Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

A proper explanation for the delay of the report of computer activity based on the log flies is that it would take time to develop the expertise to analyze these files and present them properly. The log files are not a detailed accounting of what happened on the machine but a set of events intended for debugging.

Nov 07 23:54:35  [2790] kCGErrorIllegalArgument: CGXBindSurface : Invalid surface 80722595 for window 2690

Each event needs to be analyzed to determine what sets of circumstances will create that event record. It's not as simple as finding log records that say "screensaver started", Screensaver stopped" (at least I don't find such entries in my windowserver.log). There are probably cryptic errors reported by a component of the screensaver. The defense team needed to determine which of these cryptic errors could only be indicators of human interaction with the computer.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda's latest indictment appears to have shocked the world, judging by the media coverage. Some were thinking she would get off, as do most pretty women in the USA. Oh heck, even the guilty women get off in the USA if they are pretty. The exception is Pamela Ann Smart.

Pamela Ann Smart (born August 16, 1967) is serving a life sentence for accomplice to first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and witness tampering in New Hampshire. Smart was convicted for conspiring with her 15-year-old lover, William Flynn, and three friends of Flynn's to kill her 24-year-old husband, Gregory Smart in Derry, New Hampshire in 1990.​

People were saying that she would get off, just you wait and see. Now with this indictment, people see that Italy is even more prison happy than the USA. I think people are seeing the Italian system as one that makes mountains out of mole hills and is eager to punish Americans.

This indictment would serve to make the world public favor leniency and also to protect the state from lawsuit. Now a finding that dismisses the charges would leave Italy with the option to barter for time served in exchange for dismissing the slander suit. Hopefully, the new judge might be under pressure to find in favor of the defense during the appeal.

This sub-worthless case has wasted billions of dollars worth of people's time (guilters will say my time isn't worth much). Better world justice is the only good that may emerge.

 

[Machiavelli]

If it happened to Amanda, it could happen to Raffaele. And it did happen to Amanda. Mignini accepted a statement from her at 5:45, whether it was "spontaneous" or came as the result of questioning. Remarkably, what you would call wasted work was nullified, yet STILL ended up in the trial, for all to hear. Did Mignini ever really have anything to fear about breaking the rules?

I am not holding tight and fast to a firm claim that Mignini interrogated Raffaele on the 5th or 6th. I am saying there are suggestions it is a possibility. We have already seen that Raffaele's lawyers missed a deadline to file against the decree; maybe they missed a deadline to file against the interrogations, too, and decided to let sleeping dogs lie.

On the other hand, as we have seen in Amanda's case, it is not in a defendant's best interests to accuse the police of misbehavior in one's initial trial. Maybe accusing a lead prosecutor of misbehavior could lead to even more serious consequences.
(..)

But how can't you see the point: there is no ground to suggest it is a possibility, there is no reason to say that, because there is no interrogation by Mignini. I mean, there is no piece of paper with the report of such an interrogation, so there is no material that incriminates Raffaele with this features to discuss about. Thus I have absolutely no idea why you hypothize the existence of a piece of evidence that doesn't exist and is not reported anywhere. Wht is the purpose, what is the meaning of this suggestion? In the real world there is nothing to link to this event. Because nothing of the case links to this event, logically it would be even irrelevant whether a phantomatic event occurred or not. I can't see any sens in what you say.

The logical focus of any claim about Raffaele's interrogation is, obviously, about Raffaele's interrogation. These are the interrogation that we talk about as incriminating against Raffaele. It was about discussing whether these known interrogations were unlawful, whether these interrogations were conducted by Mignini, whether these interrogations were conducted and verbalized by Mignini on a suspect in the absence of a lawyer.

It is not about discussing whether a phantom interrogation took place, an unknown piece of evidence containing hypothetical further incriminating material of which we do't know about. A discussion about a phantom interogation that has no record in the existing evidence file would make no sense. This is why I am stunned to see your ramblings. I can't believe you follow such a nonsense path. We are talking about Raffaele's statements that were given in the interogations we know about. Why he said certain things, whether he lied or not, whehter he was coerced or not while he was undergoing that interogation, whether his rights were respected during that interrogation. This is the only topic where you expressed your beliefs, you were challenged, and now you skim the topic and you go on talking of maybe Mignini made phantom interrogations that left no traces. If they left no trace, if they are not the files, they are unrelated to the case. After talking about ufos, you can go back to the topic and look at the things Raffaele said in the interogations you know.

 

[Mary_H]

But how can't you see the point: there is no ground to suggest it is a possibility, there is no reason to say that, because there is no interrogation by Mignini. I mean, there is no piece of paper with the report of such an interrogation, so there is no material that incriminates Raffaele with this features to discuss about. Thus I have absolutely no idea why you hypothize the existence of a piece of evidence that doesn't exist and is not reported anywhere. Wht is the purpose, what is the meaning of this suggestion? In the real world there is nothing to link to this event. Because nothing of the case links to this event, logically it would be even irrelevant whether a phantomatic event occurred or not. I can't see any sens in what you say.

The logical focus of any claim about Raffaele's interrogation is, obviously, about Raffaele's interrogation. These are the interrogation that we talk about as incriminating against Raffaele. It was about discussing whether these known interrogations were unlawful, whether these interrogations were conducted by Mignini, whether these interrogations were conducted and verbalized by Mignini on a suspect in the absence of a lawyer.

It is not about discussing whether a phantom interrogation took place, an unknown piece of evidence containing hypothetical further incriminating material of which we do't know about. A discussion about a phantom interogation that has no record in the existing evidence file would make no sense. This is why I am stunned to see your ramblings. I can't believe you follow such a nonsense path. We are talking about Raffaele's statements that were given in the interogations we know about. Why he said certain things, whether he lied or not, whehter he was coerced or not while he was undergoing that interogation, whether his rights were respected during that interrogation. This is the only topic where you expressed your beliefs, you were challenged, and now you skim the topic and you go on talking of maybe Mignini made phantom interrogations that left no traces. If they left no trace, if they are not the files, they are unrelated to the case. After talking about ufos, you can go back to the topic and look at the things Raffaele said in the interogations you know.

What do we know about Raffaele's interrogations?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

So, what do you think happened, and why does it make sense to you according to all the information available? Discounting something needs a credible reason, and I'll play fair but won't be cheated, because in the end I am fascinated by this whole ordeal and want to figure it out as best I can.

Thank you for a reasoned and reasonable post.

Up front? I don't have any idea what happened. I don't pretend to, and I'm not willing to guess. Apparently being unwilling to divest myself of any doubt concerning Knox's role in this tragedy has earned me some sort of unsought status as a "guilter" in an atmosphere which has been reduced to a rather simplistic dichotomy by those who advocate her innocence, but the reality is less emphatic.

For the most part (and most recently) all I have bothered to discount are patently fallacious rhetorical tools being offered in the guise of persuasive logic, and even that only on occasion and with some restraint. That this occurs with more frequency where Knox partisans are concerned is as much a function of the relative density of their posts in these threads as anything else, as well as the simple fact that disagreement with those less certain of her innocence is not in short supply here, and rarely needs any additional comment from me.

When this case first broke three years ago I accepted the characterization of Knox as a perhaps mistreated bystander somewhat uncritically, until that presentation in the U.S. press went so over the top in xenophobia, and obvious internal contradictions and mis-characterizations that I felt provoked to dig a bit deeper on my own. What I learned left me in some doubt as to my initial reactions.

The dialogue (a generous description, I think) here has been as much a source of curiosity for its own sake to me as it has been a source of rare offerings of actual new, relevant, unambiguous information.

There are certain aspects of the facts of the case as we seem to know them which continue to trouble me, and attempts made in this thread to discount them have been unconvincing. Please do not ask me to iterate them, because it will only lead to more pointless repetition of the same attempts at persuasion which I found unconvincing to begin with. If any information or perspective that is new to me is forthcoming I am confident I will take note of it.

Although I harbor no certainties or even opinions about any specific acts by Knox, my general overview of what we seem to know has led me to believe that the girl is hiding something ... something serious and non-trivial. I have no concrete, stepwise defense of this feeling, but taken in concert with certain aspects of what we seem to know that are less than thoroughly explained I am not confident that Knox is the untarnished angel her advocates would like to present her as. Just how tarnished or complicit she may be I do not know, and as a consequence am unwilling to offer any conjecture.

I will wait, and watch, and listen, and hope to learn more. If complete enlightenment is not forthcoming then so be it. Mysteries are like that sometimes. Meanwhile the thread alone offers educational opportunities which are often unrelated to the case itself.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes
Well, there goes your last ounce of credibility, first you say Amanda's innocent, now your saying there is no Santa Clause, whats next, The Easter Bunny too????

I'm so sorry, Sherlock! But if you read between the lines, you will see that I didn't come right out and say it -- so there is still a possibility.

What does belief in the various Easter or Xmas myths have to do with belief in the innocence of AK.

Is there a connection - Or has all the recent nun talk brought it back to the table ?

But on topic is there any evidence of this phantom interview with RS.

.

 

[Machiavelli]

When you write things like this (and you have written many similar things in the past), I wonder if you still believe in Santa Claus:


Would the entire population be demoralized if they knew a magistrate broke the law? If so, that in itself would be a reason not to reveal it in court documents.

But I think you systematically twist the meaning of what I say. It seems you want to think that I am motivated by the will to "believe a prosecutor follows the law".
It is the other way around. I am not trusting prosecutors. I am only using logic and I draw consequence from the behgaviour of other parties. I dont believe anything: I simply don't hypothesize anything that doesn't make sense, while things are plain obvious.
Incidentally, it is absolutely false that accusing a prosecutor of "misbehaviour" is forbidden: falsely acusing someone of a crime is forbidden.
But if there were an interrogation record the defence thinks should be disallowed because irregular, the defence would make the argument to disallow the interrogation transcript, this is not exactly like accuse someone of committing a crime! A professional misconduct is not a crime, and not the object of the request. But in this case, there is no Mignini interrogation of which the defence asks for the dismissal. The defence asks for the dismissal of a GIP interrogation in which the lawyers were present.

 

[Danceme]

It was a typo/mistake. Here's the 2010 edition:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...wBDge#v=onepage&q=perugia disco buses&f=false

(apologies for the absurdly-long link)

"It's (Gradisca) only open Saturday 9pm to at least 5am."

Well thank you for confirming it is only open on Saturdays in 2010 but whether it used to also open on Thursdays in 2007 remains to be seen, as I don't think one can summarily dismiss something written and published in the 2008 edition as "It was a typo/mistake". Neither you or I know that for certain.
Where I come from Thursday is a big party night, equal to Friday and much better than Saturday.

We know the PC was switched on all night, so if there were no films played and no user interaction it would be on the screensaver all the time - that is not the case.
Unfortunately most of the log that the defense filed is not on the website, but they summarize it, saying that the longest duration of screensaver activation during the night was 6 minutes.
In the end the defense bashes Polizia Postale and calls for a review by real experts.

Note: 6 minutes doesn't mean they fumbled with the PC all the time. First, there's a preset period of inactivity required for the screensaver to activate. Second, any playing of a film will prevent the screensaver from activating.

The only problem I have with this information was that it was never part of their alibi to say they watched movies or listened to music all night.
IIRC they talked of the early part of the evening and the defence lawyers discussed the Naruto episode but nothing about a marathon staying awake watching or listening session that was only periodically interrupted, but I will be interested to see the complete logs during the appeal.

People were saying that she would get off, just you wait and see. Now with this indictment, people see that Italy is even more prison happy than the USA. I think people are seeing the Italian system as one that makes mountains out of mole hills and is eager to punish Americans.

Oh dear Justinian2, I think this sort of talk is frowned on here. I don't think anyone here thinks Knox was punished because she was American.

 

[quadraginta]

Amanda's latest indictment appears to have shocked the world, judging by the media coverage. Some were thinking she would get off, as do most pretty women in the USA. Oh heck, even the guilty women get off in the USA if they are pretty. The exception is Pamela Ann Smart.

Pamela Ann Smart (born August 16, 1967) is serving a life sentence for accomplice to first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and witness tampering in New Hampshire. Smart was convicted for conspiring with her 15-year-old lover, William Flynn, and three friends of Flynn's to kill her 24-year-old husband, Gregory Smart in Derry, New Hampshire in 1990.​

People were saying that she would get off, just you wait and see. Now with this indictment, people see that Italy is even more prison happy than the USA. I think people are seeing the Italian system as one that makes mountains out of mole hills and is eager to punish Americans.

You'll be hard pressed to defend that assertion.

No one puts more people in prison than the U.S.

The United States' incarceration rate is, according to official reports, the highest in the world, at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000 (as of 2005).[8] A report released in 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults is now confined in an American jail or prison.[9] The United States has 4% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.[10]

Italy doesn't even come close to making it into the top 100. Ranked at 144, they have an incarceration rate of 92 per 100,000.

This indictment would serve to make the world public favor leniency and also to protect the state from lawsuit. Now a finding that dismisses the charges would leave Italy with the option to barter for time served in exchange for dismissing the slander suit. Hopefully, the new judge might be under pressure to find in favor of the defense during the appeal.

This sub-worthless case has wasted billions of dollars worth of people's time (guilters will say my time isn't worth much). Better world justice is the only good that may emerge.

How did you arrive at this number?

 

[Mary_H]

But I think you systematically twist the meaning of what I say. It seems you want to think that I am motivated by the will to "believe a prosecutor follows the law".
It is the other way around. I am not trusting prosecutors. I am only using logic and I draw consequence from the behgaviour of other parties. I dont believe anything: I simply don't hypothesize anything that doesn't make sense, while things are plain obvious.
Incidentally, it is absolutely false that accusing a prosecutor of "misbehaviour" is forbidden: falsely acusing someone of a crime is forbidden.
But if there were an interrogation record the defence thinks should be disallowed because irregular, the defence would make the argument to disallow the interrogation transcript, this is not exactly like accuse someone of committing a crime! A professional misconduct is not a crime, and not the object of the request. But in this case, there is no Mignini interrogation of which the defence asks for the dismissal. The defence asks for the dismissal of a GIP interrogation in which the lawyers were present.

Okay.

Do you know whether any transcripts or records regarding Raffaele's interrogations exist? Did Raffaele sign any statements like Amanda did?

 

[platonov]

If we cant tell the 'poes' from the genuine

Originally Posted by katy_did

Oh, we're talking about Harry Wilkens? That makes more sense. I was confused by Jungle Jim's post because the blog entry quoted was from Perugia Shock, so I thought everyone was saying Frank was a whacko, and was feeling very indignant on his behalf.

About Harry Wilkens, I also think he's a spoof of Charlie Wilkes, or that's the impression I've gotten from reading his posts, anyway...

Not at all, he is very sincere in his beliefs (my opinion).

This may be adding to the confusion over what the defence case is.

If we cant tell the 'poes' from the genuine 'innocentsi' arguments, progress will be difficult.
& It also casts doubt on the soundness of the genuine 'innocentsi' arguments.

.

 

[Mary_H]

The only problem I have with this information was that it was never part of their alibi to say they watched movies or listened to music all night.
IIRC they talked of the early part of the evening and the defence lawyers discussed the Naruto episode but nothing about a marathon staying awake watching or listening session that was only periodically interrupted, but I will be interested to see the complete logs during the appeal.

We will be seeing a lot of this argument now; quadraginta already expressed it on the previous page:

So. Is this evidence that Knox and Sollecito never slept at all that night?

I don't think that's what they told the cops, either.

I have seen it in another blog as well.

The computer analysis could come back completely vindicating both defendants, and the guilters will still be saying it's not as important as the evidence of lies.

 

[Machiavelli]

Okay.

Do you know whether any transcripts or records regarding Raffaele's interrogations exist? Did Raffaele sign any statements like Amanda did?

Minutes of a police interrogation of nov 5. exist, but have not entered the first degree trial. His prison diaries exist - where he also mentions his interrogations - and they were entered in the trial file. The GIP interrogation transcript and audio record exist, we don't know if they will be entered to the Appeal court or if Raffaele accepts to be questioned about it.
No clue of existence of an interrogation as a suspect without lawyer is given. No clue of existence of an interrogation by Mignini is given.
Raffaele released no statements to Mignini (neither talked with Mignini at the time of his arrest) but he spoke before Claudia Matteini (his statement begins like "I don't want to see Amanda ever again"), there he also accepted to be questioned by the GIP (while Amanda refused).

 

[Katody Matrass]

The only problem I have with this information was that it was never part of their alibi to say they watched movies or listened to music all night.
IIRC they talked of the early part of the evening and the defence lawyers discussed the Naruto episode but nothing about a marathon staying awake watching or listening session that was only periodically interrupted, but I will be interested to see the complete logs during the appeal.

IIRC they said they spent the night together. I don't see any problem here. If there is a proof someone was using the computer, then their alibi is confirmed.

I'd love to see the logs too, because it's enough to show there was some interaction up to around 23:30 to overthrow Massei reasoning.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

lying and conviction

We will be seeing a lot of this argument now; quadraginta already expressed it on the previous page:




I have seen it in another blog as well.

The computer analysis could come back completely vindicating both defendants, and the guilters will still be saying it's not as important as the evidence of lies.

Mary_H,

Exactly. Some time ago I asked Piktor the following hypothetical. Suppose two people were accused of a crime and claimed to be innocent. Suppose further that unimpeachable evidence puts them neither at the scene of the crime nor where they said they were (showing that they had lied). Piktor still seemed to think that they should be found guilty. It is possible that he misunderstood my question. Yet he is the one who said of Amanda and Raffaele that their lies put them where they are. Maybe simply lying is enough for some here and elsewhere to favor conviction. Not for me.

It will be interesting to see whether evidence of watching Stardust will show up in a new analysis of the computer.

 

[platonov]

We will be seeing a lot of this argument now; quadraginta already expressed it on the previous page:




I have seen it in another blog as well.

The computer analysis could come back completely vindicating both defendants, and the guilters will still be saying it's not as important as the evidence of lies.

Not possible - in the defence best case they can try to show 'some' human activity on the computer.

Cant show who it was - or that there were 2 humans present.
& Still a problem with the earlier statements.

But in the actual appeal is RS now giving AK an alibi.

There seems to be some confusion over this.It appears the original RS defence strategy was to hedge their bets as the computer/phone evidence didn't match his earlier statements.

.

 

[quadraginta]

The only problem I have with this information was that it was never part of their alibi to say they watched movies or listened to music all night.
IIRC they talked of the early part of the evening and the defence lawyers discussed the Naruto episode but nothing about a marathon staying awake watching or listening session that was only periodically interrupted, but I will be interested to see the complete logs during the appeal.

We will be seeing a lot of this argument now; quadraginta already expressed it on the previous page:

So. Is this evidence that Knox and Sollecito never slept at all that night?

I don't think that's what they told the cops, either.

I have seen it in another blog as well.

The computer analysis could come back completely vindicating both defendants, and the guilters will still be saying it's not as important as the evidence of lies.

Now, Mary. Let's not try to re-write history, especially when the source material is so easily accessed.

I merely expressed my confusion, which you evidently share. Here's your real culprit.

This is big!
First they explain et length why Postals missed most of the activity when retrieving data with the Encase forensic software.

Apparently the defense retrieved screensaver logs (but the most important page is missing !) from the macbook which say that the laptop where in use all night, playing movies and music, going into screensaver mode only for short timespans of 6 minutes max. the longest period of inactivity is from 6:22 in the morning to midday of Nov the 2nd. Hmmm...

Note: boldface in original.

Perhaps you ought to address your concerns to Katody, as I did?

 

[Mary_H]

Here you talk about Raffaele's interrogations:

Minutes of a police interrogation of nov 5. exist, but have not entered the first degree trial. His prison diaries exist - where he also mentions his interrogations - and they were entered in the trial file. The GIP interrogation transcript and audio record exist, we don't know if they will be entered to the Appeal court or if Raffaele accepts to be questioned about it.
No clue of existence of an interrogation as a suspect without lawyer is given. No clue of existence of an interrogation by Mignini is given.
Raffaele released no statements to Mignini (neither talked with Mignini at the time of his arrest) but he spoke before Claudia Matteini (his statement begins like "I don't want to see Amanda ever again"), there he also accepted to be questioned by the GIP (while Amanda refused).

While yesterday, you wrote:

What I say is no coercion took place, no claim was made to explain Raffaele’s lies as a consequence of police abuse or other factors unrelated to his will, and I say: there is no reason to think anything happened different from what provided by the law. No clue to say Raffaele was coerced, that unlawful interrogations took place, that interrogations took place at all. I don’t know why you believe or claim this things, given the absence of any element and any backing by the defence, to say anything different from what procedures provide.

Sometimes you come across as being at odds with yourself.

At any rate, it is clear Raffaele was interrogated by the police the night of November 5th. You want to hold he was not interrogated as a suspect, and thus was not entitled to a lawyer. Apparently he was not considered a suspect until the 7th, when he wrote in his diary:

Today the court questioned me and said that I gave three different statements, but the only difference that I find is that I said that Amanda brought me to say crap in the second version, and that was to go out at the bar where she worked, Le Chic.....Perhaps tomorrow we will see, at least so said Tiziano, who I saw today and has defended me in front of the judge.

Presumably that was the first he had seen of a lawyer. By the way, I think that is the only reference in his diary to the police interrogation, although I could be wrong.

I am going to continue to infer, from the context of the deep, deep regret he expresses in the diary as a whole, that during his interrogation with the police, he said things he would not have said without their "encouragement."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

decree of deferment

Machiavelli,

My previous point was that without representation Raffaele could not properly prepare for his appearance before Judge Matteini. I don’t believe you have responded to this problem, which is one of fairness. His lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi was angry about the fact that the prison director had told him he could not see Sollecito on 7 November. On 8 November Mr. Tedeschi pointed this out to the GIP, and the GIP asked the PM about this refusal. The PM said that the decree of deferment could be in the files, but it was never found. My interpretation is that Mr. Tedeschi did not know that the deferment decree was lost or never existed, and that is why he did not file an immediate protest.

 

[Mary_H]

Now, Mary. Let's not try to re-write history, especially when the source material is so easily accessed.

I merely expressed my confusion, which you evidently share. Here's your real culprit.

Note: boldface in original.

Perhaps you ought to address your concerns to Katody, as I did?

I apologize for leaving the "boggled" emoticon off my paste of your comment, q.

What is it you think I'm confused about? I already have taken the position that Amanda and Raffaele slept very little that night. Katody wrote, "the longest period of inactivity is from 6:22 in the morning to midday of Nov the 2nd." That makes sense to me -- they were finally catching up on their sleep.