn't matter in the end.

 

[acbytesla]

If you were an honest expert. You burnup one hard drive. Would you continue doing others, a second also burned up, then another? come on... This is the same group leaking sex lists with Aids scare tactics....

Maybe they wanted to destroy Raffales and they didnt get the job done right?
ha

Remember it wasnt the police experts who recovered anything....it was a independent party, like C&V with the DNA.
For all we know the Flying Squad and Prosecution team never thought it would get recovered.
Maybe they destroy hard drives all the time, and the judges dont allow recovery expenses.?

I hate making this point but I think I must. It's kind of what is wrong with the expression "fried" when discussing the drives. What do you think happens to a circuit board when it is expecting 3.3 volts and you give it 5 volts? Also, it's important to remember that the amperage is pretty low. Probably the tech plugged one drive to the device and unbeknownst to him the overvoltage damaged the board. From his perspective the first drive is bad. So he connects the second drive and again he gets nothing and so on. There is an assumption maybe from that description "fried" that the drive started smoking or there was a spark or fash. But in fact, he probably had no idea that his procedure was the cause.

 

[Grinder]

I hate making this point but I think I must. It's kind of what is wrong with the expression "fried" when discussing the drives. What do you think happens to a circuit board when it is expecting 3.3 volts and you give it 5 volts? Also, it's important to remember that the amperage is pretty low. Probably the tech plugged one drive to the device and unbeknownst to him the overvoltage damaged the board. From his perspective the first drive is bad. So he connects the second drive and again he gets nothing and so on. There is an assumption maybe from that description "fried" that the drive started smoking or there was a spark or fash. But in fact, he probably had no idea that his procedure was the cause.

I had no intention on opening this debate again, my apologies. I've always defaulted to incompetence in this case. Whether it happened as you described or not I just don't see low level techs doing this on purpose and if they were competent and did it on purpose I think they could have ruin Raf's pretty easy.

Yes, a magnet can destroy the hard drive inside a PC, but you need a much stronger magnet than the type found attached to a refrigerator magnet.

Here’s a video of a Toshiba notebook being destroyed by a magnet. The magnet that caused the destruction is off a fishtank cleaner.​

It was known by December latest that the drives had problems. The PLE had recovered two of the machines' data by March 2008.

There is no doubt that the PIP either kept the drives were destroyed meme going for years after only one remained unread. Machiavelli said the defense asked too late which I suspect is technically true but it was dumb of the judge not to send to Toshiba except if they lost it then what?

 

[JREF2010]

Here it is.,,
Judge Ricciarelli was NOv 30,2007 and Matteini was June 2008 per Frank Sfarzo info , that was posted on PMF back in the earlier days...when everyone was a bit more undecided?

Matteini, Claudia to Amanda Knox

Part 3- The probatory incident on Knox's computer

Amanda

On January 21, 2008 Your Honor appointed an expert to retrieve all data from the hard drives; to create a clone of the single hard drive; and to assess all useful circumstances and determine the reason for the blockage that occurred.
The contents of the hard drive of my computer (as well as those of the other suspects) were not recovered.

Further data could be recovered if the manufacturer Toshiba were appointed, and I would request this because the data in question will further support my claim of non-involvement in any illegal activity.

Claudia
First of all, the test on your computer determined nothing --either in your favor or against you-- because the hard drive could not be recovered.

And the test did not yield an exact reason for the damage, although it is probable that it is attributable to an error in handling, as any intentional act is excluded.
Obviously, we are facing a totally neutral element with regard to the probatory picture, which therefore remains unchanged.

(it was a little different than I recalled, it was requesting Toshiba to go one step higher in technical expertise and Matteini denied it.....oh we;ll...I feel better now! ha)

 

[Grinder]

Here it is.,,
Judge Ricciarelli was NOv 30,2007 and Matteini was June 2008 per Frank Sfarzo info , that was posted on PMF back in the earlier days...when everyone was a bit more undecided?

Matteini, Claudia to Amanda Knox

Part 3- The probatory incident on Knox's computer

Amanda

On January 21, 2008 Your Honor appointed an expert to retrieve all data from the hard drives; to create a clone of the single hard drive; and to assess all useful circumstances and determine the reason for the blockage that occurred.
The contents of the hard drive of my computer (as well as those of the other suspects) were not recovered.

Further data could be recovered if the manufacturer Toshiba were appointed, and I would request this because the data in question will further support my claim of non-involvement in any illegal activity.

Claudia
First of all, the test on your computer determined nothing --either in your favor or against you-- because the hard drive could not be recovered.

And the test did not yield an exact reason for the damage, although it is probable that it is attributable to an error in handling, as any intentional act is excluded.
Obviously, we are facing a totally neutral element with regard to the probatory picture, which therefore remains unchanged.

(it was a little different than I recalled, it was requesting Toshiba to go one step higher in technical expertise and Matteini denied it.....oh we;ll...I feel better now! ha)

Nice work. I'm surprised at how fast this was done. If this is a request for a test and it certainly appears to be then Mach can't be right that they waited too long but perhaps that was only for the stain.

Thanks.

 

[Grinder]

Bill here is a snip of an Italian story referencing the kids. It seems to express some issue with the M&B verdict.

The Supreme Court may grant the application of the prosecution, asking to be recognized in the Stasi also aggravating crudentà. But since it can not independently retouch it, it should postpone the process back, once again, in front of new judges. Why coaster of Italian justice, and even more so after the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and everything can happen the other way around.

It seems they are saying this case should be sent back as per law but after the M&B verdict on the kids who knows.

http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/italia/2015/12/11/ASLY2Yj-garlasco_inchiodato_battaglia.shtml

So once again it is the clash between the prosecution and defense. With the latter supporting: there are twenty good reasons to absolve Stasi. But one is the main argument: it is not known when Clare died . And that hour, during the investigation and processes, has been moved and shaped on the needs of the prosecution, until it coincides with those 23 minutes 23 where Stasi missing an alibi.

In reality, that data is missing.
Otherwise it will be immediately available to the authorities, but immediately ask the retrial," glosses lawyer. The judgment will come in the morning and the case of Meredith, in Perugia, makes it clear that no prediction has now some credibility. It part of a sentence of 16 years. It is the result of the arithmetic of the sentence reduction for summary judgment. Become a custom in many murder trials. A penalty in half, leaving the public, beyond the technicalities, the feeling of justice unfinished. That, in the face of doubt, a conviction should get, but mitigated. Not so, but it seems.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill here is a snip of an Italian story referencing the kids. It seems to express some issue with the M&B verdict.

The Supreme Court may grant the application of the prosecution, asking to be recognized in the Stasi also aggravating crudentà. But since it can not independently retouch it, it should postpone the process back, once again, in front of new judges. Why coaster of Italian justice, and even more so after the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and everything can happen the other way around.

It seems they are saying this case should be sent back as per law but after the M&B verdict on the kids who knows.

http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/italia/2015/12/11/ASLY2Yj-garlasco_inchiodato_battaglia.shtml

So once again it is the clash between the prosecution and defense. With the latter supporting: there are twenty good reasons to absolve Stasi. But one is the main argument: it is not known when Clare died . And that hour, during the investigation and processes, has been moved and shaped on the needs of the prosecution, until it coincides with those 23 minutes 23 where Stasi missing an alibi.

In reality, that data is missing.
Otherwise it will be immediately available to the authorities, but immediately ask the retrial," glosses lawyer. The judgment will come in the morning and the case of Meredith, in Perugia, makes it clear that no prediction has now some credibility. It part of a sentence of 16 years. It is the result of the arithmetic of the sentence reduction for summary judgment. Become a custom in many murder trials. A penalty in half, leaving the public, beyond the technicalities, the feeling of justice unfinished. That, in the face of doubt, a conviction should get, but mitigated. Not so, but it seems.

Thanks for this, Grinder.

This just may be the first reference I've seen from Italy that the M&B report was somehow flawed. Yet, the Chrome translation I have seems to say something more nuanced..... seemed to be saying that the parallel between the Stasi case and the Perugian case is:

"His defenders say that the conditions of the sentence are destined to collapse, if the judges apply the same parameters: once again the scientific evidence is chaotic, contradictory and conflicting expert opinions, and above all there is no motive. Or maybe the story of the crime of Garlasco is not over yet. There is the option number three.

The Supreme Court may grant the application of the prosecution, asking to be recognized in the Stasi also aggravating crudentà. But since it can not independently retouch it, it should postpone the process back, once again, in front of new judges. Why coaster of Italian justice, and even more so after the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and everything can happen the other way around."​

If I'm reading this right, it is Stasi's defenders who are saying that ISC should simply settle this with an annulment, and it is the prosecution saying that it should be sent back to the Appeals Level for further fact-finding. The piece is saying that the ISC may grant this, not that it will grant this.

Where's the part which is calling into question M&B itself? All it seems to be saying is that the defence wants the Stasi case to go the way the Perugian case went, and the prosecution wants otherwise.

Agreed, it would be helpful to have a non-computer generated translation.

 

[acbytesla]

Thanks for this, Grinder.

This just may be the first reference I've seen from Italy that the M&B report was somehow flawed. Yet, the Chrome translation I have seems to say something more nuanced..... seemed to be saying that the parallel between the Stasi case and the Perugian case is:

"His defenders say that the conditions of the sentence are destined to collapse, if the judges apply the same parameters: once again the scientific evidence is chaotic, contradictory and conflicting expert opinions, and above all there is no motive. Or maybe the story of the crime of Garlasco is not over yet. There is the option number three.

The Supreme Court may grant the application of the prosecution, asking to be recognized in the Stasi also aggravating crudentà. But since it can not independently retouch it, it should postpone the process back, once again, in front of new judges. Why coaster of Italian justice, and even more so after the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and everything can happen the other way around."​

If I'm reading this right, it is Stasi's defenders who are saying that ISC should simply settle this with an annulment, and it is the prosecution saying that it should be sent back to the Appeals Level for further fact-finding. The piece is saying that the ISC may grant this, not that it will grant this.

Where's the part which is calling into question M&B itself? All it seems to be saying is that the defence wants the Stasi case to go the way the Perugian case went, and the prosecution wants otherwise.

Agreed, it would be helpful to have a non-computer generated translation.

I agree with you Bill. I don't think this article is criticizing the MB ruling just putting up the whole Kercher case up as an example.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree with you Bill. I don't think this article is criticizing the MB ruling just putting up the whole Kercher case up as an example.

Absolutely. It's saying that the prosecution are arguing that the most the SC can do is send the Stasi case back to the appeal level for retrial, but then it points out that after the ruling on the Knox/Sollecito case, it may be that the SC can annul everything and acquit Stasi on its own accord.

The key point here - and it's a point that Stasi's defence team is trying to make in his application to the SC - is that the SC really does have the power to end everything there and then IF the SC rules that the investigation was so botched that it's basically impossible for the defendants to receive a fair trial (and/or it's impossible ever to establish the key facts of the case).

 

[Annella]

Absolutely. It's saying that the prosecution are arguing that the most the SC can do is send the Stasi case back to the appeal level for retrial, but then it points out that after the ruling on the Knox/Sollecito case, it may be that the SC can annul everything and acquit Stasi on its own accord.

The key point here - and it's a point that Stasi's defence team is trying to make in his application to the SC - is that the SC really does have the power to end everything there and then IF the SC rules that the investigation was so botched that it's basically impossible for the defendants to receive a fair trial (and/or it's impossible ever to establish the key facts of the case).

Cassation has just confirmed the 16 yr sentence for Stasi.

 

[Vixen]

LJ
To sum it up; Mignini abused his authority to "punish the witch" and "cover Mignini butt"?

I doubt it.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, so he only lost face. No biggie, I guess (except in Italy).

Not much of an effort now for the ECtHR to follow suit and hold that Mignini and his henchman violated Knox's human rights. I mean, the talking point used to be that the ECtHR wouldn't want to embarrass Italy by making such a finding, but shoot, Italy itself just said the same thing. All the ECtHR has to say now is "we agree with what those Italian guys said". Easy peasy.

If Amanda failed to complain through the proper channels, as Raff appears to have done - and certainly her counsel told the court she was treated fine (in her Prison Diary, she brags of her luxurious conditions) - I can't see it would be enough to get the conviction overturned. It is obviously a retaliatory complaint for being caught red-handed committing a serious criminal offence and convicted bang to rights, damages to Patrick still unpaid.

 

[Planigale]

A story I heard sometime ago (I have no reference and no validation for this so I'll call this a Vixen fact), was that the postal police deliberately deleted some files from MK's laptop that they thought would be embarrassing for the family. Certainly a slightly odd feature is that there have never been any comments on MK's email. One might have expected some comments about her flat mates, boyfriends etc. which given the centrality of the relationship between AK and MK in the case.

Has anyone else heard this?

 

[Vixen]

Hahahah WHAT?!!

Firstly, who said anything about proportionality? That's a classic straw man. Are you not aware that someone might get sentenced to, say, three years in prison for perverting the course of justice, and another person might get sentenced to, say, 16 years in prison for murder? There's proper proportionality (and nobody's trying to equate murder with perversion of justice), yet both people will be spending some time in prison. Get it now?

Secondly, you clearly haven't noticed that this was not in relation to (what you choose to misleadingly term) "a clerical oversight by a dedicated professional". This was in relation to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and her various lies and obfuscations, which - if there's to be any justice - will result in charges related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice. Both of which are pretty serious criminal acts.

Thirdly, as you have been told, Mignini's act was not a "clerical oversight by a dedicated professional" (shades of Baghdad Bob here, methinks). Rather, his act in denying Sollecito access to a lawyer (using a totally improper application of a rule that should only ever be used in extraordinary circumstances where there's a real chance that the person seeing a lawyer could result in things like intimidation of witnesses or destruction of evidence), and then his lying to the arraignment court about whether or not he'd written a proper motivations report to justify the denial (he hadn't), and then his lying to the CSM disciplinary panel about whether he'd ever given the verbal order to the police to deny Sollecito access (he had), is not a "clerical oversight" but a systematic abuse of power and attempt to deceive and obstruct the investigation into it; and it's not the work of a "dedicated professional" but the work of a man who has - it would appear from the CSM findings - repeatedly abused his power and then lied to try to cover it up.

Speaking of "destruction of evidence", where is:

1. the bag of clothes, both Amanda and Raff refer to in the events of that morning, mysteriously missing.

2. Amanda's coat, that she had to borrow Raff's (see pic outside the house on a cold November morning)?

3. The ladies size 37 ASICS trainers, the imprint of which was found in Mez blood in the murder room?

4. The end of October pages in Amanda's diary?

Abuse of power by Mignini? I don't think so. He was always one step ahead of the perps. So he cut a corner by inadvertently omitting to put something in writing. However, there was no negative consequence for Raff as he had seen his attorney even before the arrest order was applied for. This is how we infer it was simply a clerical error.

 

[acbytesla]

If Amanda failed to complain through the proper channels, as Raff appears to have done - and certainly her counsel told the court she was treated fine (in her Prison Diary, she brags of her luxurious conditions) - I can't see it would be enough to get the conviction overturned. It is obviously a retaliatory complaint for being caught red-handed committing a serious criminal offence and convicted bang to rights, damages to Patrick still unpaid.

Well you can't see a lot of things. The ECHR is not Italy. It actually uses the same principles that are used in British and US courts of law.precedence and stare decisis rule the day so their decisions are much more predictable than Italy. This should be a slam dunk for Amanda's legal team.

 

[Vixen]

1) Who is suggesting that "murderers should roam free"?

2) Which "murderers" might you be referring to here? (hint: neither Knox nor Sollecito participated in the murder of Kercher, and both Knox and Sollecito have been acquitted - and are presumed innocent - by the Italian court system, albeit after an outrageous series of mess-ups on the way, and an outrageously long time for justice to finally be applied).

OK. So who do you believe to be the other two perps,as defined by Micheli et al? Whose is:

1. the pint-sized ladies' finger marks on Mez's face?

2. the small ladies size footprint in Mez' blood found in the murder room? There is no way Rudy could have squeezed his size 44/45 'plates of meat' in 'em?

3. Why are there a further two sets of footprints - not Rudy's - in the hallway and bathroom?

4. Clear signs of a clean up, as evidenced by the large gaps between one set of footprints and another, the half a footprint in the bathroom and the one-legged footprints?

5. Solid evidence of the body having been moved 19" away from the wardrobe /closet after death (don't tell me: Rudy came back)?

6. Pathological evidence the body was undressed after death (ditto )?

7. Forensic evidence the "burglary" occured after the murder?

Your claim "Rudy was the sole killer" - contrary to all judicial and medical expert opinion - tells us that you know deep in your heart the kids are not "innocent", because there is no rational reason for you, Raff and Amanda to keep insisting ""Rudy did it all by himself".

Why no campaign to "find the other killers"?

Because police are not looking for any others.

 

[Vixen]

Here's something for you to perhaps think about for a moment:

Suppose that whoever had broken and entered via Romanelli's window (Guede) had pulled the exterior shutters closed behind him after he had got into the cottage? After all, that would be a perfectly logical - and even LIKELY - thing for that person to do, since he wouldn't want anyone walking around outside to be able to see a broken window: that might alert them to something being amiss.

So, I hope you're now imagining the exterior shutters to Romanelli's window being pulled together (though of course they wedged themselves together owing to wood warping: there would still be no way to see through them, but they did not fit well enough to enable them to be latched or locked).

Now, imagine someone - let's say Knox - walking towards the cottage in daylight the next day. Imagine what that person (Knox) would see as she approached the cottage down the drive way. Can you perhaps realise that what that person (Knox) would see would be Romanelli's window area obscured by the closed exterior shutters? Can you perhaps see that from the perspective of the person approaching the cottage (Knox), Romanelli's window area would in fact appear to be entirely normal - since the broken window pane would be obscured to the outside by the exterior shutter?

Now try again.

Oh pur-leese. So, as well as Rudy being a super-athletic rock-climber leaping up a slippery wet wall (twice, according to Massei) to enter through a jagged 50cm gap of broken glass, had the apparent arms of three persons to carry out his undefended assault on Mez, had the foresight to carefully lock the door of her room behind him without leaving bloodied footprints facing the door - so it must have been behind his back! - he came back to move and undress the body and clean up: by Jove, he also took time to thoughtfully close Filomena's shutters after him, yet left a toilet bowl full of ******


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear. That fabled "research" is coming up rather woefully short once again.

1) What's the evidence that there's "no doubt" that the two ACE bleach bottles were new?

2) What did the police allege the apartment "reeked" of when they went to search it? (hint for you: it wasn't bleach)

3) What's the evidence that Sollecito soaked the bottom of his Nike daps(?) in bleach?

I look forward to seeing your carefully-researched sources for each and every one of these claims. Thanks in advance.

Watch the police video of the scene which Randy kindly put up for us - in between surfing and canoodling with Melissa - and you can see they clearly considered them new. They unravelled and videoed closely tightly folded up plastic carrier bags and receipts. They spent an inordinate amount of time filming the ACE bottles and we can see for ourselves the tough plastic was still shiny new, compared to other bottles in the cupboard.