Mimsy were the borogoves
You're saying perhaps. And Raffaele's attorney is not saying. What on earth has that got to do with Ghirga saying the trial was fair? HE COULD HAVE SAID NOTHING. Mind reading is not acceptable.
Capealadin,
From p. 309 of the English translation of the Massei report:
“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 6-Nov-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.”
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/410554_knox26.html
Andrea Vogt reported, “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.”
She continued, “First, defense lawyers claim that the computer interactions while he was at police headquarters may have canceled out important data showing the last known access to files that could have proven he was on his computer the night of the killing. And second, it further damages the credibility of investigators, who have been under increasing scrutiny since the defense began presenting its case.”
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/computer-places-knox-and-sollecito-at.html
Frank reported, “The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break).
I have read one report of the interrogation on night of November 5th in which Raffaele gave the police the key to his apartment, saying that they could check his computer if they did not believe him. I recall reading (at a site whose name we do not utter here) a speculation to the effect that perhaps Raffaele Sollecito’s father went over to his house that morning to read up on the murder. Given the younger Mr. Sollecito’s claim that he was not allowed to call his father, and given that I have never heard the police say that they happened to run into the elder Mr. Sollecito at the flat, I can perhaps cautiously advance the opinion that such speculation is unlikely. Moreover, one has to wonder whether the elder Mr. Sollecito had a working computer in his home. If so, it makes the scenario of his coming to the flat even less likely.
My hypothesis is that Mr. Ghirga and Mr. Maori know that they face retaliation from ILE if they speak too directly. My evidence is that Mr. Maori did not name the police, even though the police are the only people whose presence in the flat makes any sense. Given the fact that Mr. Mignini sued Mr. Maori, I do not blame him for being cautious. I would also direct your attention to my two comments upthread concerning reporters who fear retaliation and those who have also been sued by Mr. Mignini. My hypothesis could be falsified if a reporter spoke with them as anonymous sources and they still failed to mention various problems and irregularities in this trial. These include but are not limited to failure to turn over forensic files, failure to obtain a change in venue, failure to test the pillowcase stain, harming the hard drives, holding Mr. Sollecito for almost a year prior to a formal charge without sufficient cause, and so forth. I would also remind you that Ms. Bongiorno criticized the prosecution for its failure to turn over forensic data in the summer of 2009, specifically citing the right to a fair trial.
Moby Dick and slithy references to Alice in Wonderland are fine, but let us give Churchill his due.
