Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Not for me, but who knows. I just don't see them forgetting that they touched the computer every 15 minutes all night only to remember now that an opinion has been expressed that the computer log may show this.

IIRC, Raffaele had initially stated he was up late on the computer. His original appeal (before the defense computer expert found this additional information) called for more investigation because before even examining these screen-saver logs they found one file that the police expert did not:

Like to point out, in fact, that the judgment placed at 21:10:32
the last operation performed by Raffaele Sollecito in the day of 1
November 2007.
Indeed, searching with Spotlight in version 10.4.10 was
detected at least one file "Naruto ep 101.avi" which is not present in
advice of the police post, but whose date of last opening is Thursday 1 November 2007 at 21:26 (ie in the period examined by the police Postal: 1st November 2007 18:00 - November 2, 2007 8:00 am). The date of their last (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 10:18:38) and last editing this file (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 13:28:09) corresponds to a period coinciding with the removal of the laptop from the home of Raffaele Dunning, during which activities are detected on that laptop witnessed by the file system logs. In light of the circumstances, it requires further investigation computer Raffaele Sollecito to ascertain interactions actually occurred on his computer, between 1 and 2 November 2007, under Article. 603, first paragraph, cpp

 

[Withnail1969]

I told you that almost any law enforcement officer will agree what I've put which is, yes, an argument from experience but one that is easily corroborated if you don't happen to agree the argument from common sense that burglars like to be as sure as possible there's no-one in the properties they are burgling during times when people might reasonably be anticipated to be in occupation and awake. Your hostility rebounds on you repeatedly. Try some arguments from argument perhaps.

I happened to be inside my premises asleep when i was burgled, so I simply don't buy your citations from the imaginary 'burglar's handbook'.

If I had happened to get up that could have turned out very nastily for me given that the burglar had taken one of my large kitchen knives to cut some tangled up cables so that he could steal my XBox 360. Another burglar who hadn't read the manual I guess.

 

[platonov]

pg 386

386

Yes, the silliness in part of point 3 and all of 4 & 5 isn't there.
Post both together if you wish and highlight the relevant portions.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Thanks. But what was just posted was not the most recent version. I added this line a few days ago:

06:22 Screensaver on Raffaele's computer kicks in marking the end of human activity on the computer for the night. (from appeal documents, unverified)
​

I did this for you on the train this morning. Uploading now..

(some of?) The data you are missing from the timeline are as follows:

21:10:32 (1st Nov) to 05:32:08 (2nd) Nov: Mozilla Firefox connected to internet. Only automatic files written to hard-disk. No evidence of human interaction according to prosecution.

00:58:50 - 00:58:53 - 4 second connection to Apple International website. Defence suggests an ad playing in response to media played on computer (no log of such event on computer).

05:32:09 VLC media player launched

05:32:12 VLC media player crashes. Relaunched.

05:32:13 VLC media player crashes 2nd time. Relaunched.

05:33:09 VLC media player crashes 3rd time. (note errata in translation which says 5:32:09). User switches to iTunes application instead.

05:56:37 iTunes Playlist created

06:18: last human interaction with media files, event no.54 in the relevant report.


As you know, the lack of corroboration of Raffaele and Amanda's interview and testimony of interaction with the computer versus their story of sleeping in until 10 / 10.30 on the morning of the 1st is a significant problem in the defence case. It needs to be noted in any objective timeline.

Can't remember if you added the 7.30/7.45 point for Amanda being seen outside of the store at the bottom of Corso Garibaldi. Again, by all means dispute the evidence but a comprehensive timeline is important to both sides and must be complete as to the evidence presented.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I happened to be inside my premises asleep when i was burgled, so I simply don't buy your citations from the imaginary 'burglar's handbook'.

If I had happened to get up that could have turned out very nastily for me given that the burglar had taken one of my large kitchen knives to cut some tangled up cables so that he could steal my XBox 360. Another burglar who hadn't read the manual I guess.

I didn't state anything about a "burglar's handbook" which was an invention of someone else here. I talked clearly about common practice and also I already talked about the difference of MO for people breaking and entering in the dead of night where property will be reasonably expected to be occupied by sleeping people - two completely different MO's and also two different type of burglars. You have studiously ignored this as well.

Attempted ridicule against perfectly reasonable and decently reasoned propositions doesn't win you an argument, it just makes you look insecure and defensive.

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, the silliness in part of point 3 and all of 4 & 5 isn't there.
Post both together if you wish and highlight the relevant portions.

Furthermore, once the mobile phones had been taken, and the door had been locked, there would have been no compelling reason not to put off the cleaning until early the next morning. If anyone had arrived at the house (Silenzi, for example) the closed door would have convinced him or her that Meredith was not in her room, and the impossibility of hearing Meredith’s phones ring would not have given rise to any suspicion.

Is that better?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I happened to be inside my premises asleep when i was burgled, so I simply don't buy your citations from the imaginary 'burglar's handbook'.

If I had happened to get up that could have turned out very nastily for me given that the burglar had taken one of my large kitchen knives to cut some tangled up cables so that he could steal my XBox 360. Another burglar who hadn't read the manual I guess.

When it comes to personal anecdotes, burglars got into my family house through the second story window, too. It was in the wee hours of the morning, but not dark anymore. The burglar thought everybody left and drove to work, but in fact there were two people and a dog (!) all still asleep inside. The burglar was surprised but he managed to get away. He ran downstairs and escaped through the front door. The damn dog was not helpful

 

[platonov]

Multi coloured silliness

Is that better?

No.
Post both together if you wish and highlight the relevant portions.

3. The calls to Meredith not answered and subsequent calls to Filomena provide a cover showing the surprise at finding this "new" information on the return back and Rafaele's failed attempt to break down Meredith's door was part of this perfectly choreographed plan.4. Just in case one of the other flat mates came home at they time of the staged phone calls to Meredith's phones, the phones were taken away and disposed of and one of them left on so they could be discovered at a later time in a location away from the flat showing that the home was burglarized.
5. Filomena's room was ransacked to make it appear a burglar was looking for something but didn't find what they were looking for because nothing was taken.

 

[Withnail1969]

I didn't state anything about a "burglar's handbook" which was an invention of someone else here. I talked clearly about common practice and also I already talked about the difference of MO for people breaking and entering in the dead of night where property will be reasonably expected to be occupied by sleeping people - two completely different MO's and also two different type of burglars. You have studiously ignored this as well.

Attempted ridicule against perfectly reasonable and decently reasoned propositions doesn't win you an argument, it just makes you look insecure and defensive.

You didn't state that there was a 'burglar's handbook' but you had clearly decided that burglars operated according to a set of rules which you claim to know. (Argument from authority). Much the same as Kermit with his bizarre insistence that Rudy must have filled up and then emptied some 'burglar's backpack' which he allegedly had.

 

[RoseMontague]

Post both together if you wish and highlight the relevant portions.

They are both contained in the last 2 pages, platonov. If you wish you could put them together yourself. Please note in my post I stated I used some of Massei's reasoning and your post said all of number 4 was silly (among others).

I take this to mean you indicate that the portion of the Massei report I highlighted is silly. If you wish to clarify that, I will not make a fuss of it.

 

[platonov]

They are both contained in the last 2 pages, platonov. If you wish you could put them together yourself. Please note in my post I stated I used some of Massei's reasoning and your post said all of number 4 was silly (among others).

I take this to mean you indicate that the portion of the Massei report I highlighted is silly. If you wish to clarify that, I will not make a fuss of it.

See later edit above - post the section from Massei that support the highlighted/coloured sections.

Admittedly some of the individual words or clauses aren't 'silly' - but the overall 'argument' is

 

[Katody Matrass]

I agree that that photo is not right.

Do you have any idea who was it that dragged the brightness sliders all the way down on it?

It looked ok on my home PC but I am in lunchbreak on the laptop that I took to Perugia and dumped all the pictures and videos on when I was there which has the raw directory which has more images in 4000x3000 rather than the selection I took to resize to 800x600. The picture is so dark I can see practically no detail on this screen in both the extracted file and in the original picture. I also have two completely black pictures in the same directory a couple of pictures on. I have no idea what the issue is there.

From the master directory I have pulled another picture which I hadn't selected for the original download because it's a little far off but is much more consistent with the longer-exposures I have around the rest of Perugia. This is again a much longer exposure so I emphasise the lighting is much too bright - see the lamps etc and the balcony in no way looks that bright.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?album_id=13&image_id=2230

I also note that the edge of the balcony wall peeks out over the top of this previously linked picture which may give you context to relative lighting.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=2224

Thanks, the new one is much better and even resembles a bit the one I corrected for you

It looks like you had lots of good photos there. It's a pity we get them only after pointing out that the ones you posted initially were either misleading or outright altered.

 

[RoseMontague]

See later edit above - post the section from Massei that support the highlighted/coloured sections.

As is the case many times when you dispute something I say, you request me to defend a position I did not take. Please note that I said the plan I presented contained "some" of Massei's reasoning. The section I highlighted from the Massei report is covered in number 4 (one which you indicated was "all" silly).

I put this together from what I have read on this board and others of the reasons for the staged break-in. Some of it comes from Massei, some does not, and some comes from both as in number 1 which both quad and Massei seem to agree on (as well as others).

 

[Justinian2]

But again, you are taking a sample of failed staged burglaries and reasoning about the ratio of failed to successful staged burglaries based on that. This is faulty reasoning.

It is called sampling. QC will sample a very small number of parts and if they are not defective it will assume that the greater number is good. It is NOT faulty reasoning, it is statistics.

 

[platonov]

As is the case many times when you dispute something I say, you request me to defend a position I did not take. Please note that I said the plan I presented contained "some" of Massei's reasoning. The section I highlighted from the Massei report is covered in number 4 (one which you indicated was "all" silly).

I put this together from what I have read on this board and others of the reasons for the staged break-in. Some of it comes from Massei, some does not, and some comes from both as in number 1 which both quad and Massei seem to agree on (as well as others).

I just copied directly from your post and highlighted/coloured it.
Are you claming otherwise ??

The silliness came from your hand not Massei as I pointed out in my first post (below)
If you can support your claim or disprove mine do so - otherwise we can move on.

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Exactly, the plan I presented containing some of the Massei reasoning on this is nothing short of silliness.

As regards (part of) point 3 and points 4 & 5 - agreed, they are nothing short of silliness.
Massei wasnt the source however

.

 

[quadraginta]

You didn't state that there was a 'burglar's handbook' but you had clearly decided that burglars operated according to a set of rules which you claim to know. (Argument from authority).

Funny how I read that same post (I'm assuming you meant this one.) and took away a completely different impression.

SomeAlibi offered opinions drawn from his experience, in his case professional (AKA - expert, AKA - authority) experience which made the claim that people who engage in similar activities have similar approaches. This seems quite reasonable. Your snide and facile dismissals do nothing to offer any substantive contradictions to his statements. This is generally the response of someone who has none, and only wants to deride an opposing viewpoint without any support for their own.

"Argument from authority^WP" is not always a fallacy, and parroting phrases you obviously either do not understand or have no intention of using honestly do nothing to advance your point of view.

There are many references to authority in these threads. Some of the most persistent and vigorous Knox partisans use them almost exclusively (Halides1 comes to mind). You are strangely quiet on the topic when that occurs.

When the use of a reference to an authority is made you can question the the credentials of that authority if that is the only basis which the reference is offered as proof upon. You can offer contradictory references from other authorities, because yes, even an authority can be wrong, and even about their own field.

What is an utter waste of everyone's time is to wave your arms around squawking "Argument from authority!!!", "Argument from authority!!!" as if you were making some intelligent and intelligible contribution, instead of an empty, content free noise that is intended only as derision and scorn.

Much the same as Kermit with his bizarre insistence that Rudy must have filled up and then emptied some 'burglar's backpack' which he allegedly had.

How about posting the link to this alleged statement by Kermit and then we can all look at it together and see if we agree that it really says what you are claiming it says.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is the purpose behind the law ensuring the suspect is represented by legal counsel?

The purposes are to assure defendant's rights are respected; to assure awarenes of the law on the side of the defendant; to assure a search for excuplatory arguments is made; to have a tool to protect people from possible false accusations by other citizens; to take legal steps with the help of technical expertise.

 

[RoseMontague]

I just copied directly from your post and highlighted/coloured it.
Are you claming otherwise ??

The silliness came from your hand not Massei as I pointed out in my first post (below)
If you can support your claim or disprove mine do so - otherwise we can move on.



.

Yes platonov, my post was intended to show the silliness of some of the arguments I have heard presented for the motivation for the staged break in. If you can't see elements of number 4 in the quote from the Massei report I provided, I can't help you further.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Round and round we go

Filomena's window is exactly on the visual line of a car driver.
It falls exactly in the scope of a driver.

It's below the road level, and looking from the car driving on the right side of the road you wouldn't see much if anything.
Here's a pic I just snatched from PMF :


Here's how it looks from the road, again:

And that's how much of the cottage you see from the right side of the road


I don't think Rudy had to be afraid of being spotted from the cars.

 

[Dan O.]

Shuttlt is right. If you looked only at the sample of parts that were returned by the customer because they failed and determined that they were all faulty, you cannot use that the imply all the parts sold were similarly faulty because the sample is biased in a way that is strongly correlated with faulty parts.

Similarly, in your case, the guilty verdict used to select the cases is strongly correlated to the judgement that the break in was staged (not to mention the producers cherry picking the cases to make the show more entertaining).