Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

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.

I can predict what will happen. Raffaele will finally be off the hook, but Amanda will still be on. They will insist that Raffaele has already shown himself to be a liar, therefore, any alibi he can provide for Amanda is not credible.

Is there any sense here at all? The police are not penalized for not recording the interrogations and they are not penalized destroying Amanda's computer. What hope does she have against such a lopsided system?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Amnesty International

I can predict what will happen. Raffaele will finally be off the hook, but Amanda will still be on. They will insist that Raffaele has already shown himself to be a liar, therefore, any alibi he can provide for Amanda is not credible.

Is there any sense here at all? The police are not penalized for not recording the interrogations and they are not penalized destroying Amanda's computer. What hope does she have against such a lopsided system?

Mary_H,

Amnesty International noted that Italy still lacks a mechanism for police accountability in a couple of reports published in 2007-2008 (yrs. approx.). Until the system is fixed, we will continue to see more cases like this one.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Guys, I'm able to read the defence documents as much as you are. Maybe a bit better, since they're written in my language.

The "defence has not to bring arguments" is maybe true in a pure common law adversarial system. There is complete mistake on this whole point of understanding of some basics of the inquisitorial aspects of the system, I understand that a great portion of reasoning from some innocentisti are based on their wrong ideas, or projection, abput how basics of a justice system shall work . The fact that LondonJohn has no idea of what means "The computer is just Sollecito's alibi, not an argument for guilt, and these are not arguments on evidence", has key implications on his conclusions.

Yesterday I happend to talk with Clander, another Italian poster on PMF, and we discused at lenght about the computer evidence (he is a programmer). I also have a very close friend who is a system engineer and we had talked too. I consider myself quite skilled in computer and I just found confirmation of the same conclusion I had at the time when I studied Bongiorno's argument. There are several kinds applications capable to automatically disable the screensaver as long as they are left open, some of those have default setting with this option (versions of VLC have this as default). But there are really many applications capable to prevent the screensaver from running. Who says "the only thing that activates the screensaver is a lack of human interaction via the mouse/trackpad or keyboard" must really upgrade their knowledge.

Log files and system records are by definition a potentiallly unreliable source. A good professional may be able to alter the system memory and create memory of fictitious activity non-detectable through Encasa ot other software, and traces of activities can be easilly cancelled from the system.
The actually non modifiable data is the internet record of processor ports activity, which is stored by providers. This activity shall be always considered as a starting datum and first clue. The activity on the port for internet human activity - port80 - is zero in Sollecito's machine during those night time period.

I didn't see there was any missing page in the 9 pages snippet, the topic reads through as continuous, I will check again, but anyway, in those reported documents there is nothing different than in the appeal. You may imagine there is a sound evidence that demonstrates human activiy, in a missing page not published by TGCOM site. In the vidible pages, the arguments appear well unfold in their weakness.

For those who don't understand the problem in the outcome with Bongiorno's argument, there is not much I can do. The judges will understand, though.
The logical implications of Sollecito's computer records remain the following:
1. There is evidence Sollecito lied, or better that either Amanda or Sollecito (or both) lied about their alibies. This evidence is not refuted by Bongiorno's agruments.
(Whether people like this or not, this lying has implications in the rules of the game of the Italian trial)
2. The computer records don't provide any alibi and the defensive arguments don't support and don't prove their alibies.

The only meaning of computer records in this trial is about the argument made by the defence, and is related to their capability to support Sollecito's alibi. They are useless for any other purpose. Bongiorno and Maori merely repeat the records are not enough a proof for Massei's theory, but this is a different scope. Their only possible function in reality is to defend Sollecito's alibi: once they fail in this duty, they are not relevant in the trial any more and thus all logical reasonings about them (like about the 500 files later modified) will be devoid of consequence and won't play any role.

 

[Justinian2]

I can predict what will happen. Raffaele will finally be off the hook, but Amanda will still be on. They will insist that Raffaele has already shown himself to be a liar, therefore, any alibi he can provide for Amanda is not credible.

Is there any sense here at all? The police are not penalized for not recording the interrogations and they are not penalized destroying Amanda's computer. What hope does she have against such a lopsided system?

It's scary. A couple of cards have been pulled from the guilter's house of cards. In a normal world, the house of cards would fall. It's scary.

 

[Withnail1969]

Mary_H,

Amnesty International noted that Italy still lacks a mechanism for police accountability in a couple of reports published in 2007-2008 (yrs. approx.). Until the system is fixed, we will continue to see more cases like this one.

Italy has a long history of political corruption, organised crime and fascism. The Vatican is also notorious for assisting Nazi fugitives and protecting child molesters. While the outward forms of democracy may be given lip service, Italy is anything but a democracy in practice.

 

[Machiavelli]

Italy has a long history of political corruption, organised crime and fascism. The Vatican is also notorious for assisting Nazi fugitives and protecting child molesters. While the outward forms of democracy may be given lip service, Italy is anything but a democracy in practice.

[skip cheap comment on what the United States democracy is actually notorious for doing around the world] The question is: what makes you feel so sure of a "corruption" on this case? Where do you see this?

 

[Kaosium]

I can predict what will happen. Raffaele will finally be off the hook, but Amanda will still be on. They will insist that Raffaele has already shown himself to be a liar, therefore, any alibi he can provide for Amanda is not credible.

Is there any sense here at all? The police are not penalized for not recording the interrogations and they are not penalized destroying Amanda's computer. What hope does she have against such a lopsided system?

The stench the rotting carcass of this case will give off.

 

[Withnail1969]

There are several kinds applications capable to automatically disable the screensaver as long as they are left open, some of those have default setting with this option (versions of VLC have this as default).

You are wrong about VLC player disabling the screensaver by default for as long as the application is running.

Here are the actual VLC command line options taken from http://wiki.videolan.org/VLC-0-9-x_command-line_help

--disable-screensaver, --no-disable-screensaver
Disable screensaver (default enabled)
Disable the screensaver during video playback. (default enabled)

There are only 2 options, disable the screensaver during video playback, or do not disable it. Also the default setting is not to disable the screensaver as you state.

If no video is running but VLC is still open, the screensaver will activate

 

[christianahannah]

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.

Charlie do you know what quantification and control data have not been turned over?

According to the motivations the defense asked that the trial be suspended and this information be turned over to them. The court ordered the suspension of the trial and for the prosecution to turn over the documentation asked for by the defense. Upon resumption of testimony the defense experts still complained about not receiving some documentation but I am not sure what they were speaking of.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Log files and system records are by definition a potentiallly unreliable source. A good professional may be able to alter the system memory and create memory of fictitious activity non-detectable through Encasa ot other software, and traces of activities can be easilly cancelled from the system.
The actually non modifiable data is the internet record of processor ports activity, which is stored by providers. This activity shall be always considered as a starting datum and first clue. The activity on the port for internet human activity - port80 - is zero in Sollecito's machine during those night time period.

So your opinion is that the logs are

a) fabricated by a clever applying of some scripts or apps
b) manipulated post factum by Raffaele in the days before his arrest

or

I didn't see there was any missing page in the 9 pages snippet, the topic reads through as continuous, I will check again, but anyway, in those reported documents there is nothing different than in the appeal. You may imagine there is a sound evidence that demonstrates human activiy, in a missing page not published by TGCOM site. In the vidible pages, the arguments appear well unfold in their weakness.

c) nonexistent at all because the log the defense filed starts around 6 o'clock in the morning of 2 Nov, and the defense just wanted to make fools of themselves?

Did I miss anything?

 

[Katody Matrass]

The activity on the port for internet human activity - port80 - is zero in Sollecito's machine during those night time period.

Actually there is a connection on port 80 starting at 00:58, and attributed to playing a file with a quicktime player.
BTW the lack of web browsing is compatible with them spending the night together. It's perfectly normal to use a computer to play music or videos when with a girl, not to browse the web.

 

[christianahannah]

Actually there is a connection on port 80 starting at 00:58, and attributed to playing a file with a quicktime player.
BTW the lack of web browsing is compatible with them spending the night together. It's perfectly normal to use a computer to play music or videos when with a girl, not to browse the web.

Yes, the motivations states that there was activity on port 80 showing 4 seconds of connection to Apple's international site (from 00:58:50 to 00:58:53). I believe this was presented by the defense.

This is one area in which it appears that the Corriere article of Raffaele's November 5-6 interrogation and the computer record are compatible (Raffaele on the computer at 1 a.m./computer activity at 1 a.m.). There may be more or not, however, most (if not all) of the technical aspect is above my head.

 

[Withnail1969]

Yes, the motivations states that there was activity on port 80 showing 4 seconds of connection to Apple's international site (from 00:58:50 to 00:58:53). I believe this was presented by the defense.

This is one area in which it appears that the Corriere article of Raffaele's November 5-6 interrogation and the computer record are compatible (Raffaele on the computer at 1 a.m./computer activity at 1 a.m.). There may be more or not, however, most (if not all) of the technical aspect is above my head.

Yes it was presented, and accepted by Massei. The reasoning, if i recall, was that Amanda and Raffaele stood around at the basketball court from 21:27 precisely until after the non-existent disco buses left. Then they entered the cottage and murdered Meredith at around 11:30 - midnight, then went home at 1:00 am to listen to some music or something.

 

[Kaosium]

[skip cheap comment on what the United States democracy is actually notorious for doing around the world] The question is: what makes you feel so sure of a "corruption" on this case? Where do you see this?

One way of looking at it is when the entities of the state don't follow the law, but the law follows them. You and others have patiently explained how it's perfectly permissible to wiretap 'witnesses,' then interrogate them as such bypassing the need to record anything until they are 'suspects' which any sane person would consider someone who is being wiretapped and interrogated all night long. Apparently it is perfectly legal to threaten a 'witness' if they ask for a lawyer, to get them to sign a 'confession' or 'accusation' in a language they speak poorly and whose statements afterward make clear they didn't think they were confessing to, or accusing anyone of, anything. The 'confession' gets thrown out, but there's apparently no penalty for all those dubious actions.

When that leads to an embarrassing debacle where an innocent man is rounded up and imprisoned for weeks, somehow the 'responsibility' for that falls on the college-aged girl and she is defamed and sued for that, thus somehow no blight falls upon the officials who actually made the decision to arrest someone and incarcerate them for weeks on the basis of this 'confession/accusation' despite the fact numerous witnesses provided him with an unimpeachable alibi within days of his arrest.

When the case against a man seems to be collapsing as a mindless error was made in attributing a shoeprint to him, another trip is made to the murder site and right on camera a piece of 'evidence' is contaminated for all the world to see, then without shame used as 'evidence' of a murder when the only thing it could logically be is contamination. There is no censure for this.

The 'murder weapon' supposedly bears the DNA of the victim, but no evidence of that is provided and thus becomes secret evidence, and is still allowed. Of course it turns out that weapon couldn't have caused most the wounds, but is kept as anything from a box-cutter to a broadsword could have made the final wound, so a 'two-knife theory' is invented. No one laughs, it is still allowed.

The computer that might have provided an alibi for them is fried by an 'incompetent' technician, as is another computer than might have cast doubt on the motive of one of the accused. I don't recall reading there was ever any punishment for this destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence.

When imprisoned a defendant is given an HIV test and told she tested positive, which causes her to try to figure out just which person she might have been infected by in her diary, which is stolen and sold to the tabloids and used as part of a defamation campaign against her. I have never heard that any guard was punished for this.

When on the stand one of the defendants tries to explain why she freaked out under interrogation by twelve policemen lying and threatening her while insisting she must remember being at the murder site, her stating that she was cuffed a couple times becomes yet another charge against her, it being explained that 'accusing' the police of mistreatment in court is an automatic crime that must be pursued, so she faces up to another six years in jail.


I think the last pretty much sums up why this system is so easily corrupted. This is a system where the police and prosecutors can do pretty much whatever they want without punishment, and to say anything about it carries a jail term. No matter how egregious the assault on the defendants' rights, the only penalty seems to be that occasionally improperly obtained evidence or statements is disallowed, but if they can think of a way to sneak them in anyway by having another part of the trial run concurrently, it's still allowed. If not, just broadcast it to the press so the non-sequestered jury can hear all sorts of defamatory disinformation and no one is ever held responsible for it, nor is any higher court able to make judgment on it.

The only question I have for you is whether this case is typical of how the Italian system is so easily corrupted, or is this an aberration caused by a prosecutor desperate to convict two people he could gather no legitimate evidence on?

 

[Withnail1969]

One way of looking at it is when the entities of the state don't follow the law, but the law follows them. You and others have patiently explained how it's perfectly permissible to wiretap 'witnesses,' then interrogate them as such bypassing the need to record anything until they are 'suspects' which any sane person would consider someone who is being wiretapped and interrogated all night long. Apparently it is perfectly legal to threaten a 'witness' if they ask for a lawyer, to get them to sign a 'confession' or 'accusation' in a language they speak poorly and whose statements afterward make clear they didn't think they were confessing to, or accusing anyone of, anything. The 'confession' gets thrown out, but there's apparently no penalty for all those dubious actions.

When that leads to an embarrassing debacle where an innocent man is rounded up and imprisoned for weeks, somehow the 'responsibility' for that falls on the college-aged girl and she is defamed and sued for that, thus somehow no blight falls upon the officials who actually made the decision to arrest someone and incarcerate them for weeks on the basis of this 'confession/accusation' despite the fact numerous witnesses provided him with an unimpeachable alibi within days of his arrest.

When the case against a man seems to be collapsing as a mindless error was made in attributing a shoeprint to him, another trip is made to the murder site and right on camera a piece of 'evidence' is contaminated for all the world to see, then without shame used as 'evidence' of a murder when the only thing it could logically be is contamination. There is no censure for this.

The 'murder weapon' supposedly bears the DNA of the victim, but no evidence of that is provided and thus becomes secret evidence, and is still allowed. Of course it turns out that weapon couldn't have caused most the wounds, but is kept as anything from a box-cutter to a broadsword could have made the final wound, so a 'two-knife theory' is invented. No one laughs, it is still allowed.

The computer that might have provided an alibi for them is fried by an 'incompetent' technician, as is another computer than might have cast doubt on the motive of one of the accused. I don't recall reading there was ever any punishment for this destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence.

When imprisoned a defendant is given an HIV test and told she tested positive, which causes her to try to figure out just which person she might have been infected by in her diary, which is stolen and sold to the tabloids and used as part of a defamation campaign against her. I have never heard that any guard was punished for this.

When on the stand one of the defendants tries to explain why she freaked out under interrogation by twelve policemen lying and threatening her while insisting she must remember being at the murder site, her stating that she was cuffed a couple times becomes yet another charge against her, it being explained that 'accusing' the police of mistreatment in court is an automatic crime that must be pursued, so she faces up to another six years in jail.


I think the last pretty much sums up why this system is so easily corrupted. This is a system where the police and prosecutors can do pretty much whatever they want without punishment, and to say anything about it carries a jail term. No matter how egregious the assault on the defendants' rights, the only penalty seems to be that occasionally improperly obtained evidence or statements is disallowed, but if they can think of a way to sneak them in anyway by having another part of the trial run concurrently, it's still allowed. If not, just broadcast it to the press so the non-sequestered jury can hear all sorts of defamatory disinformation and no one is ever held responsible for it, nor is any higher court able to make judgment on it.

The only question I have for you is whether this case is typical of how the Italian system is so easily corrupted, or is this an aberration caused by a prosecutor desperate to convict two people he could gather no legitimate evidence on?

Great post. Let's call Italy's 'justice' system by its name - fascism.

 

[Kaosium]

So your opinion is that the logs are

a) fabricated by a clever applying of some scripts or apps
b) manipulated post factum by Raffaele in the days before his arrest

or


c) nonexistent at all because the log the defense filed starts around 6 o'clock in the morning of 2 Nov, and the defense just wanted to make fools of themselves?

Did I miss anything?

I'm just curious, how is it that this information was recovered now? I recall that the prosecution refused to allow the hard drives to be sent to the factory and the information read, yet it appears that at least some of data is now available. Was another method used then? How is it that the defense had access to these drives?

 

[Kaosium]

Great post. Let's call Italy's 'justice' system by its name - fascism.

That is not a term I would use to refer to Italy in any way, shape or form these days. This system pre-dates fascism by the way.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greetings treehorn,
After being at the beach for the last couple of days and getting caught up on my JREF reading, I just had to hit up this post of yours:

Now I just spent a lot of time hunting down these posts at your request and I'm not sure what your grievance is, exactly.

My source for the information in question is Nadeau of Newsweek and her book on the case.

As I'm sure you know, she's bilingual and attended the trial, in person, from start to finish.

Other that Andrea Vogt, which English-speaking, professional journalist is in a better position to know the facts?

On what ground do you claim Nadeau is mistaken as to her assertion that knox slept with someone named daniel in the midst of her 6 days with raffaele?

At a minimum, you have 3 Italian men in 6 weeks (train, danielle, raffale) - knox's longest "relationship" during that time was with sollecito (just 6 days), and she had sex with him the same day she met him (as was the case with the middle aged stranger on the train).

These men were, in point of fact, known to knox for a matter of hours (possibly less) before she had sex with them - "strangers" by any reasonable definition of the term. Ergo knox's behavior (which included unprotected sex with some of these men) is, by any objective measure, not only promiscuous and reckless but entirely consistent with the signs and symptoms of antisocial PD.

It looks to me as though you've decided to characterize the work of a Newsweek reporter as "misinformation" without providing any reasonable justification for having done so.

Treehorn, as an owner too of Barbie Nadeau's fine book "Angel Face",
written after all that time that she spent sitting in court covering the case for Newsweek from "start to finish", I also learned A LOT.
Since you brought it up, let's use " Angel Face" as a reference to examine Amanda Knox's intimate life that you described.
And then also see if Barbie Nadeau has anything to say about Meredith Kercher's intimate life too...

I'll start with page 27:
"Not long after they moved in together, the 2 young women went out to the Red Zone discotheque, where they met up by chance with Giacomo and his friend Daniel de Luna, a 22 year old student from Rome who often came to Perugia to visit the guys downstairs.
They all danced and flirted. Giacomo kissed Meredith for the 1st time on the dance floor, and she later confided to her British friends that this was romantic and "very Italian" and that she hoped it was a prelude to a more intimate relationship.
Amanda and Daniel connected more quickly; he would later brag to friends that he ended up in her room that night having sex.

I'll skip back to page 23+24
Giacomo and Meredith began sleeping together about 10 days before her death,
and Giacomo admited that they had gone so far as experimenting with anal sex, which Meredith didn't like.

Some great reporting here, treehorn,
don't you think Newsweek must have been proud of what their journalist uncovered during the trial? Hmmm...

But wait a sec, here's a bit more from page 27+28:

After she was arrested, the police set a trap for Amanda by telling her that she had tested positive for HIV. This sort of psychological trickery is commonly used by investigators in Italy to illict a confession. In this case. it lead a teffified Amanda to make a grave error that would permanently taint her image. She listed all of the men she had slept with recently, trying to decide who might have infected her. The prosecutors knew the press would jump at these salacious details of Amanda's sex life, and 1 of the detectives close to the case leaked the document to the British tabloid reporter Nick Pisa, who broke the story.

Amanda wrote in her prison diary:
"I don't want to die.
I want to get married and have children.
I want to create something good.
I want to get old. I want my time. I want my life. Why why why?
I can't believe this. I don't know where I could have got HIV from."

"Here is the list of people I've had sex with in Italy in general:
1. Kyle-also a virgin
2. James-checks regulary and always used a condom
3. Ross-a 1 night stand, pull out
4. DJ-condoms, Mom is a nurse, he would know
5. Elis-pull out-1 night stand
6. Daniele [sic]-condoms, 1 night stand
7. Raffaele-condoms, 1 time w/o."

and then on page 29,
Barbie Nadeau writes :
Consensual sex is not a crime.
<snip>
In his final arguments, the lead prosecutor hypothesized that as Amanda helped assault Meredith, she yelled,
"You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex."

I don't know about you, treehorn, but from reading Barbie Nadeaus's fine book, it sounds like neither Miss Kercher, nor Miss Knox were saints
but were just young modern woman enjoying their sexuality...

What do you think?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-I DID learn something from reading these few quotes of "Angel Face":
1. Since they went to the Red Zone discotheque together, Meredith and Amanda were friends.
2. Meredith and Amanda liked being intimate.
3. Amanda Knox, at age 20, had only 7 different lovers in general, not in Italy.
4. The Italian police appear to be deceitful and "psychological trickery is commonly used by investigators in Italy to illict a confession."
5. The Italian police will, it appears, give out "salacious details" of 1's intimate sex life to the press without yet being convicted of a crime...

 

[Machiavelli]

Actually there is a connection on port 80 starting at 00:58, and attributed to playing a file with a quicktime player.
BTW the lack of web browsing is compatible with them spending the night together. It's perfectly normal to use a computer to play music or videos when with a girl, not to browse the web.

Fastweb server records only a 4 seconds connection with Apple homepage. I don’t think this is human activity. There is no human use for this connection alone. This is not browsing the web, it looks like an automatic redirection.

A lack of web browsing here takes place over more than 12 hours. Compatible with spending the night with a girl? Alone, yes. But look: the screensaver counter evidently here was set to run the screensaver after 5 minutes inativity – as it shows when it comes to the time when a sequence of files was actually played (after 6:00 am). When sequences of audio file were actually played, the screensaver is activated several times, always very soon after the previous deactivation. This means, there must be not even 5 minutes interruption of music listening during the previous 12 hours usage, in order to justify the screensaver log. This is obviously unlikely, because there is zero trace of this usage, because this would be incompatible with sleeping or making other things, and if this phantom traceless sequence of processes was completely automatised, it would not constitute a human activity.
It is obvious that a 12 hour gap in the screensaver activity - without even a 5-minutes screensaver activation - is due to deactivation of a screensaver (manual or by an application) and not due to a human activity. And in the exceptional case there is a 12 hour-long human interaction with the computer throughout the whole night, this would not be a kind of activity one forgets.

So your opinion is that the logs are

a) fabricated by a clever applying of some scripts or apps
b) manipulated post factum by Raffaele in the days before his arrest

or

c) nonexistent at all because the log the defense filed starts around 6 o'clock in the morning of 2 Nov, and the defense just wanted to make fools of themselves?

I think the logs in this case are genuine (my opinion). But they don’t prove much. They don’t prove so much in principle, when there is a person supposed to have competence to alter them (a computer science graduate could be as well as others), but this can however be assessed. They don’t prove anything good for Sollecito, however, in this case, because they do not support his alibi.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. The essence, this:

The logical implications of Sollecito's computer records remain the following:
1. There is evidence Sollecito lied, or better that either Amanda or Sollecito (or both) lied about their alibies. This evidence is not refuted by Bongiorno's agruments.
(Whether people like this or not, this lying has implications in the rules of the game of the Italian trial)
2. The computer records don't provide any alibi and the defensive arguments don't support and don't prove their alibies.

The only meaning of computer records in this trial is about the argument made by the defence, and is related to their capability to support Sollecito's alibi. They are useless for any other purpose. Bongiorno and Maori merely repeat the records are not enough a proof for Massei's theory, but this is a different scope. Their only possible function in reality is to defend Sollecito's alibi: once they fail in this duty, they are not relevant in the trial any more and thus all logical reasonings about them (like about the 500 files later modified) will be devoid of consequence and won't play any role.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

treehorn's claim

RWVBWL,

So Ms. Knox referred to Daniel De Luna as a one night stand? In other words, she does not say anything about a second encounter weeks later. That is what treehorn claimed. I suspected that since Ms. Knox was spending her nights at Raffaele's place, IIRC, that the second encounter with Daniel never happened. Since treehorn thinks so highly of Ms. Nadeau because she works for Newsweek, maybe he/she will accept this, along with the other evidence I presented.