Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[billyryan]

Raffaele has explained the computer evidence to Professor Krom in a letter it is printed in the IIP members site,

 

[Alt+F4]

Raffaele has explained the computer evidence to Professor Krom in a letter it is printed in the IIP members site,

This might be helpful for the defense if RS actually decided to take the stand. He could just simply explain everything that happened and correct what he sees as misconceptions.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Griffin

This might be helpful for the defense if RS actually decided to take the stand. He could just simply explain everything that happened and correct what he sees as misconceptions.

Alt+F4,

Defendants should not take the stand, unless they are privy to unique information that cannot be conveyed any other way. That is certainly not the case with respect to the computer information, and given the possibility of making spontaneous statements (which he did do in the first trial), I don't see the necessity for taking the stand at all. Prosecutors have more experience interrogating witnesses on the stand than defendants have experience being witnesses. In some jurisdictions the jury is told not to draw an inference about a defendant's refusal to take the stand, and rightly so. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what else happened on the night of November 5th

Raffaele has explained the computer evidence to Professor Krom in a letter it is printed in the IIP members site,

billyryan,

That letter is quite interesting. This is the board index. Thanks.

 

[pilot padron]

Rescuing Third Stringers and Moving Goalposts

I think I'm missing something here, I was kinda busy this weekend, my brother had his anniversary and I let him celebrate it by taking his brood off his hands for a while, thus I kinda didn't have a chance to keep up as good as I should have. 'Communications checker' I got alright, but whose been 'reading' your mind? Did it have to do with the fact you were speaking in third person? I caught that.


Thank you Pilot! You should be working for the 'home team!' You just helped us 'prove' animus on the part of Rudy! He didn't know either Amanda nor Meredith, so how could he 'know' that? It didn't come out during the catty girl-talk the British girls reported, they only heard the same-old complaints most have about roommates or you could even hear from married couples. Why would she tell Rudy something like that and not her friends? I'm suspicious! I think he's lying! I think he's guilty!

Or he could have just been following the news and knew including that in his story would ingratiate him to the prosecution, and considering the evidence he left all over the scene he sure needed some brownie points. For example, were you to start playing for the 'home team' I'm sure you'd know enough to start calling Mignini a kook, Giobbi a clown, and Stefanoni incompetent. You might even be able to think up better words!

Kaosium you are a 'Home Team' All American.
Score touchdowns regularly and do not find it necessary to 'spike the ball' with unsolicited spelling lessons, etccccccc.

However, even All Americans move goalposts.

My only statement was that it was reported that Rudy said ......
Your reasons *why* he said it are very possible and plausible to me, but out of *my* field goal range for your goalpost repositioning.
Your suggestions for descriptions of the ILE personalities are indeed humorous and a great example of your All American worthy broken field running skills in swiftly seizing the advantage of my defensive hole in giving you the opportunity to get those descriptions in front of all the home team spectators who are now chanting your name in acclaim.

However, your request *to me* as to *why* Rudy said it might best be left to the same prolific poster who admittedly did not post about reading my mind, but regularly comes on with supposed self aggrandized mystical mind reading abilities to tell all ever so authoritatively what one of the third stringers on the Home Team *meant* to say after a very obvious to all faux pas (fumble) was just made by them.

 

[Kaosium]

Break Out Your Motives!

Raffaele has explained the computer evidence to Professor Krom in a letter it is printed in the IIP members site,

Indeed he did!

First of all I had two notebooks in my apartment: an old ASUS with Windows XP and a Macbook Pro with Mac OSX 10.4.9 or 10.4.10 or 10.4.11.. I don’t remember exactly now. Meredith had a little white iBook and Amanda a green TOSHIBA in their apartment.

The postal police have written a document in which they say, after their analysis, that an unexpected over-voltage has burned the iBOOK, TOSHIBA and ASUS hard disks during their analysis. Then the only surviving MACBOOK PRO hard disk has been analysed.

During the 1st November night 2007 there were few interactions until 20:30 circa, then there’s a hole until 5 am. Circa on 2nd November when Amanda and I were listening to some music tracks. Well, apart from the “unexpected over voltage” which I find both tragic and comic, the postal police are quite right. But they have analysed only interactions during the murder night.
Computer operating systems time management is COMPLETELY INSUBSTANTIAL, because every program in the computer can overwrite every ACCESS, MODIFY, READ, WRITE dates on every file by its own rules without any strict control rules. This means that if I check the ACCESS or MODIFY date in each file, it’s quite a RANDOM DATE. This date gives you information about the last “signed” modification of the file, but if some program doesn’t change any file date variable, when you run it, then the last access date is unfair.

Moreover every access I do on a file overwrites the file date variable deleting the previous information. This means that if I have watched video on 1st November night at 11 PM and then I watch the same video file the day after or two days after, the date says that I have seen that file just on 2nd or 3rd November. But it isn’t true.

My advisors have analysed also files with dates after and before 1st November and they have found that my computer has made most interactions during the night of November 6th when I was in the police station being arrested. This of course is crazy but it proves that my computer had a critical status in which it had to shut down the system (low batteries) and thus has overwritten all the opened files with the last date showing that seems a madness. <Comment from MDK; This suggests that simultaneously with the illegal interrogation someone was looking at the computer to try to check things related to the interrogation>

Again on my computer I had a keyboard light which switches on when someone uses the keyboard and switches off when someone is not using it after a few minutes ( 2 or 5, I don’t remember). Well every keyboard switch is “quoted” (reported) by the OS (in this case MAC OS X) on a log file named “XWINDOW.LOG”. This file was completely ignored by the postal police. It shows that on the 1st November my key board was never switched off for more than 10 minutes and in 10 minutes no one can leave his home, go to another, kill and come back with such a distance between those houses.
On the other hand, the keyboard light can also be blocked by a video viewer. If you would think that I’ve premeditated the murder, building such a weird alibi, then everything is possible but the truth is that I was at home with Amanda, watching videos and often simply together without taking any notice of what was happening on my computer.

It looks like they may have to prove premeditation. As you'll recall they were unable to do so in the last trial, which otherwise went so well for the prosecution. The motive they tried with hashish and comic books didn't go down so well with the Supreme Court, thus I'd guess that one would be out. I'm just guessing they won't go with a satanic ritual-orgy.

I don't think the 'rape prank' is going to cut it either, would one set up such a convoluted alibi for something that was supposed to be for fun? I doubt that would work with the Supreme Court either.

So...what kind of motive could be proven? They have to account for the fact that Raffaele's must have set up his computer to give an alibi, or that they put in a video to do the same and got back before it ended. I suppose the only other thing that might work is if they 'spontaneously' decided to go kill Meredith during their movie. That would be "Stardust," right? I've not seen it, but it looks like it's pretty lovey-dovy schmaltz to me, is this sort of thing that inspires murder?

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. So when RG said MK called AK a "drugged up tart" we're supposed to believe he's lying, but if he says that AK and RS were not involved with the murder, we're supposed to believe he's telling the truth.

One of those is direct testimony, and the other one is hearsay. Can you identify which is which? And do you know the difference in reliability and admissibility between the two (I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't)?

 

[Alt+F4]

One of those is direct testimony, and the other one is hearsay. Can you identify which is which? And do you know the difference in reliability and admissibility between the two (I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't)?

It's not testimony at all. You should look that word up and get back to us.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I have to also wonder if the desperate Defense Team used the old fishing techniques to obtain jailbirds willing to say nice things about Amanda and bad things about Rudy in Court.

Toss a sign down murders row aisle stating the below, and slowly 'reel it in':

Anyone wanting
1) a free day out of here
2) a new suit for a day
3) fresh haircut, shave, and grooming by experts
4) lots of media fawning
5) willing and able to say/remember to say what we say to say, good about Amanda and bad about Rudy

Just raise your hand (between bars of course)

1) If you knew just how much hassle and discomfort is involved in transiting in and out of a prison (hint: read Joe Halderman's piece in the Daily Beast about Rikers Island for a flavour), and just how uncomfortable prison transportation is, you'd realise that most inmates would prefer to remain inside rather than have a "fun" day out visiting a courtroom.

2) What makes you think that they won't be testifying in prison uniform? That is the norm in situations like this in the UK and US - why wouldn't it be the same in Italy? And who do you think is buying them this mythical "new suit"?

3) Errr I don't really know where to start. Are you of the opinion that witnesses in criminal trials get some sort of pre-appearance makeover? And you are aware that prisoners get haircuts in prison, and access to razors?

4) This may indeed be a possible motivation, and will have to be addressed by the defence teams.

5) .....doesn't even make any sense, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, you're suggesting that someone on the "inside" has a reason for wanting to testify in Knox's - and Sollecito's* - favour, and that they are canvassing others to lie to that effect.


* as others have also observed, funny how you keep forgetting about Sollecito, isn't it?

 

[LondonJohn]

You forgot about the jailbird willing to say bad things about Meredith. The defense seems to have no problem with the court considering a jailbrid’s letter claiming that a drug dealer paid 100,000 Euros to have Meredith murdered over an unpaid debt drug debt. It's another sign of desperation on the part of the defense. So much for no worries, the Vecchioti/Conti report will save the day!

AFAIK, the "jailbird" to whom you're referring sent his letter direct to the court. I think that Hellmann considered the letter on its own merits (without any defence arguments) and decided to park it.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's not testimony at all. You should look that word up and get back to us.

Haha getting lectured on the law by Alt+F4! Who'd'a thunk it?!

Yes, I should have put "potential direct testimony" and "potential hearsay" to be totally correct - but I assumed that all people with any intelligence would realise what i meant. I don't think I assumed incorrectly....

 

[pilot padron]

One of those is direct testimony, and the other one is hearsay. Can you identify which is which? And do you know the difference in reliability and admissibility between the two (I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't)?

Do You ??

For the past week we have endlessly been hearing here about the *great* favorable impact for Amanda Knox that 'what some convicts *heard* another one say' will have in the Appeals ??

*Heard another convict say*......Hmmmmm

One of the upcoming Jailbirds is almost as honorable as McVeigh was recently described here, because one this star witness who *has something so significant for the Appeal* only beat a single child to death with a shovel before being *fully* convicted and incarcerated.

Is that what you 'meant to say'?

 

[LondonJohn]

Do You ??

For the past week we have endlessly been hearing here about the *great* favorable impact for Amanda Knox that 'what some convicts *heard* another one say' will have in the Appeals ??

One of the upcoming Jailbirds is almost as honorable as McVeigh was recently described here, because this star star witness who *heard something so significant* only beat a single child to death with a shovel before being *fully* convicted and incarcerated.

Is that what you 'meant to say'?

The testimony of Alessi and the others who claimed to hear the conversation would indeed be hearsay as regards the finding of the fact that Knox and Sollecito were not present at the murder. But it would be admissible as evidence that Guede said such a thing. Guede will have the chance to confirm or deny that he said such a thing if he too is called to testify. If he confirms that he did say it, then that will be admissible as evidence that Knox and Sollecito were not present. If he denies that he said it, then the judicial panel will have to weigh up whose version is more likely to be correct - but it will still be hearsay regarding Knox's/Sollecito's presence. If Guede chooses to remain silent on the stand, the defence will probably be able to argue that this silence can be given weight by the judicial panel in considering Guede's truthfulness.

 

[pilot padron]

1) If you knew just how much hassle and discomfort is involved in transiting in and out of a prison (hint: read Joe Halderman's piece in the Daily Beast about Rikers Island for a flavour), and just how uncomfortable prison transportation is, you'd realise that most inmates would prefer to remain inside rather than have a "fun" day out visiting a courtroom.

2) What makes you think that they won't be testifying in prison uniform? That is the norm in situations like this in the UK and US - why wouldn't it be the same in Italy? And who do you think is buying them this mythical "new suit"?

3) Errr I don't really know where to start. Are you of the opinion that witnesses in criminal trials get some sort of pre-appearance makeover? And you are aware that prisoners get haircuts in prison, and access to razors?

4) This may indeed be a possible motivation, and will have to be addressed by the defence teams.

5) .....doesn't even make any sense, but if you're saying what I think you're saying, you're suggesting that someone on the "inside" has a reason for wanting to testify in Knox's - and Sollecito's* - favour, and that they are canvassing others to lie to that effect.


* as others have also observed, funny how you keep forgetting about Sollecito, isn't it?

1) Another example of your self acclaimed supernatural ability to read other human's minds is given appropriate zero amount of reverence.

2,3) Are we now asked to repeat the previously acknowledged by all greater than double digit IQ holders the existence of Appearance Counsellors to Defense teams ?
Is your difficulty determining 'how to start' a recurring personal problem for which you now solicit my help ?

5) I am saying what I said.
Defense Attorneys definitely have interest in obtaining testimony favorable to defendants. (mind reading not required nor appreciated)

* A cursory review of even a miniscule sample of the entire 50,000+ posts here would invalidate any possible personal significance of that completely off the wall irrelevant closing observation

 

[shuttlt]

One thing I am concerned about is the reliability and security of the DNA raw data. From the discussions I have read here and elsewhere the data from the DNA testing of the knife and the bra clasp are on storage media of some type - hard drive, flash drive, cd, dvd, etc. Can this data be manipulated by a computer expert and saved over the original data points and the date stamp on the file be restored to its prior date (I assume this would be a date around the time of the test) and these changes would thus be undetectible? Given the lenghty delay in surrendering copies of her files the potential for hanky-panky with these files really worries me.

ETA - My one comfort is the extraordinary incompetence shown by the prosecutions technical and scientific expeerts to date makes me doubt they have the skill needed to alter the data and have such alterations go undetected.

It really depends on how the data is stored. You could set up a system where the output of the equipment fed directly into some kind of non-rewritable storage system. Once in there it would be, to all intents and purposes, impossible to delete, overwrite, or modify. We have such a system at my work storing our email. Certainly in a financial context some kind of guarantee that the data can't be modified is required, otherwise you have to stick to paper, which we all know can't be modified.

 

[Chris C]

______________________________

The day after the murder? It gets worse. That famous photograph of Amanda outside the cottage, surrounded by cops, and later found hanging on the wall of the Forensic Police headquarters in Rome? The photograph was taken on Saturday, November 3rd!

[qimg]http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim//2010/04/14/CBS2_370x278.jpg[/qimg]
Still doing her best to hide that lovebite, or neck wound.

///

See anyone else wearing short sleeve shirts in that picture?

 

[shuttlt]

See anyone else wearing short sleeve shirts in that picture?

Was Mignini around at this point in order to notice the mark?

 

[el buscador]

Was Mignini around at this point in order to notice the mark?

Was mignini around to see that Amanda "covered up her neck"?

 

[Alt+F4]

The testimony of Alessi and the others who claimed to hear the conversation would indeed be hearsay as regards the finding of the fact that Knox and Sollecito were not present at the murder. But it would be admissible as evidence that Guede said such a thing. Guede will have the chance to confirm or deny that he said such a thing if he too is called to testify. If he confirms that he did say it, then that will be admissible as evidence that Knox and Sollecito were not present. If he denies that he said it, then the judicial panel will have to weigh up whose version is more likely to be correct - but it will still be hearsay regarding Knox's/Sollecito's presence. If Guede chooses to remain silent on the stand, the defence will probably be able to argue that this silence can be given weight by the judicial panel in considering Guede's truthfulness.

A man who bashed a baby to death with a shovel makes an incriminating statement against you and because you don't lower yourself to respond to it that makes that statement seem truthful? I really hope where you live you are never choosen for jury duty.

 

[LondonJohn]

A man who bashed a baby to death with a shovel makes an incriminating statement against you and because you don't lower yourself to respond to it that makes that statement seem truthful? I really hope where you live you are never choosen for jury duty.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the law.

If the "man who bashed a baby to death with a shovel" is lying when he said that Guede told him Knox and Sollecito weren't there (and if the other three inmates are also lying), then Guede should have no problem in standing before a court and saying one sentence: "I did not say this". Courts don't really tend to look fondly upon witnesses who deign not to "lower themselves" to respond to someone - particularly if that reason is solely to do with past crimes.....