Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

It's not really computer jargon. Think of it as your local library. Every time someone checks out a book, the librarian records in the libraries record when the book was checked out. There is one special librarian that we like to call the Finder. This librarian helps people find books that they want to read. In addition to keeping the libraries record of when a book was last checked out, the Finder keeps its own record of the last time it found a book.

One night, in the 1st of November, Raffaele asked the Finder to get him the book Stardust. A few days later, Ilea went into the library and found stardust on the shelf and checked it out. After that, the library was closed, A few weeks later, the postman went through the libraries records to find all books checked out on the evening of the 1st and the morning of the 2nd. Stardust wasn't in that group because it was last checked out on the 6th. Raffaele's team however found the Finders records that show when Raffaele had asked for the book on the 1st.

Thanks for the information here and in the other post.

So they watched "Stardust" that night, at least, along with the other one called "Amelie" or somesuch?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are seriously making an argument based on a table on a psychic website? Seriously?

Justinian2, I must say I wish that you wouldn't keep giving the snipers easy targets. It fills the thread with inane gotchas and crowds out discussion of pertinent points that actually matter.

 

[Dan O.]

So they watched "Stardust" that night, at least, along with the other one called "Amelie" or somesuch?

Raffaele did something with the movie file that night and it was recorded as a human request through the finder and not just a file access as would happen with sharing the file over the internet. He might have played it or might have been converting it to quicktime so it plays better or to download it to an iPod.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thanks for the information here and in the other post.

So they watched "Stardust" that night, at least, along with the other one called "Amelie" or somesuch?

My recollection is that they claim they watched Amelie early in the night, before Meredith was murdered, and Stardust later.

Unfortunately while the laptop was in the custody of the Postal Police they did something that overwrote the metadata for Stardust (among 500-odd other files). The fact that the police destroyed the evidence vital to the alibi of the accused doesn't apparently count for much in Perugia.

Then they fried the hard drive, along with the other two hard drives they seized. This apparently doesn't count for much in Perugia either.

Personally I tend to think that there should be at least reasonable doubt about whether the police did so in good faith. If the police go around destroying vital evidence after they have had a good look at it, especially in a case fraught with other forms of police misconduct aimed at prejudicing the outcome of the trial, I think that the judges should give significant weight to the possibility that they destroyed it because it didn't support their case. Maybe that's just me. Anyway:

Fortunately for truth, justice and all that good stuff Raffaele's laptop's hard drive was repairable and that looks like it's going to be the small mercy that sinks Mignini's sick fantasy once and for all.

 

[Mary_H]

[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?

Collusion, abuse of power, elitism and graft are all forms of corruption.

In this case, we have seen collusion in the way the magistrates automatically accept each other’s proposals without objection, no matter how ridiculous. We saw it when Giobbi, with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge,” let Mignini know that Amanda had wiggled her hips when she put her booties on. We saw it when the authorities hurried to get the kids under arrest before their parents could find out about it and prevent it.

We saw abuse of power in the withholding of legal counsel from the suspects. We saw it in the lies and the fake assurances of trust the police offered the kids in order to induce them to “confess” and then use their “confessions” to incriminate them. We saw it in Matteini’s statement that the fact that Amanda had not tried to flee had no bearing on whether she should be subsequently be considered a flight risk. We see it in the calunnia charge.

We see elitism every time Mignini takes umbrage at those who dare to question his authority, or that of his prosecution, investigative or forensics teams, or of the judges. Graft is inherent in elitism, because anyone who makes it into the inner circle benefits, and does what he has to do to stay there.

These forms of corruption may not be as easy to detect as bribery, theft, extortion or fraud, because they don’t involve money. They may involve offices or favors, though, and they certainly involve the valuable rewards of acceptance, approval, being included and fitting in. They are all, as Merriam Webster defines corruption (in part), “an impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle.”

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

I believe it is just adding rather than replacing (smoke, computer, sex, computer, sleep, computer, not guilty, computer, etc)

 

[Withnail1969]

Collusion, abuse of power, elitism and graft are all forms of corruption.

In this case, we have seen collusion in the way the magistrates automatically accept each other’s proposals without objection, no matter how ridiculous. We saw it when Giobbi, with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge,” let Mignini know that Amanda had wiggled her hips when she put her booties on. We saw it when the authorities hurried to get the kids under arrest before their parents could find out about it and prevent it.

We saw abuse of power in the withholding of legal counsel from the suspects. We saw it in the lies and the fake assurances of trust the police offered the kids in order to induce them to “confess” and then use their “confessions” to incriminate them. We saw it in Matteini’s statement that the fact that Amanda had not tried to flee had no bearing on whether she should be subsequently be considered a flight risk. We see it in the calunnia charge.

We see elitism every time Mignini takes umbrage at those who dare to question his authority, or that of his prosecution, investigative or forensics teams, or of the judges. Graft is inherent in elitism, because anyone who makes it into the inner circle benefits, and does what he has to do to stay there.

These forms of corruption may not be as easy to detect as bribery, theft, extortion or fraud, because they don’t involve money. They may involve offices or favors, though, and they certainly involve the valuable rewards of acceptance, approval, being included and fitting in. They are all, as Merriam Webster defines corruption (in part), “an impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle.”

There's also strong evidence from a Perugia local that Curatolo was coached to give false testimony. He messed it up though, by embellishing it with too many (wrong) details - but the judge just ignored them.

 

[Antony]

I'm reminded of the scenes in the old Warner Brothers cartoons where Wile E. Coyote runs off the edge of a cliff, and discovers that he can hover suspended in the air as long as he doesn't look down.

Even so, there is no real reason to be confident of an acquittal on the first appeal. The court of appeal is not much different from the original trial court, and probably subject to the same political pressures. The experience of miscarriages of justice in the UK is of the falsely accused having to battle through years of official denial.

It may be that this forum will switch to raking through the faulty reasoning of the appeal court in a few weeks' or months' time (how long does the appeal take?)

 

[treehorn]

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

Hello RWVBWL,

I'm not sure I see your point. Evidence was adduced, Nadeau reported it. You make it sound as if Nadeau was "authoring" a "naughty story" out of some sort of "prurient interest," rather than merely reporting the facts of the case.

If that's what Giacomo testified to in court, or swore to in an affidavit, then it's Nadeau's job to report it/ acknowledge it in her coverage of the case.

Information of this kind comes up in court everyday of the week in every jurisdiction you can name. It's mundane.

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...

I think every healthy person on the planet enjoys their sexuality. Enjoyment of one's sexualtity is not the point, however. The point is that Amanda's sexual activity appears to have undergone a dramatic shift around the time she left for Perugia.

She well nigh doubled her number of sex partners in the span of just 5 weeks. There is evidence that she had sex (including unprotected sex) with at least 3 Italian strangers in the span of 5 weeks.

By any objective measure this is both promiscuous and reckless. Ergo it comports with the notion that antisocial PD (or some other serious psychological/ psychiatric malady) was emerging in the weeks and months leading up to the murder.

Ditto for the antisocial and unlawful conduct that resulted in a brush with the Seattle police, a public record on file with the Muncipal Court of Seattle and a conviction for "Residential Disturbance" under the Seattle Municipal Code.

Ditto for the antisocial, anti-Semetic taunting of a Jewish coworker in Seattle (the story remains un-retracted).

Ditto for the "rape prank" of an unsuspecting roommate in Seattle (if true).

Ditto for the decision to blow off the German internship on a whim.

Ditto for (unlawful) under-age drinking and the (unlawful) use and abuse of illicit narcotics to the point of memory loss. (And, yes, memory blanks/ loss = abuse.)

Ditto for assaulting/murdering an innocent young woman (per the triers in the trial of first instance).

Ditto for the antisocial behavior in the police HQ.

Ditto for bearing false witness against an innocent man.

Ditto for her refusal to recant her false accusation of that man.

Ditto for the disrespectful/ antisocial/ narcissistic/ nonchalant conduct in the courtroom.

Ditto for the "Marie Pace" story.

Ditto for the disingenuous PR games, including the "Interviews with Rocco" fiasco.

"Cruelty to animals" is probably the ONLY characteristic of antisocial PD that Knox has not displayed (although there was a bleeding cat, was there not? I'm kidding...sort of...).

As for "trickery" by the Italian police, it seems that you are unaware that "trickery" of suspects by agents of the state is, with good reason, sanctioned by the US Supreme Court.

As for "leaks"/ disclosure/ freedom of information/ the public's right to know, I might well ask you (if you're an American) how many details of Casey Anthony's life (sexual or otherwise) you've been made aware of since her arrest (before a body had even been discovered) in 2008. You'll note that she, too, has not yet been convicted as her trial will not even begin until late Spring 2011.

 

[treehorn]

Even so, there is no real reason to be confident of an acquittal on the first appeal. The court of appeal is not much different from the original trial court, and probably subject to the same political pressures. The experience of miscarriages of justice in the UK is of the falsely accused having to battle through years of official denial.

It may be that this forum will switch to raking through the faulty reasoning of the appeal court in a few weeks' or months' time (how long does the appeal take?)

You really need to start considering the distinction between legal and factual guilt.

 

[treehorn]

There's also strong evidence from a Perugia local that Curatolo was coached to give false testimony. He messed it up though, by embellishing it with too many (wrong) details - but the judge just ignored them.

Where is this "strong evidence"?

Who is this "Perugia [sic] local"?

 

[treehorn]

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.

Are you saying that Nadeau did not merely report/ write on the basis of evidence adduced at trial in respect of daniel?

 

[Kaosium]

Fortunately for truth, justice and all that good stuff Raffaele's laptop's hard drive was repairable and that looks like it's going to be the small mercy that sinks Mignini's sick fantasy once and for all.

I sure hope so. You brought up a tagline that's been running through my head the last few days. There used to be an old TV show whose re-runs they'd promote using the line: "There's truth, there's justice, and then there's the Chicago Way."

 

[treehorn]

It seems to me that you are using some novel definition of "alibi" which is not the one that everyone else is using.

As we have been using the term, proof that they were at home when the murder happened is an alibi. It's a defense by an accused person of having been elsewhere at the time an alleged offense was committed.

In this regard it is interesting that Sollecito did not take the stand in his own defense.

In common law jurisdictions, the silence of an accused cannot be used as a make-weight against him/her in the scales of justice by the trier(s) of fact EXCEPT where the accused offers a defense of alibi.

Sollectio's refusal to face cross examination in respect of his 'alibi' would have cooked his goose in the USA.

I wonder whether the Italian civil law mirrors this exception...

Any lawyers trained in the civil law tradition here?

 

[treehorn]

I sure hope so. You brought up a tagline that's been running through my head the last few days. There used to be an old TV show whose re-runs they'd promote using the line: "There's truth, there's justice, and then there's the Chicago Way."

You "hope so"?

It sounds as if you really believe you "know" what happened in Perugia on Nov 1/07.

 

[Antony]

I don't know why you always think so much about the guilters and less about the defendants. Would you be reminded of the same scene even if they are convicted again?

The decisions of the Italian courts don't make any difference to the truth. Several of those here confident of the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele have nevertheless expressed caution over whether the appeal court will get it right.

If the appeal court's decision is based on the facts and not on the same prejudices and hysteria as the original court, then Amanda and Raffaele will be freed in short order. If not, it will be a further indictment of Italian justice.

 

[treehorn]

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?

No. No sense at all.

If "they... insist that Raffaele has...shown himself to be a liar" and establish/affirm that "any alibi he can provide ... is not credible[,]" how on earth will that state of affairs pave the way for him to get "off the hook"?!

I'm afraid you're the one that is not making any sense.

 

[JREF2010]

Thanks for the information here and in the other post.

So they watched "Stardust" that night, at least, along with the other one called "Amelie" or somesuch?

yes I agree...thanks Dan O. That's interesting about how this software works.

Do you know what time on Nov 1, the downloading started and ended of Stardust?
Could it be downloading while they watched the Amelie movie? Or eating dinner?

I'm just curious.

Is it normal to download movies, while watching movies? I never have done this and is why I'm confused.

It seems that would be taxing on the CPU. How long would it take on Sollecitos Mac to download Stardust, and does it require human interaction, after its downloaded, to press "complete" or "end" etc..? Would there be information, from the source of the Stardust files site or computer, for example, that would offer information?

Its common to hear or read that we musty physically destroy a harddrive to remove all certainty of privacy and information, and that "experts" can retrieve data off the harddrive with almost "magical means". Is this old folklore and untrue? When actually this case seems to state its very easy to erase access time stamps; one only has to overwrite it like they did on Nov 6.

 

[treehorn]

If the appeal court's decision is based on the facts and not on the same prejudices and hysteria as the original court, then Amanda and Raffaele will be freed in short order. If not, it will be a further indictment of Italian justice.

Prejudices?

Hysteria?

Can you be more specific?

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe it is just adding rather than replacing (smoke, computer, sex, computer, sleep, computer, not guilty, computer, etc)

C'm on, be realistic, five-minutes sleep sessions?
Five-minutes sex sessions? Five minutes bathroom breakes? Five minutes dinner sesions?
A contiuous interruption of acivities every five-10 minutes over 12 hours!
How can you not realize this is not human?