Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Given Italy's level of corruption, a million or so dollars in the right pocket would secure her 'escape' from prison, I'm sure.

It only cost me $2000 to secure my 'escape' from a trial for A&B on a police officer. The judge recognized the payoff as a payoff because she split the award to the two 'injured' officers even though I only 'injured' one by removing the mace from his hand. Furthermore, she stuck her tongue out at the prosecution.

No police officers where injured during this recall of my struggle with the police.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Are you saying that sufficient information was provided to allow other authorities to review the work and that they have found the DNA samples unreliable?

If so, that's even more conclusive ...

A number of DNA experts looked at this evidence last year and signed an open letter saying it's unreliable.

Having said that, the lab is holding out on certain information that is important for evaluating the quality of their work. This includes quantification data, which is used to determine if a sample contains DNA, and control data.

 

[Katody Matrass]

As I interpret the quote, it was Amanda who induced Raffaele to say she left for Le Chic. In which case Amanda induced Raffaele to lie. Why would she do that?

Hi, Fine!

Couldn't the fact that you can't think of any sensible explanation for it be a hint that your interpretation is not necessarily correct?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Amanda and Raffaele will be convicted again, probably within the next month.
There is no doubt they are guilty.
Unfortunately for them, the "game over" is for the defence.
When Giulia Bongiorno has to cite a 12 hour time of empty screensaver log, we are at the end.

Interesting, what makes you think that log is empty?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Actually, what you read in the TGCOM pages is the same argument tha can also be found in the appeal. The only additional info is the log connected to screensaver activity (which is not exactly the screensaver log however). This information is the only new thing. But would have been better for the defence if it wasn't there, in my opinion. It is quite dangerous. Using it is a really desperate move.

Such advice coming from you reassures me that the defense made the right move

BTW what makes you think it's dangerous and desperate?

 

[Machiavelli]

(..)

BTW what makes you think it's dangerous and desperate?

Because the 12 hour period without screensaver simply reveals nobody was there to close an application (like VLC, iTunes, or a standby). This time lenght reveals that screenplay inactivity cannot be due to human interaction.
Moreover, an even greater problem, is it reveals Bongiorno doesn't believe to her client. Raffaele reported of having dinner, (maybe?) making love, being so high with marjuana to not being able to stay awake and remember things. You cannot "remember" after three years that your alibi instead is different, and consists in being all night actively interacting with the computer (not even with a 5 minutes interruption), this not how it works. If they propose the screensaver log is proof of human activity, this would be like a devastating alibi retraction.
These are only some reasons for why it is desperate, there are others.
Overall, i think also the whole set of their computer arguments reveals the extremly weak position of defence. Those are in fact just arguments on the lacks in written explanations in the Massei report, they are not arguments for innocence. The computer is just Sollecito's alibi, not an argument for guilte, and these are not arguments on evidence.

 

[Withnail1969]

Because the 12 hour period without screensaver simply reveals nobody was there to close an application (like VLC, iTunes, or a standby). This time lenght reveals that screenplay inactivity cannot be due to human interaction.
Moreover, an even greater problem, is it reveals Bongiorno doesn't believe to her client. Raffaele reported of having dinner, (maybe?) making love, being so high with marjuana to not being able to stay awake and remember things. You cannot "remember" after three years that your alibi instead is different, and consists in being all night actively interacting with the computer (not even with a 5 minutes interruption), this not how it works. If they propose the screensaver log is proof of human activity, this would be like a devastating alibi retraction.
These are only some reasons for why it is desperate, there are others.
Overall, i think also the whole set of their computer arguments reveals the extremly weak position of defence. Those are in fact just arguments on the lacks in written explanations in the Massei report, they are not arguments for innocence. The computer is just Sollecito's alibi, not an argument for guilte, and these are not arguments on evidence.

Regardless of the screensaver, Curatolo is a proven liar due to the lack of disco buses and the impossibility of the defendants being at the basketball court at 21:27 pm.

You are obviously wrong anyway since applications like VLC, iTunes or anything else do not require someone to close them before a screensaver kicks in. Where did you get that idea? What would be the point of a screensaver if every application had to be manually closed before it kicked in?

 

[LondonJohn]

treehorn,

Perhaps you want to bow down before the prestige of Newsweek and assume that they are infallible, but I do not. Here's why.

This quality of journalism may help to explain why Newsweek went bust last year, and was sold for $1 (plus debts) to an audio industry tycoon (Sidney Harman) in August of this year. I see that there are plans to merge it with The Daily Beast...............

It's important not to forget that, in the current climate, even the more respectable print media need to carry provocative and eye-catching features in order to attract and retain a readership. The marketplace is now incredibly crowded and disambiguated, particularly with the proliferation of online journalism. This is bound to colour the style of journalism across the board - encouraging sensationalism to the detriment of sober factual reportage. And - in this particular case - this applies just as much (if not more) to the "Knox is Innocent" pieces as it does to the "Knox is guilty" pieces.

 

[Dan O.]

If we could magnetize Machiavelli and put him inside a dynamo, his spin would provide enough electricity to keep the internet running for eternity.

What we have heard of the log records is that they indicate that there was varying human activity on the computer throughout the night until 6am the next morning.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Because the 12 hour period without screensaver simply reveals nobody was there to close an application (like VLC, iTunes, or a standby). This time lenght reveals that screenplay inactivity cannot be due to human interaction.

Oh, now I see. You got it wrong. They don't claim it was 12 hours without screensaver.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Overall, i think also the whole set of their computer arguments reveals the extremly weak position of defence. Those are in fact just arguments on the lacks in written explanations in the Massei report, they are not arguments for innocence. The computer is just Sollecito's alibi, not an argument for guilte, and these are not arguments on evidence.

I see that you misunderstood those arguments, too.
Defense correctly pointed out Massei's assertion about no activity on the computer cannot be supported by the Postal Police "analysis". ILE destroyed the data, so you cannot simply assume what that data was.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because the 12 hour period without screensaver simply reveals nobody was there to close an application (like VLC, iTunes, or a standby). This time lenght reveals that screenplay inactivity cannot be due to human interaction.
Moreover, an even greater problem, is it reveals Bongiorno doesn't believe to her client. Raffaele reported of having dinner, (maybe?) making love, being so high with marjuana to not being able to stay awake and remember things. You cannot "remember" after three years that your alibi instead is different, and consists in being all night actively interacting with the computer (not even with a 5 minutes interruption), this not how it works. If they propose the screensaver log is proof of human activity, this would be like a devastating alibi retraction.
These are only some reasons for why it is desperate, there are others.
Overall, i think also the whole set of their computer arguments reveals the extremly weak position of defence. Those are in fact just arguments on the lacks in written explanations in the Massei report, they are not arguments for innocence. The computer is just Sollecito's alibi, not an argument for guilte, and these are not arguments on evidence.

1) Once again...... the defence does not have to argue for their clients' innocence. They merely have to show reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case for guilt. And I have no idea what you mean by "The computer is just Sollecito's alibi, not an argument for guilt, and these are not arguments on evidence."

2) I have never used Mac OS, so what I'm about to say could be completely irrelevant. But in Windows, the screensaver will kick in regardless of whether an application is running or not. The only thing that activates the screensaver is a lack of human interaction via the mouse/trackpad or keyboard.

3) Since there is a missing page on the image documents of the appeal, we're not even sure whether the screensaver log shows more-or-less constant human activity throughout the whole night up until around 6.30am on the 2nd.

4) Sollecito is not "remembering" anything different after all this time. It's not he who has suddenly said "Oh actually I/we was/were up pretty much all night using the laptop on and off until after 6am". Instead, it appears that the screensaver log is doing all his remembering for him. And if it's accurate, then (as others have said) it's immaterial how patchy and spliffed-out Sollecito's memory of that night may or may not be - the screensaver log provides all the proof he needs.

5) Your assertions that Bongiorno "doesn't believe her client", or that this is a sign of "desperation" by the defence, are curious to say the least. I suspect that Bongiorno, whatever her fallibilities, understands that her job is to get Sollecito acquitted of murder. And if the screensaver log shows that there was frequent human interaction with Sollecito's laptop over the entire period of the murder, I'd say that was pretty good evidence in favour of reasonable doubt for at least Sollecito, and possibly for Knox too.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What does this mean?

"severe alterations to the data occurred in the period following the seizure of computer (and before the acquisition of the hard disk) which led to the modification of the date for many files (over 520)"

It is hard to explain. It could be, that Raffaele's p2p program "touched" most of the media files when the police powered up the PC. The "Amelie" was on the desktop, not in a p2p-shared folder, that's why it's metadata survived.
On the other hand, I think most p2p programs don't modify the "last accessed" time of the files that are already downloaded and only shared. Mine certainly does not.

An enigma

 

[LondonJohn]

It is hard to explain. It could be, that Raffaele's p2p program "touched" most of the media files when the police powered up the PC. The "Amelie" was on the desktop, not in a p2p-shared folder, that's why it's metadata survived.
On the other hand, I think most p2p programs don't modify the "last accessed" time of the files that are already downloaded and only shared. Mine certainly does not.

An enigma

As far as I know, no p2p programmes modify the "last accessed" information of files that they are seeding (and not downloading or playing). The seeding takes place at a bit-layer level, and the file is never assembled into a linear pattern for what would be termed "access".

 

[Alt+F4]

And how could Meredith's DNA be on the knife when no trace of blood was found?

I don't think Meredith's DNA was on that knife, it's RS that does.

 

[Withnail1969]

I don't think Meredith's DNA was on that knife, it's RS that does.

sophistic evasion noted.

 

[quadraginta]

This quality of journalism may help to explain why Newsweek went bust last year, and was sold for $1 (plus debts) to an audio industry tycoon (Sidney Harman) in August of this year. I see that there are plans to merge it with The Daily Beast...............

There are other reasons that print media are suffering in the news market. Attributing financial difficulty solely as a consequence of substandard journalism is a facile but specious insinuation. As you note, Harman (of harman/kardon fame) assumed the company's debt. This means that a successful businessman valued the company at somewhere upward of at least $50 million. (I have seen estimates in excess of $70 million.)

This does not constitute a crushing indictment.

Nor is it valid grounds for criticism of journalistic integrity.

The advent of the internet has all but driven a stake through the heart of printing press journalism. Newsweek is far from the first and far from the last casualty. The obituary list of grand old magazines and newspapers continues to grow.

It's important not to forget that, in the current climate, even the more respectable print media need to carry provocative and eye-catching features in order to attract and retain a readership. The marketplace is now incredibly crowded and disambiguated, particularly with the proliferation of online journalism. This is bound to colour the style of journalism across the board - encouraging sensationalism to the detriment of sober factual reportage. And - in this particular case - this applies just as much (if not more) to the "Knox is Innocent" pieces as it does to the "Knox is guilty" pieces.

I may be misunderstanding. Did you mean to suggest that journalism and the journalism marketplace are now less ambiguous as a result of the internet?

 

[Alt+F4]

sophistic evasion noted.

 

[LondonJohn]

There are other reasons that print media are suffering in the news market. Attributing financial difficulty solely as a consequence of substandard journalism is a facile but specious insinuation.

That would be why I wrote "may help to explain". In other words, I specifically articulated that there were most likely other reasons as well. So your argument that I implied that poor journalism was the "sole" reason is incorrect. But it's always nice to hear my arguments called "facile" and "specious"

As you note, Harman (of harman/kardon fame) assumed the company's debt. This means that a successful businessman valued the company at somewhere upward of at least $50 million. (I have seen estimates in excess of $70 million.)

This does not constitute a crushing indictment.

Ah, what you've done here is to confuse "enterprise value" with "market value". Any company whose net liabilities exceeds its shareholder funds is insolvent. And yes, that's a pretty crushing indictment.

Nor is it valid grounds for criticism of journalistic integrity.

The advent of the internet has all but driven a stake through the heart of printing press journalism. Newsweek is far from the first and far from the last casualty. The obituary list of grand old magazines and newspapers continues to grow.

I would totally agree. But sections of the print media are responding to this threat by cutting staff, hiring cheaper and poorer journalists, and having to resort to sensationalist reporting in order to try to attract readers. Fifty years ago, Time or Newsweek could have essentially printed anything they liked, and would have had a guaranteed readership of well over 6 million. And, in a virtual circle, this gave these sorts of magazines the editorial freedom to pursue often-costly, high-quality features. Not today though, which was the point I was making: everyone's chasing the reader in an incredibly crowded marketplace, so the focus is on cheap, eye-catching copy.

I may be misunderstanding. Did you mean to suggest that journalism and the journalism marketplace are now less ambiguous as a result of the internet?

I mean that there are very specific sources of information available on any topic. If one wants macro-economic news, for example, there are very specific websites and publications dealing with specifically this issue. Likewise for political information, and pretty much every other strand of information. People used to depend on aggregated sources such as Time/Newsweek (or the TV networks in broadcast media) for their broadly-based information on multiple areas. But it's now very hard to compete as an aggregated entity, since you start to come across as "jack of all trades, but master of none".

 

[Justinian2]

[...]

2) I have never used Mac OS, so what I'm about to say could be completely irrelevant. But in Windows, the screensaver will kick in regardless of whether an application is running or not. The only thing that activates the screensaver is a lack of human interaction via the mouse/trackpad or keyboard.

3) Since there is a missing page on the image documents of the appeal, we're not even sure whether the screensaver log shows more-or-less constant human activity throughout the whole night up until around 6.30am on the 2nd.

[...]

.

The following is some stuff on the screensaver log.

If you dig around a bit, you’ll find that /private/var/log/secure.log contains a record of your recent screen saver authentication activity. A typical snippet looks something like this:

Oct 6 19:46:51 Goliath com.apple.SecurityServer: authinternal failed to authenticate user matthew.
Oct 6 19:46:56 Goliath com.apple.SecurityServer: authinternal authenticated user matthew (uid 502).
Oct 6 19:46:56 Goliath com.apple.SecurityServer: uid 502 succeeded authenticating as user matthew (uid 502) for right system.login.screensaver.
Oct 6 19:46:56 Goliath com.apple.SecurityServer: Succeeded authorizing right system.login.screensaver by process /System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app for authorization created by /System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app.

So if anyone has recently failed at guessing your password, there should be a line containing the string “authinternal failed” (shown above), and assuming you had just stepped out for a little while, this line would have a recent time stamp and be toward the bottom of the log.

Here’s a quick one liner you can run in Terminal that will flag invalid login attempts for the current day. Wrap it up as a Bash script if you find it to be handy.


cat /private/var/log/secure.log | grep "authinternal failed" | grep "`date | awk {'print $2 " " $3'}`"​

Apparently you have to log in to activate it. If that's so, the guilters should kiss our royal ...s