Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

So I ask again: what evidence have you that the files were not released?

Or indeed, which files these are that are so 'crucial' to proving Amanda and Raffaele's innocence.

I also wonder, did Rudy's defence get all their files? Was none of the evidence in his case planted? Were no police in his case corrupt? Were none of the experts in his case incompetent? Was the lab work fully qualified? Was the lab fully accredited? Could not the chain of evidence or contamination have happened in his case?

Nobody questions the evidence against Rudy, or their competence or honesty in regard to him. I wonder why that is, why some are so keen and eager to accept all the evidence against him at face value, without the slightest challenge and more...associate evidence with him that clearly has nothing to do with him and yet feel compelled to employ all manner of intellectual gymnastics and excuses in regard to Amanda and Raffaele.

It is difficult not to notice the double standard.

 

[piktor]

If the hard drives don't exist, you must...

Surely this word should be damaged rather than destroyed?

..."the computer expert managed to systematically destroy all three hard-drives.

One defence source said: 'After destroying one hard-drive, common sense would have told him to stop and find out what he was doing wrong.
'But, no, he continued and didn't stop until all three were"- TheDailyMail Dec.9, 2009


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0ggSw6Sjb

 

[piktor]

It was his Mac laptop....
...Therefore, everything that happened in regard to Raffaele happened on that Mac. All the evidence was recovered and all the evidence proves his alibi to be completely false. Moreover, it also makes him (or at least one of them) a liar about what they were doing on the morning of the 2nd.

Does this mean investigators made a copy of Sollecito's hard drive contents?

 

[piktor]

So I ask again: what evidence have you that the files were not released?

I do remember the defence were given the documents they had requested and the prosecution had delayed in providing. This happened before the Summer vacation trial interruption. I remember the comment that the defence had the vacation period of several weeks to study and analyse the documents.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, the 'almost 20 cells' line originates from the FOA, so this is really a case of giving them the benefit of the doubt on that.

I don't see why we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't see why it couldn't have been blood, or flesh and blood.

If you listen to curt Knox, he'll tell it was only one cell, which certainly wasn't the case at all.

As for the cells themselves, the priority was extracting DNA. It doesn't matter what the cells were, or if they were cells at all, if one can't get DNA.

Presumably they worked backwards from the volume of DNA to estimate the number of cells, in which case red blood cells would be missed from the count.

 

[shuttlt]

Does this mean investigators made a copy of Sollecito's hard drive contents?

It was sent to a data recovery company after they toasted the drive and the data was recovered. The drive wasn't destroyed.

 

[Fiona]

I do remember the defence were given the documents they had requested and the prosecution had delayed in providing. This happened before the Summer vacation trial interruption. I remember the comment that the defence had the vacation period of several weeks to study and analyse the documents.

Not my understanding. The prosecution did not delay in providing the documents. They are not routinely provided in Italy, presumably because the defence is expected to be present at the testing. The defence asked for them shortly before the summer recess and despite the fact that this is not normal practice the prosecution said they were happy to accommodate them. The judge put on a date by which they should be passed over so that the defence would have them over the summer and he did this because he hoped to have the forensic part of the evidence heard within a month after resumption of the trial in September. The defence then complained: but they did not complain they did not get them nor that they got them late. They complained they had not had sufficient time to review them.

 

[piktor]

It was sent to a data recovery company after they toasted the drive and the data was recovered. The drive wasn't destroyed.

So, how do you toast a drive and still retrieve the data?

When the drive was found useless, does it mean it was mechanically out of service but the data was intact?

If so, wouldn't the prosecution be able to selectively tamper (erase evidence of Sollecito activity) with the data?

 

[piktor]

Not my understanding. The prosecution did not delay in providing the documents. They are not routinely provided in Italy, presumably because the defence is expected to be present at the testing. The defence asked for them shortly before the summer recess and despite the fact that this is not normal practice the prosecution said they were happy to accommodate them. The judge put on a date by which they should be passed over so that the defence would have them over the summer and he did this because he hoped to have the forensic part of the evidence heard within a month after resumption of the trial in September. The defence then complained: but they did not complain they did not get them nor that they got them late. They complained they had not had sufficient time to review them.

Then it was a defence tactic to appear victimized by an unsharing prosecution. Nothing more.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Does this mean investigators made a copy of Sollecito's hard drive contents?

Yes. It was presented in court...around 20th March

 

[Fulcanelli]

So, how do you toast a drive and still retrieve the data?

When the drive was found useless, does it mean it was mechanically out of service but the data was intact?

If so, wouldn't the prosecution be able to selectively tamper (erase evidence of Sollecito activity) with the data?

It was the drive's curcuit board. That's not too difficult to replace. It's only a major problem if the disc is also damaged.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If so, wouldn't the prosecution be able to selectively tamper (erase evidence of Sollecito activity) with the data?

Why would they do that? And really in any case, you don't just hack a great big chunk out of the I/O record and that not be noticeable. If you remove data you also have to remove all logs of it and they are deep inside. To do so, would leave unexplainable gaps in the records. In short, what you're suggesting is akin to say, someone cooking the books in their company and then simply ripping pages out of the books to cover their tracks thinking nobody will notice. I'll point out again, the defence experts also went over those drives and they provided no evidence that data had been removed.

 

[Fiona]

In the Micheli Report recounting Rudy's encounter with the alleged assailant in the doorway of Meredith's bedroom, Rudy describes the man wearing "a black jacket brand Napapijri of which he had noticed the logo, a white cap bearing a red stripe in the middle..."

I wonder if the police followed up to determine if Rafaelle owned such garments.

I believe that Kokomani said that RS was wearing a strange cap and Guede said it was a swimming cap with a white stripe. Late in 2009 the local papers reported that such a cap was found in RS's apartment. However such caps are common, apparently, and by itself it does not mean much. Since Guede did not take the stand in AK and RS's trial I think his statement with regard to this was not admissable for some reason. Fulcanelli may know more

 

[shuttlt]

So, how do you toast a drive and still retrieve the data?

They damaged the circuit board, the drives weren't set on fire degaussed, or thrown in a wood chipper. The data is recoverable given sufficient will.

When the drive was found useless, does it mean it was mechanically out of service but the data was intact?

Yes, although it may not be absolutely trivial to get the data back together in the right order.

If so, wouldn't the prosecution be able to selectively tamper (erase evidence of Sollecito activity) with the data?

Couldn't they do that anyway? Plant finger prints, DNA, footprints etc? Anyway, it would be very hard to fake the drive so their deception couldn't be discovered later on.

 

[piktor]

The hard drive ain't destroyed and it ain't tampered with

To do so, would leave unexplainable gaps in the records. In short, what you're suggesting is akin to say, someone cooking the books in their company and then simply ripping pages out of the books to cover their tracks thinking nobody will notice. I'll point out again, the defence experts also went over those drives and they provided no evidence that data had been removed.

This means the "destroyed hard drives" is a myth propagated by the defence and friends of the defence.

One more piece of the puzzle that explains why the little angels are in the tank ​

 

[piktor]

I believe that Kokomani said that RS was wearing a strange cap and Guede said it was a swimming cap with a white stripe. Late in 2009 the local papers reported that such a cap was found in RS's apartment. However such caps are common, apparently, and by itself it does not mean much. Since Guede did not take the stand in AK and RS's trial I think his statement with regard to this was not admissable for some reason. Fulcanelli may know more

In one British video Sollecito is led by police to and from their offices and he is wearing a cap that looks ridiculous. If i remember correctly it is a gray knit cap.

 

[piktor]

Drive's toast but the data is OK

They damaged the circuit board, the drives weren't set on fire degaussed, or thrown in a wood chipper. The data is recoverable given sufficient will.

How about planting or erasing data from the damaged drive?

Couldn't they do that anyway? Plant finger prints, DNA, footprints etc? Anyway, it would be very hard to fake the drive so their deception couldn't be discovered later on.

Thanks, shuttlt. It was a big unknown (for an ignorant like me) you have clarified.

 

[Dan O.]

Computer hackers have been covering up their intrusions for decades. Once you get root access nothing is prohibited. There are even stealth viruses that cover their tracks. But I'm not aware of any claim that such hacking took place.

I also don't believe that Raffaele's laptop was involved in the hard drive destruction fiasco. (link to evidence (Italian PDF))

What happened to Raffaele's laptop is apparently some joker decided to turn it on and play with it after it had been taken into evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

They damaged the circuit board, the drives weren't set on fire degaussed, or thrown in a wood chipper. The data is recoverable given sufficient will.


Yes, although it may not be absolutely trivial to get the data back together in the right order.

If the data is recoverable, it is absolutely trivial to put it back together in the right order.

Data is stored on the disks in sectors and each sector has a header that includes its address. If the media is undamaged, the entire content of the hard drive can be recovered intact and every file in order. I've done this myself on multiple occasions.

There are cases when the media is damaged that a partial recovery can leave blocks of files out of order and files unnamed because the directories and file headers were lost. This is not what happened in Perugia.

 

[Jungle Jim]

I believe that Kokomani said that RS was wearing a strange cap and Guede said it was a swimming cap with a white stripe. Late in 2009 the local papers reported that such a cap was found in RS's apartment. However such caps are common, apparently, and by itself it does not mean much. Since Guede did not take the stand in AK and RS's trial I think his statement with regard to this was not admissable for some reason. Fulcanelli may know more

Just to be clear, the quote from the Micheli report stated a white cap with red stripe (the Google English translation). I don't know how common such caps are (I couldn't find one doing a Google image search for "white swimming cap with red stripe") but if Rafaelle was also shown to own a black Napapijri jacket it would at least confirm that Rudy either knew RS (i.e, met him or saw him around town and was able to identify him) or saw him the night of the murder (either as Rudy described or as an accomplice). I would assume the police and/or Rudy's defense lawyers would be all over this bit of potential evidence. Maybe there is nothing to it.