Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Until the report is presented in court it's speculation that has been reported as probable. When it is, I'm sure they will explain why they believe it was human activity. It is possible it could be scripted but I suspect that would be detectable.

It needn't be detectable. Having said that it seems like an odd thing to have done, particularly in such a way to be undetectable. You'd then have to go down the road of the crime having been elaborately planned well in advance.

I'm not sure what other ways would deactivate a screen saver shortly after it came on then without leaving an obvious pattern.

If it proves human interaction to the extent that you clearly suspect, then it's powerful stuff. In and of itself its all but enough to completely prove their innocence. It would be funny, in a bewildering and sad kind of a way, if they had had an alibi all along, but had forgotten/hadn't realized it. The Wizard of Oz ending:

Dorothy: Oh - will you help me? Can you help me?
Glinda: You don't need to be helped any longer. You've always had the power to go back to Kansas.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Didn't Dan O. have a copy of the screensaver logs? I remember seeing them posted, but haven't been able to relocate them.

The best I can find at the moment is that Rafaelle's appeal documents have that the screensaver kicked in at 6:22am for the last time and that there is indications of activity until then. If Dan has more, I'm sure he'll (re)post it.

 

[Matthew Best]

Per haps the 'point' in your one liner/very short 'argument' was so irrelevant that it was very easily and/or understandably 'missed'??

No.

Any response to the question? Can you demonstrate that the interpretation of the phrase "maximum cooperation" you cling to is any more reliable than the interpretation put forward by Nadeau?

 

[quadraginta]

Unlike most countries, it seems that the Italian courts are rather slow, though I wouldn't say it's on hold, they just seem to have it one day at a time every few weeks.

<snip>

Compared to which other "most countries"?

The trial in our national news right now is Casey Anthony's. She was charged with the murder of her daughter in the fall of '08, not quite a year after Meredith was killed.

They just finished jury selection on Friday. The actual trial phase begins next Tuesday. Should she be convicted (which is likely) there's no telling how long the appeals could go on.

This is not uncommon for high profile murder trials in the U.S. I could offer many other examples. It isn't clear to me that it is particularly uncommon in other countries either, at least the ones which do more than pay lip service to rule of law.

... or is this just another stab at gratuitous Italy bashing?

 

[shuttlt]

The best I can find at the moment is that Rafaelle's appeal documents have that the screensaver kicked in at 6:22am for the last time and that there is indications of activity until then. If Dan has more, I'm sure he'll (re)post it.

My 2 cents is that, for them both to be guilty, the screensaver log can't say what you think it says. My expectation would be that it will in fact show a sufficiently long period in which the screensaver did not kick in at all at a critical enough time that it will be unclear whether the computer was in use or the screensaver had simply been disabled, by leaving a movie player running, or some similar explanation.

I base this purely on the way every other bit of evidence that one thinks is going to clear up the whole mess once and for all has gone. If this does resolve matters I'll be as pleased and puzzled as anyone.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It needn't be detectable. Having said that it seems like an odd thing to have done, particularly in such a way to be undetectable. You'd then have to go down the road of the crime having been elaborately planned well in advance.

To make a script that was random enough to appear as if a human was doing it would indeed indicate a lot of planning.

If it proves human interaction to the extent that you clearly suspect, then it's powerful stuff. In and of itself its all but enough to completely prove their innocence. It would be funny, in a bewildering and sad kind of a way, if they had had an alibi all along, but had forgotten/hadn't realized it. The Wizard of Oz ending:

Dorothy: Oh - will you help me? Can you help me?
Glinda: You don't need to be helped any longer. You've always had the power to go back to Kansas.

If the screen saver was going on and off without some form of scripting, then that would indicate something was pressing keys or moving the mouse. I believe that this computer is an Apple Laptop so it doesn't have a standard mouse either. Setting up something to do this would have taken some clear thinking, and had it been done I'd have expected to see them rely on it previous to the appeal as well.

I would point out that they have had an alibi all along, it wasn't forgotten or realized, the prosecution just didn't believe it, they both claim to have been at his home together all night, what the computer records might do is prove that at least one was, and in doing so indicate that the other was as well.

 

[lionking]

To make a script that was random enough to appear as if a human was doing it would indeed indicate a lot of planning.



If the screen saver was going on and off without some form of scripting, then that would indicate something was pressing keys or moving the mouse. I believe that this computer is an Apple Laptop so it doesn't have a standard mouse either. Setting up something to do this would have taken some clear thinking, and had it been done I'd have expected to see them rely on it previous to the appeal as well.

I would point out that they have had an alibi all along, it wasn't forgotten or realized, the prosecution just didn't believe it, they both claim to have been at his home together all night, what the computer records might do is prove that
at least one was, and in doing so indicate that the other was as well.

Two accused people having an alibi for each other means nothing, right?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not asking you to accept my conclusion, in fact if you did that you'd just be swapping one person telling you want to believe for another. I want you to think about what you believe and why you believe it, then read up on the evidence and learn it for yourself. If you don't understand something go and look it up in a book or a journal or even in the internet if you can find a reliable site. Learn and come to a conclusion based on your own learning. Don't accept what LondonJohn says, or Bruce Fisher, or Alt-F4, or those that write at PMF or TJMK or any of the other places. Look at them sure, note their questions sure, but then go and find out the answers yourself and see who is telling the truth and who isn't.

At that point you can start thinking for yourself and determine how the evidence stands up, whether it really meets the standard of proving the Prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Only when you have done that should you really make up your mind. Then if you still think AK and RS are guilty, at least you'll have the evidence to back up your statement.

At the moment I am still looking through the evidence. I'd love someone that knows the guilt side better to help with that, but no one is volunteering on that one, and the fact that I can't pin down a timeline of the murder that makes sense based on the prosecution's claims is extremely troubling to me, hence why I still side with innocent. If these things get resolved for me to the point where I have no more reasonable doubts, I'll happily go with guilty.

Amen! I would say that my position and approach exactly matches yours. If there's evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito were participants in this murder, I'll happily change my mind and consider them culpable and legally guilty, and consider a subsequent conviction to be safe and just.

I'll give just one example: if it was possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the blood/water partial print on the bathmat in the small bathroom was that of Sollecito's right foot, then I would very likely consider both Knox and Sollecito guilty on that one piece of evidence alone. After all, there is no way that Sollecito's bare foot would have been on that bathmat - let alone with a blood/water mixture on its sole - unless he was directly involved in, at the very least, a post-murder clean-up. Additionally, Sollecito had never stayed over at Knox's place before, and would have had no reason to be barefoot in the small bathroom.

That's why I think that the defence teams should not lose sight of this piece of evidence. I think they need to argue very strongly that Rinaldi's viewpoint regarding this print is bogus pseudoscience, and that his conclusions (that it is likely Sollecito's print and definitely not Guede's) are totally incorrect and unsupportable. That would be what any rational, educated person looking at that print would also conclude: that the print is that of an adult male with fairly large feet, but positive identification or exclusion is essentially impossible for most people with that foot size who don't have badly misshapen feet.

 

[katy_did]

On first glance, it seemed to me that if the independent experts were focusing on the knife collection procedures, then this would imply that the underlying DNA test had been validated and therefore as far as the experts were concerned, Kercher's DNA was on the knife.

But, when I go back and look at timing issues, Stefanoni apparently provided the experts with a raw data "dump" only last week. Therefore, this evidence cannot have been reviewed yet. This indicates that the experts have been following a dual-track investigation process all along. The raw data and the knife handling information must have both been requested months ago, perhaps simultaneously. I will be trying to piece together more details on the specific timing of this.

IIRC when Hellmann ordered the independent review, he asked the experts to look specifically at the possibility of contamination, whether the various procedures were carried out according to international standards and so on. So yes, I think the experts have needed information on the handling of the knife from the start, along with the raw data they requested in March, and that while they received the latter a few days ago they don't yet have the former. There doesn't seem to be any indication that they were supposed to first validate the testing side of things, and then look at contamination outside the lab, in that order.

One interesting part of this is that AFAIK they're only requesting information on the handling of the knife. Does this mean they already have those details about the bra clasp? Perhaps the handling of the clasp was better recorded than the knife, once it had been collected - there's the video evidence, of course, and maybe it went directly to the lab from there rather than sitting around in someone's office for a couple of days, as happened with the knife. The big problem for the prosecution is the long delay in collecting it and the fact they can't explain how it moved across the room, plus the fact the crime scene was turned upside down by the time they collected it. The photos of the room are enough evidence in themselves for the experts to leave open the possibility of contamination, I would think.

I wouldn't mind betting that the knife was handled much less carefully than the bra clasp after collection, and that there may not have been any formal records of its handling at all. They seem to have been pretty casual about it, removing it from the original evidence bag and leaving it in someone's office for a few days before finally sending it to be tested. It will be interesting to see what kind of information the experts get on this.

 

[Matthew Best]

Two accused people having an alibi for each other means nothing, right?

If the alibi of one can be supported by computer evidence, then that fact changes everything. He can then be demonstrated to be innocent and if he says the other person was with him, that's an alibi for both of them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My 2 cents is that, for them both to be guilty, the screensaver log can't say what you think it says.

I think what you really mean is that it doesn't say what the defence thinks it says. I don't know what it says beyond a few bits that have been noted as in the appeal documents and have repeatedly said, we're going to have to wait until it's presented to the court.

My expectation would be that it will in fact show a sufficiently long period in which the screensaver did not kick in at all at a critical enough time that it will be unclear whether the computer was in use or the screensaver had simply been disabled, by leaving a movie player running, or some similar explanation.

I think it's advisable to wait and see what is presented before making up one's mond on what happened.

I base this purely on the way every other bit of evidence that one thinks is going to clear up the whole mess once and for all has gone. If this does resolve matters I'll be as pleased and puzzled as anyone.

Strange that, most of the evidence for guilt I have looked into dissovled under inspection. What evidence do you mean that would clear thing up once and for all?

 

[shuttlt]

To make a script that was random enough to appear as if a human was doing it would indeed indicate a lot of planning.

Not particularly. Causing an action to happen at random intervals isn't very challenging. Scripting the screensaver stuff at all would have been a bizarre thing to have done and only incrementally less challenging than doing at randomly.

If the screen saver was going on and off without some form of scripting, then that would indicate something was pressing keys or moving the mouse.

In general one would expect some kind of physical interaction to have occurred. Normally there is a destinction between scripts and programs. It is just as possible for some executable program to have triggered the screensaver to activity as it is for a script. It would be, in my experience, very unusual behaviour, so you'd really want some evidence that such a program was on his computer before this would become plausible.

I believe that this computer is an Apple Laptop so it doesn't have a standard mouse either. Setting up something to do this would have taken some clear thinking, and had it been done I'd have expected to see them rely on it previous to the appeal as well.

Are you thinking of some kind of physical contraption to move the mouse? I don't see that this would be harder on a MAC than on a PC, but it would still be a bizarre thing to have occurred.

I would point out that they have had an alibi all along, it wasn't forgotten or realized, the prosecution just didn't believe it, they both claim to have been at his home together all night, what the computer records might do is prove that at least one was, and in doing so indicate that the other was as well.

Please! If you want to call two people accused of committing a crime together saying that they were both together somewhere else an alibi, fine, but it's a crap alibi that is barely distinguishable in terms of it's worth from them both claiming not to have done the crime, but being in seperate locations when they were not doing it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Two accused people having an alibi for each other means nothing, right?

Actually it does, it's still up to the prosecution to prove that they weren't were they both said they were. The prosecutor can't just get up and say "They're both accused and just covering for each other so you can't believe their alibis."

Now they did have Antonio Curatolo to claim otherwise in the first trial, but since he got shredded on appeal I get the feeling the Prosecution is going to have to find something else to show that they weren't were they claimed to be.

 

[shuttlt]

I think what you really mean is that it doesn't say what the defence thinks it says. I don't know what it says beyond a few bits that have been noted as in the appeal documents and have repeatedly said, we're going to have to wait until it's presented to the court.

I apologies for my abbreviated choise of words. I mean of course what the defence appear to be claiming it demonstrates and what you and others clearly suspect/believe/expect on the basis of the defences claims.

I think it's advisable to wait and see what is presented before making up one's mond on what happened.

This thread and those than have gone before it are an exercise in not doing that, but of course you are right. We should let the process play through and allow everybody to present their evidence and make their arguments and counter arguments before rushing to judgement. I'm certainly content to sit uncertainly on the fence and wait.

Strange that, most of the evidence for guilt I have looked into dissovled under inspection. What evidence do you mean that would clear thing up once and for all?

Oh, a proper alibi, or an internet log of Knox looking up "how to clean blood of kitchen knives". Perhaps the convict who hid the true murder weapon for his brother will produce it. I guess there are lots of things that would be either damning, or exonerating. I've long since given up expecting anything to come along that would settle things to the degree that this thread would wither and die.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Please! If you want to call two people accused of committing a crime together saying that they were both together somewhere else an alibi, fine, but it's a crap alibi that is barely distinguishable in terms of it's worth from them both claiming not to have done the crime, but being in seperate locations when they were not doing it.

I think we're sort of agreed on the computer stuff, and anything else is speculation.

On the alibi, both RS and AK were saying they were together before they were acused. One could point out that Filomena and her boyfriend have exactly the same alibi, that they were together at his home, so...

Some have speculated that RS was only charged because he was giving AK an alibi, ie the poilice decided that since she was involved and he was saying that she was with him, therefore he had to be involved too. I suspect this is true since at the time he was arrested there certainly was no evidence against him.

Besides, if they are innocent, what else do you expect them to say? Once again, it's up to the prosecution to show that they weren't at his home, not for them to show they were.

 

[shuttlt]

Actually it does, it's still up to the prosecution to prove that they weren't were they both said they were. The prosecutor can't just get up and say "They're both accused and just covering for each other so you can't believe their alibis."

Now they did have Antonio Curatolo to claim otherwise in the first trial, but since he got shredded on appeal I get the feeling the Prosecution is going to have to find something else to show that they weren't were they claimed to be.

Say they both shut up and didn't give each other an alibi, or make any claims about whether there were other than that they denied doing it. The police would still have to demonstrate that they'd done it, which would necessarily involved placing them at the crime during the murder.

How does them being specific about where they were meaningfully alter what the police have to do? The only way it would have any strength is if one supposes that, had they both committed the murder, Raffaele wouldn't give Amanda an alibi, or Amanda wouldn't give Raffaele an alibi.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Oh, a proper alibi

Well pointed out, Filomena and her boyfriend have exactly the same alibi, and if they really were at his place all night, what else can they say?

or an internet log of Knox looking up "how to clean blood of kitchen knives".

'Fraid the police fried that one.

Perhaps the convict who hid the true murder weapon for his brother will produce it.

The rapture might happen too, unless Guede has a convict brother in Germany.

I guess there are lots of things that would be either damning, or exonerating. I've long since given up expecting anything to come along that would settle things to the degree that this thread would wither and die.

I doubt that it will be one thing to pushes it either way, it rarely is. To borrow from the mods, it is the collection of works that points the way. At the moment it appears that the collection the prosecution relied on is looking a little unstable, but anything could happen yet. Confirming the DNA would certainly strengthen the Prosecution's side, failing to, or a result of bad science with the DNA would certainly harm it. We'll see what happens as thing progress.

 

[shuttlt]

I think we're sort of agreed on the computer stuff, and anything else is speculation.

On the alibi, both RS and AK were saying they were together before they were acused. One could point out that Filomena and her boyfriend have exactly the same alibi, that they were together at his home, so...

My recollection is that this is claimed every once in a while but that it always turns out that actually Filomena and her boyfriend do have an alibi that stands up to a degree that, up until now, Raffaele and Amana's hasn't. Perhaps I am misremembering?

Some have speculated that RS was only charged because he was giving AK an alibi, ie the poilice decided that since she was involved and he was saying that she was with him, therefore he had to be involved too. I suspect this is true since at the time he was arrested there certainly was no evidence against him.

That may be true, bringing a flick knife to the police station to answer questions about a fatal stabbing can't have helped though.

Besides, if they are innocent, what else do you expect them to say?

Naturally they would, assuming they are innocent and were at home. If they could easily say the same thing given the assumption that they are guilty, what does it matter what they say?

Once again, it's up to the prosecution to show that they weren't at his home, not for them to show they were.

Given that they were found guilty, the prosecution clearly satisfied the court that they had shown they weren't at home. The defence clearly failed to do it's job in convincing the court that they were at home as they claimed.

Absolutely it is the prosecutions job to prove it's case, but having the defendents say "we weren't at the scene of the crime when it happened, we were at home together" surely doesn't make the prosecutions job very much harder than it would have been if they hadn't said anything at all.

 

[shuttlt]

Well pointed out, Filomena and her boyfriend have exactly the same alibi, and if they really were at his place all night, what else can they say?

I think you need to recheck this. I've got it down as one of those things that loads of people believe for whatever reason, but never pans out when you look into it.

'Fraid the police fried that one.

hmmmm

The rapture might happen too, unless Guede has a convict brother in Germany.

It did happen, its just God didn't take any of the people that stupid fundamentalist was expecting.

I doubt that it will be one thing to pushes it either way, it rarely is. To borrow from the mods, it is the collection of works that points the way. At the moment it appears that the collection the prosecution relied on is looking a little unstable, but anything could happen yet. Confirming the DNA would certainly strengthen the Prosecution's side, failing to, or a result of bad science with the DNA would certainly harm it. We'll see what happens as thing progress.

Agreed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My recollection is that this is claimed every once in a while but that it always turns out that actually Filomena and her boyfriend do have an alibi that stands up to a degree that, up until now, Raffaele and Amana's hasn't. Perhaps I am misremembering?

Someone might have more, the quick look I just did only said she was with her boyfriend all night

That may be true, bringing a flick knife to the police station to answer questions about a fatal stabbing can't have helped though.

Yes, a dumb move, but it wasn't the murder weapon either.

Naturally they would, assuming they are innocent and were at home. If they could easily say the same thing given the assumption that they are guilty, what does it matter what they say?

So damned either way? This is why we have a presumption of innocence.

Given that they were found guilty, the prosecution clearly satisfied the court that they had shown they weren't at home. The defence clearly failed to do it's job in convincing the court that they were at home as they claimed.

The first court believed Antonio Curatolo's testimony which put them near the scene of the crime at the time. It is yet to be seen in Hellmann's will, though reports of his testimony don't look good on that account.

Absolutely it is the prosecutions job to prove it's case, but having the defendents say "we weren't at the scene of the crime when it happened, we were at home together" surely doesn't make the prosecutions job very much harder than it would have been if they hadn't said anything at all.

True, but then you could say that for virtually any alibi. As long as part of the case you put together is to show the person was at the scene, they could claim to have been at dinner with the President of the US and it wouldn't matter.