Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

I have to admit I don't speak Italian and am in some doubt about what the report actually says. In addition, there are some people saying that there are missing pages and others saying there aren't.

However, if a screensaver starts up and then is stopped from working after 5 minutes that doesn't mean there was 5 minutes of non-activity on the computer. We are missing the amount of time of non-activity it takes for the screensaver to start up. If the screensaver was set to start after 30 minutes of non-activity, then screensaver activity lasting 5 minutes indicates 35 minutes of non-activity not five minutes.

How many times did the screensaver activate during the time period in question?

 

[Kaosium]

You "hope so"?

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

I know Amanda and Raffaele are less likely than anyone possible to have committed and participated in murder. That's because despite an outrageous investigation no real evidence of them being involved could be produced, and had they actually been involved they would have confessed long ago.

The idea a simple break-in gone bad was actually a faked break in so three people who barely knew each other could murder a girl for no reason was preposterous to begin with, and if anyone outside Rudy Guede acted truly suspiciously since it would be Mignini and his desperate attempts to pin it on two innocents. BTW, how well does he fill out that DSM-IV checklist of yours? Have you looked into what he was doing the evening of the first? If you need a conspiracy to explain this murder he would seem to be the most interesting candidate...

 

[Kaosium]

The concept of guilt beyond reasonble doubt had been part of Italian jurisprudence long before it was explicited also into the Procedure Code.

It hadn't quite sunk in to Perugia by 2009, or we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

[treehorn]

...I have now provided you with several examples of Ms. Nadeau’s errors, and all you can do is to keep repeating that she works for Newsweek. Your argument cuts no ice.

Your basis for Nadeau's alleged "error" was the word of an unidentified "anonymous" poster who claimed to have had access to/read the sworn statement of daniel, correct?

Should THAT "cut any ice"?

.Argument by repletion is also your strategy in the discussion of Mr. Sayagh’s article. Even if your estimation of Georgetown’s international law program were accurate, it is not a very convincing refutation of Mr. Sayagh’s points. I present a sample from ArrestedAbroad...
Do you think that Mr. Sayagh correctly analyzed Article 5? With your education, this should be a snap.

I have made no "argument" in respect of this obscure law student at a 2nd rate common law school because I have ZERO interest in the course work of an unqualified amateur that isn't even suitable for publication in the law review of a 4th rate school.

I've only repeated this statement in response to your repeated attempts to raise the subject.

You can frame this kid's paper if you want. For my money, however, it isn't worth a damn because: 1) he's not at a particularly good school; 2) he's completely unschooled in the civil law tradition/ Italian jurisprudence; and 3) no one wants to publish it. If those conditions should ever happen to change, let me know.

Meantime, here's my guess: lonely geek MALE law student has to submit a paper for an (optional) upper year course, gets stuck for an idea, then decides to turn his interest in the tabloid news coverage of Seattle's "Angel Face" into a critique of the Italian system (about which he literally knows nothing). The result? A passing grade for the course (in a mediocre school), but nothing worthy of any legitimate, scholarly consideration.

 

[Kaosium]

The last defence theory seems to implicate he left Amanda alone every 5-10 minutes to go to the computer.
The innocentisti seem to not grasp the difference between two alibies and this log theory.

Truthfully I don't know what they're going to use that log for, I cannot read it myself. However having a girl and a computer in bed at the same time seems like the best of all worlds...

I don't present such idea, and you know it. Instead this rather is what several innocentisti accuse the police of doing.

I know you didn't, that was a 'preemptive strike.' From reading this thread I rest assured that someone will be making that argument...

 

[katy_did]

The sex party is easy, the both sleeping in the same bed at the same time is harder (my opinion). Some snore, some toss and turn, some kick. It takes longer (in my experience, and that would be limited experience in my case-LOL) to get a good nights sleep with a partner. Your opinion on this is welcome.

Before the latest computer info, I always thought this was a likely reason for Raffaele having been awake at 5:30. Especially with him not having been used to sharing a bed with Amanda. Quite a bit more likely than him having just returned from a spot of murdering and deciding to make a celebratory playlist, anyway.

(I always envy people who can easily get a good night's sleep when with a partner. I usually find it difficult. Raffaele looks like a fidgeter rather than a kicker though, IMO. Amanda, totally a snorer. LOL).

 

[Machiavelli]

I have to admit I don't speak Italian and am in some doubt about what the report actually says. In addition, there are some people saying that there are missing pages and others saying there aren't.

However, if a screensaver starts up and then is stopped from working after 5 minutes that doesn't mean there was 5 minutes of non-activity on the computer. We are missing the amount of time of non-activity it takes for the screensaver to start up. If the screensaver was set to start after 30 minutes of non-activity, then screensaver activity lasting 5 minutes indicates 35 minutes of non-activity not five minutes.

Yes but the screensaver was set to start after 5 minutes, this is evident because the reported sequence shows three periods of "human interaction" so short to imply the waiting time cannot be longer than 5 minutes.

 

[katy_did]

I have made no "argument" in respect of this obscure law student at a 2nd rate common law school because I have ZERO interest in the course work of an unqualified amateur that isn't even suitable for publication in the law review of a 4th rate school.

I've only repeated this statement in response to your repeated attempts to raise the subject.

You can frame this kid's paper if you want. For my money, however, it isn't worth a damn because: 1) he's not at a particularly good school; 2) he's completely unschooled in the civil law tradition/ Italian jurisprudence; and 3) no one wants to publish it. If those conditions should ever happen to change, let me know.

Perhaps you could try reading it and considering the contents. You might then be able to offer an opinion on the subject based on something more than your own prejudices as to who is qualified to speak about it.

 

[christianahannah]

How many times did the screensaver activate during the time period in question?

There is only activity of the screensaver from 6 a.m. to 6:22 a.m. on Novmeber 2 listed. From the pages able to be viewed that were filed I don't believe that number is specified, however, the screensaver activity could be detailed in the supposed missing page(s).

 

[Withnail1969]

Yes but the screensaver was set to start after 5 minutes, this is evident because the reported sequence shows three periods of "human interaction" so short to imply the waiting time cannot be longer than 5 minutes.

do we know if this same pattern continued for the rest of the night until morning?

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes but the screensaver was set to start after 5 minutes, this is evident because the reported sequence shows three periods of "human interaction" so short to imply the waiting time cannot be longer than 5 minutes.

What is the "reported sequence" and what human interaction does it show?

Remember, I don't speak Italian.

 

[Withnail1969]

There is only activity of the screensaver from 6 a.m. to 6:22 a.m. on Novmeber 2 listed. From the pages able to be viewed that were filed I don't believe that number is specified, however, the screensaver activity could be detailed in the supposed missing page(s).

So basically we can't draw any conclusions from this data. Why is somebody on this forum apparently claiming that the same pattern of the screensaver activating every 5 minutes took place for the entire night? I'm confused.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

citation please

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?

In some jurisdictions the prosecutor is expressly forbidden from mentioning the fact that an accused person does not take the stand. Can you offer a citation for your claim about alibis?

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't believe you are addressing the argument that I made. Amanda looks like a snorer. I bet Raffaele kicks. katy_did made a good point as well. The type of settings for the screensaver might help, any movement or mouse, etc.

But
1. the setting of the screensaver is to start after 5 minutes.
2. The time period is 12 hours long, with no interruption! (5 minutes + 6 minutes makes 11 minutes as the longer interruption). This activity is unlikely itself. Plus, there is no trace of this activity.
3. The version given by Knox and Sollecito is they were sleeping and don't remember being awake at the computer, this kind of activity requires somebody to be awake all the time, even if they are awake in shifts. This being awake at the computer is incompatible with their position, their recollection of facts: they are lying.
4. There are easy technical reasons for a screensaver to be inactive along a 12 hours period.
5. The alleged periods of human activity anyway don't prove their innocence. And the computer records, overall, could be meaningful only if they were able to disprove evidence or provide them with two alibies, and they are not.

 

[pilot padron]

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.

Although you have presented many facets of this argument that I personally find little to agree with; may I enthusiastically completely agree with you on the above observation.

Additionally:

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

Are you seriously judging a web site by your preconception of one word in it's name?

May I extend my constructive criticism to the argument here that others 'on the same team' would use similar logical analysis before blindly rushing to defend any team mate's incessant annoying lack of on topic factual information that meaningfully contributes to the discussion.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes but the screensaver was set to start after 5 minutes, this is evident because the reported sequence shows three periods of "human interaction" so short to imply the waiting time cannot be longer than 5 minutes.

Sounds like a really good alibi but your convincement has not fully succeeded in my case, at least to this point. Can you tell what type of interaction caused each screensaver activation to engage (movement of the mouse/cursor for example)?

 

[Matthew Best]

But
4. There are easy technical reasons for a screensaver to be inactive along a 12 hours period.

I thought we were discussing the screensaver being active? Not inactive. Your attempts to bring clarity to the discussion are appreciated, but I don't think you're succeeding. Rather the opposite.

I now have not much idea what the logs show and I'm not sure that anyone has demonstrated that they do either.

 

[treehorn]

treehorn,

We were discussing Ms. Nadeau's many errors, were were not?

Only if you're able to tell me more about the "anonymous" poster who told you he was able to access, and read, daniel's sworn statement.

Dr. Waterbury has written some excellent articles on LCN DNA, among other subjects. As for whether or not Mr. Guede was an informant, it is a parsimonious explanation for why he did not get arrested for his prior wrongdoing.

1) Waterbury's PhD is in Materials Science - what the hell does he know about LCN DNA?! (My guess: Less than a 2nd year Genetics Major!)

2) I absolutely L O V E your use of the phrase "parsimonious explanation"! Why are you nowhere near as 'charitable' vis-à-vis the assertions of "guilters"???

3) You don't seriously consider his 'theory' about Guede as passing, shall we say, the 'air of reality test' do you?!

In light of Guede's conviction (30 years, reduced to 16 on a 'technicality' related to the election of 'fast track' trials), how on earth can it be said that the (alleged) wrongful conviction of 2 "innocent" college kids functioned so as to mitigate Guede's legal consequences/ penalties?!

That's beyond absurd. Admit it.

George Washington University's International law program ranks 6th in the US. Hardly second tier.

No offense, but that school is second tier. At best. (The kid 'ain't' no genius. I assure you.)

Note: In a previous message I wrote Georgetown when I should have written George Washington. I am sorry for any confusion.

Well, I know, but before that error you had it right - I figured it was silly to nit pick, I knew what you meant. Lowe's right about trying to avoid cluttering the board with silly 'gotchas'.

PS In future, can I borrow your phrase "parsimonious explanation"? (I can barely wait to deploy it!)

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps you could try reading it and considering the contents. You might then be able to offer an opinion on the subject based on something more than your own prejudices as to who is qualified to speak about it.

As I noticed this topic of discussion I went back and read it a few days ago. I don't have an adjective to define its quality, and I have no time to express my opnion in detail now, but I was surprised the author could be a person with a law school background, I thought it's somthing really flawed from the basics. It's nothing serious from my point of view.

 

[Withnail1969]

I thought we were discussing the screensaver being active? Not inactive. Your attempts to bring clarity to the discussion are appreciated, but I don't think you're succeeding. Rather the opposite.

I now have not much idea what the logs show and I'm not sure that anyone has demonstrated that they do either.

the logs which have been released show a short period in the early morning of Nov 2nd from 6 am to 6:22 am where the screensaver activated for about 5 minutes at a time every 5 minutes.

Machiavelli seems to be claiming that this same exact pattern pertained for the preceding 12 hours. Obviously this is wrong because during that period several videos were watched.

I think this is what is being claimed, I stand ready to be corrected.