• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kaosium said:
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?
Click to expand...

The macbook drive was the one that the Postals managed to copy. The defense had a representative present and got a copy of their own.
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was not browsing. It was quicktime player started to play a clip and downloading ads from apple server - in short - it was a human activity.

I think the logs in this case are genuine (my opinion).
Click to expand...
You mean, in your opinion the logs are unaltered by anyone, i.e. are genuine result of someone being active on the computer during the night? Who was that someone according to you?
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

BTW you keep repeating about screensaver being inactive for 12h. But it's obviously not what the defense claims. Are you sure you haven't misunderstood something? Can you give a quote for this so we can judge for ourselves?
 
Katody Matrass said:
Yes, it was not browsing. It was quicktime player started to play a clip and downloading ads from apple server - in short - it was a human activity.


You mean, in your opinion the logs are unaltered by anyone, i.e. are genuine result of someone being active on the computer during the night? Who was that someone according to you?
Click to expand...


The logs in my opinion were not purposely altered.
The logs do not show a human activity able to work as an alibi, and moreover the logs are also contradicting the recollection of facts provided by Knox and Sollecito, and I consider this a very serious point (which adds to other evidence of lying on the same point).
 
Withnail1969 said:
Great post. Let's call Italy's 'justice' system by its name - fascism.
Click to expand...

Let's not - it's got a lot wrong with it, as this case demonstrates, but the adversarial system we use has an awful lot wrong with it too, and has produced its own share of railroaded dud convictions.

I say we skip the Italy-bashing.
 
Mary_H said:
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?
Click to expand...

It would leave Curatolo mistaken.

It would leave Raffaele as sitting in prison for years and covering for Amanda? not likely.

It would remove the bathroom floormat, and the barefoot lovers luminol prints in the garbage can.

And the bra clasp would then prove a lab that has ablity to make horrific mistakes or a squad that can contaminate.

then the final Appeal would be only Amanda, and a huge huge knife, and DNA in her own bathroom, nothing in the bedroom of Meredith, and without any motive for hate or sex with Meredith proven.

but this Raffaele goes free seems to be a recent thought on a few boards.

What would they say about the bra clasp? If his computer shows someone was at his place all night.
 
tsig said:
I don't think the US will send a military mission to rescue Amanda.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing, Ted Simon will be awarded that task if the Appeals remain the same verdict. Then the Italian's who "won" this case can remain satisfied and proud, and the Ted can work the deal, without the media approval.

"released out the back door" as they call it.
 
JREF2010 said:
I'm guessing, Ted Simon will be awarded that task if the Appeals remain the same verdict. Then the Italian's who "won" this case can remain satisfied and proud,
Click to expand...

If it goes that far I don't think anyone will remain "satisfied and proud" they 'won' this case for very long.
 
I don't see this move as desperate or dangerous. It is clear that the defense sees this as a possible alibi. They are not asking for the court to accept their version, instead they are saying there is enough there that they have turned up to warrant a new expert opinion to be obtained by the appeal court. Personally, I do not see it as possible that this will be denied in light of this new information. I think it shows a degree of confidence on the part of Raffaele's defense team.
 
RoseMontague said:
I don't see this move as desperate or dangerous. It is clear that the defense sees this as a possible alibi. They are not asking for the court to accept their version, instead they are saying there is enough there that they have turned up to warrant a new expert opinion to be obtained by the appeal court. Personally, I do not see it as possible that this will be denied in light of this new information. I think it shows a degree of confidence on the part of Raffaele's defense team.
Click to expand...

I find it curious that some are trying to pretend this unexpected information produced by the defense is somehow 'good news' for the prosecution. Without it the prosecution still had to try to garner another conviction without a murder weapon, reliable witnesses, any real physical evidence and no motive, except this time minus the character of the first drama, 'Foxy Knoxy.'

Anything that casts any more doubt on their 'case' would seem to me to be disadvantageous, and (almost) the last thing I would want people thinking about were I prosecuting this case were the suspicious things that happened to the computers the first time around...
 
Withnail1969 said:
Given Italy's level of corruption, a million or so dollars in the right pocket would secure her 'escape' from prison, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Then it's a real shame Amanda's family didn't do that to start with. Would've been cheaper in the long run and she would have been spared all those years in prison.
 
Katody Matrass said:
No, they clearly say that periods of certain absence of interaction (i.e. screensaver activation) are at most 6 minute long each. They emphasize that the screensaver function was not deactivated completely. There is no mention of a 12h period of screensaver inactivity.
Click to expand...


Si comprende l’essenziale importanza che rivestirebbe sapere se e per quanto tempo il “salvaschermo” del computer di Raffaele Sollecito si sia attivato (e di converso quando si sia disattivato) nell’intervallo preso a riferimento dagli inquirenti, cioè tra le 18:00 del 1 novembre 2007 e le 8:00 del 2 novembre.
(...) [list of 3 “inactive” periods all after 6.00 am] (1 page missing?)
Orbene (..) di desume come nel periodo tra le 18:26 del 1 novembre e le 6:22 del 2 novembre, i periodi in cui si assiste ad assenza certa sono al massimo di 6 minuti, mentre tutti gli altri periodi sono di interazione/non iterazione potenziale, intendendosi per non iterazione potenziale UNA CONDOTTA ATTIVA DELL’UTENTE SUL COMPUTER (..)

The "active behaviour" of the user is attributed to the remaining parts. But there is a mention of only 3 "inactive periods", and anyway the statement that any inactive period lasts only 6 minutes at most, and this implicates a hugely prolonged time of human activity, a sleepless 12 hours period (18:26-6:22).
 
RoseMontague said:
I don't see this move as desperate or dangerous. It is clear that the defense sees this as a possible alibi. They are not asking for the court to accept their version, instead they are saying there is enough there that they have turned up to warrant a new expert opinion to be obtained by the appeal court. Personally, I do not see it as possible that this will be denied in light of this new information. I think it shows a degree of confidence on the part of Raffaele's defense team.
Click to expand...

Indeed. We don't know what exactly the defense retrieved, but if there really are logged events of activity around the time of crime then it is an obvious confirmation of their alibi.

Of course the court can happily dismiss it anyway. For Massei the fact that Amanda had a large bag was enough of a proof she illegally carried a knife. We'll see if the new judges and jury will be as unrestrained by logic and reason as the old ones.
 
RoseMontague said:
I don't see this move as desperate or dangerous. It is clear that the defense sees this as a possible alibi. They are not asking for the court to accept their version, instead they are saying there is enough there that they have turned up to warrant a new expert opinion to be obtained by the appeal court. Personally, I do not see it as possible that this will be denied in light of this new information. I think it shows a degree of confidence on the part of Raffaele's defense team.
Click to expand...

Do you think there is no problem in replacing Raffaele and Amanda's recollection of facts (smoke, sex, sleep etc) with a 12 hours interaction at the computer?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Let's not - it's got a lot wrong with it, as this case demonstrates, but the adversarial system we use has an awful lot wrong with it too, and has produced its own share of railroaded dud convictions.

I say we skip the Italy-bashing.
Click to expand...

I agree. Wild claims hurt the credibility of the one making them.
 
Kaosium said:
It's much easier than placing them at the murder site.
Click to expand...

They don't need to be both at the murder site to be guilty. It's enough if they cover the guilty one, or if they clean up the apartment.

What do you think of the Elisabetta Ballarin case:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6526927&postcount=13824

I recall other more extreme cases but couldn't find them since I don't remember the name: the case of a woman who was convicted for the murder of a man (her husband?): in the motivation document the court wrote they were not able to prove she did it, but there was enough evidence to determine that, if she didn't do it, yet she has to know ho did it.
This is enough for a court.
 
Machiavelli said:
Do you think there is no problem in replacing Raffaele and Amanda's recollection of facts (smoke, sex, sleep etc) with a 12 hours interaction at the computer?
Click to expand...

You've never stayed up all night talking, or watching movies, or listening to music in the first week of a love affair?

If the biggest "lie" the prosecution can gin up is "They said they spent all night at home doing harmless activity X, but now we can prove once and for all that these scoundrels in fact spent all night at home doing harmless activity Y!" then that's a pretty sad state for them to be in if they want a justified conviction... and that's giving you a free kick by pretending that the logs in any way contradict their statements, which you simply have not shown and which I don't think you are going to be able to show.

Since we know that they were not friends with Rudy Guede in any way, shape or form, it's getting ridiculous to even try to stick them with cleaning up the murder scene. Apart from the total lack of positive evidence of a clean-up, there's not the slightest hint of any sensible reason why they would want to clean up after Rudy Guede, fake a break-in or perform any of the other bizarre contortions Mignini made up to try to tie them in to the murder.

I think the real underlying argument here is not a rational one, that ends with the conclusion "...and that proves that they must be guilty". It's an irrational one, previously articulated by Fulcanelli, that goes "I've poured years of my life into arguing the case for their guilt, and I'm not going to throw it all away that easily!".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom