Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

'post hoc' Limits & RoE.

Well done ...............
<snip>

The (Postal) police did examine the log files provided by Sollecito's internet service provider, they were used as evidence during the trial.

Indeed, odeed. Indeed.

That is a basic fact that anyone with even a passing familiarity with the case is aware of as is the later admitted 'anyway Sollecito doesn't claim to have surfed the net during the period in question'.

Of the many and varied 'alibis' / 'scenarios' put forward by RS/AK or their defence teams and the much more numerous ones invented post hoc for them online that was never one before IIRC.

And now after 50k posts it makes an appearance.
Kudos to Fine ? also - the 'Fake blood' thing is new AFAIK.

humber can do his worst - he will never catch up with the cartwheel either upwind or downwind.

And a recent argument seems to be that this 'debate' is subject to the same rules of engagement as a trial in court.

Hmm, not quite - there is only so much contradictory nonsense one can put forward in court (and with the new 'witnesses' the AK/RS defence seem to be reaching/passing the limit).
However the same rules obviously don't apply here

 

[Dan O.]

Hi All,

I'm new here and have just recently become intrigued by this case. I promise to try to read all of the material I can and not clog up the thread with easily answerable questions.

Welcome to JREFF. I don't think there is such a thing as an easy question in this debate since everything tends to get questioned to death from both sides. Of course, they are wrong and we are right!

I did have a question. Can anyone link me to documentation of what RS's ISP records revealed about the night of the murder? How detailed were the records? Did they have HTTP header info and things like that? SMTP logs? It seems to me the computers themselves wouldn't be needed if that information was available.

It is known that the ISPs in Italy record the source and destination address and byte count for specific protocols including http (port 80). This is required under the Pisanu (Pis-an-U) Act.

The prosecution claimed that these records proved that there was no browsing activity that night. The defense showed using the same records that there was in fact a brief access to www.apple.com around 1 am.

I've read some recent posts suggesting that the defense has documentation that they launched a movie file around the time of the murder, but I'm very interested in what the ISP was able to provide.

Christopher

Raffaele was using P2P file sharing to download movies so the actual time that the files were downloaded would be irrelevant. The defense did show that the movie Amelie was played followed by an episode of Naruto. There is a question about the movie Stardust which was downloaded earlier but the record of the last time it was opened was after Raffaele had already been arrested.

The difficulty with finding an alibi for the time of death is the wide latitude that the prosecution has shown for moving this time.

Raffaele's defense has presented in his appeal a case that there is evidence of human interaction with the computer all night in the system log files showing that the screen saver had never activated for more than 6 minutes until after 6:22 am. We wait to see if the court will validate this.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Of the many and varied 'alibis' / 'scenarios' put forward by RS/AK or their defence teams

Really, how many is that? From what I have seen both AK and RS claim to have been at his house the night of the killing, that they had dinner, smoked some weed, messed about on the computer, watched a movie, had sex, and possibly a shower, and went to bed. While the exact details may not be nailed down into an exact timeline of when they did each thing, I would suggest that otherwise innocent people who have been smoking weed would find it hard to tell you a blow by blow accounting of an otherwise uneventful night, especially months if not years after the event. The human memory is not like a computer HDD. The general basis of the alibi has no changed for RS at all, and AK's only change come on the one night of intensive interrogation which wasn't recorded. So what are these many and varied 'alibis'/ 'scenarios' ?

However the same rules obviously don't apply here

True, in a court you have to answer questions directly and plainly.

 

[Chris C]

Why do you think that the timing of the murder is a trivial point on which the courts are free to disagree, but the number of attackers is a fundamental issue? That sounds like an arbitrary distinction you've just made up. Bearing in mind that the courts in Guede's trial decided on a time of death which makes Knox and Sollecito's participation in the murder very improbable, it seems like a crucial issue.

The Supreme Court doesn't make its own separate assessments of the evidence; it can only endorse or not the arguments of the earlier courts. In the case of the multiple attacker theory the judges did endorse it, but they also gave what they presumably felt to be the main evidence the previous court used to support the theory: "Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the victim's bra, cut cleanly probably with the blade of a knife; Amanda Knox's DNA on the handle of a knife found in the home of the former; expert results which, based on the morphology of the wounds, attributed them to two different weapons used by different subjects; and footprints not attributable to Guede found on the floor of the room in which the victim's body was found" (p21, SC judgment). We know that the first two pieces of evidence are under review by the experts, there is no real evidence of the third claim in Massei, and he dismissed the fourth by acknowledging all the footprints could be Guede's. Are you really suggesting that Hellmann ordering a review of the DNA evidence was completely pointless because the earlier courts in Guede's trial found it convincing? You might want to send him a memo!

What you're proposing is a sort of faith-based acceptance of the Supreme Court's endorsement of the multiple attacker theory, totally independently of the evidence it was based on. According to this position it doesn't matter what the in-depth testing ordered by Hellmann's court reveals; it has to be rejected in favour of an earlier Supreme Court statement based on outdated evidence. Obviously this is a ridiculous argument.

Which makes me wonder. If the knife does get tossed, which seems probable, what will that do to Guede's conviction.

 

[platonov]

This would be the case of my Category #1. In a way I can understand it, we have to assume that our courts get it right, or the whole premise of our justice system is in danger. This of course extends to other first world countries, we place our view or our own justice system on theirs.

Few people would suggest that the justice system is Turkey was close to perfect and that the courts are almost always right, but the same admission about the courts in the UK would be far harder.

People see the Italian courts in the same way as the UK ones, though funnily enough, it seems those that have spent a little time in Italy and know the systems aren't quite so willing to accept their infalibility.
<snip>

Really, for many months the argument put forward here was that everyone was found guilty at the first trial in Italy coz' it didn't really count anyway ( & to generate more fees for the lawyers or something ) and that 28/40 % [pick any figure you like] had the decision reversed at the appeal [ or trial de novo ].

Was that not true

 

[Chris C]

Hmmm. I wonder if that mysterious "Luminol blob" in Filomena's room was a drop of fake blood.

How did it get there? Must have been aliens because the hallway to filomena's room wasnt cleaned. Though you would think of all those luminol prints 1 of them would have tested positive for blood. Kinda like the knife being the murder weapon, it tested negative for blood and we now know it wasn't cleaned. Plus exactly where did they find this luminol print in Filomena's room.

 

[Chris C]

Really, for many months the argument put forward here was that everyone was found guilty at the first trial in Italy coz', it didn't really count anyway ( & to generate more fees for the lawyers or something ) and 28/40 % [pick any figure you like] had the decision reversed at the appeal [ or trial de novo ].

Was that not true

Still avoiding evidence?

 

[babycondor]

Which makes me wonder. If the knife does get tossed, which seems probable, what will that do to Guede's conviction.

Nothing.

 

[theRealBob]

The last pc activity on Raff's computer was at either 9:10pm according to the prosecution or 9:26pm stated by the defense. The 9:26 was the supposed start of a download of the Naruto cartoon.

 

[platonov]

Calendars are even more complicated than telling the time apparently

Really, how many is that? From what I have seen both AK and RS claim to have been at his house the night of the killing, that they had dinner, smoked some weed, messed about on the computer, watched a movie, had sex, and possibly a shower, and went to bed. While the exact details may not be nailed down into an exact timeline of when they did each thing, I would suggest that otherwise innocent people who have been smoking weed would find it hard to tell you a blow by blow accounting of an otherwise uneventful night, especially months if not years after the event. The human memory is not like a computer HDD. The general basis of the alibi has no changed for RS at all, and AK's only change come on the one night of intensive interrogation which wasn't recorded. So what are these many and varied 'alibis'/ 'scenarios' ?

For AK/RS and their defence teams ~ 5 -7

Online CT stuff ~ 134 and counting.

We have had this before also (46 times) - you do know that when the cops interviewed them the next day and for 374 hours over the following 3 days it wasn't cultural differences, cartwheels, philosophy, confused ideas about jurisprudence, cod logic or screensavers they were asking about.

True, in a court you have to answer questions directly and plainly.

True to a certain extent but after the 2nd/3rd time of asking the Judge will tell both parties to move on. 103 times would be considered excessive especially when the same answer was given every time.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Really, for many months the argument put forward here was that everyone was found guilty at the first trial in Italy coz' it didn't really count anyway ( & to generate more fees for the lawyers or something ) and that 28/40 % [pick any figure you like] had the decision reversed at the appeal [ or trial de novo ].

Was that not true

So you quoted me saying that people generally think that the Italian system is similar in its trustworthiness to the UK's, except for people that have been in Italian for some time or know the system, and then try and counter this by pointing out that some of those that have studied the Italian system have grave doubts about how trustworthy it is?

At least if you are going to try and disagree with me, try actually disagreeing rather than making my point for me.

I do agree on one point and think that it'd be very nice to see a source for the 20-40% figure. At 40% the first court might as well be tossing a coin to get the verdict so if it's really that bad I'd love to see it shown as such.

 

[Alt+F4]

Which makes me wonder. If the knife does get tossed, which seems probable, what will that do to Guede's conviction.

I don't think it will change anything in regard to RG's conviction. He has exhausted all the appeals available to him.

With that said, in regard to what that might mean to RS and AK? Some posters have said that nothing in regard to RG's trial, conviction or appeals can be admitted into their current appeals trial. I've seen nothing to believe that this is true. In her appeal document, AK did mention evidence presented at RS's original trial as evidence of her innocene.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't think it will change anything in regard to RG's conviction. He has exhausted all the appeals available to him.

With that said, in regard to what that might mean to RS and AK? Some posters have said that nothing in regard to RG's trial, conviction or appeals can be admitted into their current appeals trial. I've seen nothing to believe that this is true. In her appeal document, AK did mention evidence presented at RS's original trial as evidence of her innocene.

Not actaully what was said. What was said was that the verdict of the RG trial can't effect the verdict of the AK and RS trial. Either the Prosecution or the Defence would be quite entitled to introduce evidence from the RG trial into the appeal trial (assuming Hellmann accepts it as evidence) and that could then influence the verdict as any other evidence would, it's just that Hellmann's court can't look at the verdict of the RG trial and base their decision on that, their decision must be exclusively based on the evidence presented in the RS and AK appeal trial .

 

[platonov]

'Not the first traveler to pass this way'

So you quoted me saying that people generally think that the Italian system is similar in its trustworthiness to the UK's, except for people that have been in Italian for some time or know the system, and then try and counter this by pointing out that some of those that have studied the Italian system have grave doubts about how trustworthy it is?

At least if you are going to try and disagree with me, try actually disagreeing rather than making my point for me.

I do agree on one point and think that it'd be very nice to see a source for the 20-40% figure. At 40% the first court might as well be tossing a coin to get the verdict so if it's really that bad I'd love to see it shown as such.

No. - reread my post.

So would I PW, So would I

 

[Justinian2]

This would be the case of my Category #1. In a way I can understand it, we have to assume that our courts get it right, or the whole premise of our justice system is in danger. This of course extends to other first world countries, we place our view or our own justice system on theirs.

Few people would suggest that the justice system is Turkey was close to perfect and that the courts are almost always right, but the same admission about the courts in the UK would be far harder.

People see the Italian courts in the same way as the UK ones, though funnily enough, it seems those that have spent a little time in Italy and know the systems aren't quite so willing to accept their infalibility.

So it is that when they see a case that is not a lot more then a house of card built on sand, they can't accept that any credible court could fashion such a case, and so there must be more to it than what they are seeing, there must be more evidence that takes it from being a house of cards on sand to a substantial and sturdy structure, because otherwise a credible court could not have backed it. The idea that the court might actually be anything but credible is a far harder one to get around to seeing because of our implicit trust in our justice systems, and so becomes a stumbling block that our category #1 friends simply can't overcome, and hence they find it easier to believe that the court knows more than it is telling, than it is for it to be so dreadfully wrong because it's totally imcompetent.

I also believe that the whole "You must believe in a CT to frame them to believe in their innocence" comes from the same place. The possiblity that a so-called first world justice system could be so incompetent and corrupt that such a massive injustice could take place in it is so incomprehensible to some people that they simply can't apply Hanlon's Razor to the situation.

Hanlon's Razor: prov.

A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, that reads “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

That's funny. I've never heard that one before.

To be serious, I think Hanlon's razor depends on the person. In the case of tyrants, I would think “Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.”

 

[Mary_H]

Yes. Certainly. Either Amanda is innocent or she isn't. Both sides can't be right. I wouldn't argue anything else.

That is not my argument. It's not that pro-Innocence posters believe good things about Amanda, it's that I believe they accept evidence that supports her very readily, and evidence that undermines her with the greatest of reluctance, if at all. I don't know if pro-innocence posters are more irrational than any other group. I also think that everyones reasoning works post-hoc to some extent. This didn't seem like a massively contentious thing to say. I hadn't intended to write a whole bunch of posts expanding on it.

This is my view and I'm content to leave the topic without having convinced anybody.

To compare innocenters and guilters is to compare apples and oranges. To prosecute is proactive; to defend is reactive. What pro-innocence posters believe or accept about Amanda is, again, irrelevant. Whether she is a saint or a sinner, the presumption of innocence is a given.

My own approach has always been intended to correct, not to convince. As an innocence supporter in this case, I feel compelled to help fix something that someone else broke, whether it is misinformation and lies posted in internet forums, or the giant media campaign against Amanda. The guilt supporters have no such rationalization for their position. If Giuliano Mignini is all they crack him up to be, then why does he need their help? Let him do his job.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi All,

I'm new here and have just recently become intrigued by this case. I promise to try to read all of the material I can and not clog up the thread with easily answerable questions.

I did have a question. Can anyone link me to documentation of what RS's ISP records revealed about the night of the murder? How detailed were the records? Did they have HTTP header info and things like that? SMTP logs? It seems to me the computers themselves wouldn't be needed if that information was available.

I've read some recent posts suggesting that the defense has documentation that they launched a movie file around the time of the murder, but I'm very interested in what the ISP was able to provide.

Christopher

Welcome to the thread, Mairanse. In case you missed it, here is a letter Raffaele recently wrote about his computer activity:

Originally Posted by Raffaele
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.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The last pc activity on Raff's computer was at either 9:10pm according to the prosecution or 9:26pm stated by the defense. The 9:26 was the supposed start of a download of the Naruto cartoon.

If I recall correctly it was the opening of a Naruto file, not the downloading of it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

For AK/RS and their defence teams ~ 5 -7

So you should be able to provide these 4-6 that weren't, we were at Rafaelle's house watching a movie, playing on the computer etc?

Or are you merely meaning that the details of what they were doing at his house have been expanded on since the first "we were at his house"?

 

[Chris C]

I don't think it will change anything in regard to RG's conviction. He has exhausted all the appeals available to him.

With that said, in regard to what that might mean to RS and AK? Some posters have said that nothing in regard to RG's trial, conviction or appeals can be admitted into their current appeals trial. I've seen nothing to believe that this is true. In her appeal document, AK did mention evidence presented at RS's original trial as evidence of her innocene.

His appeals are not exhausted. He can appeal again at any time if evidence warrants an appeal. If the Murder Weapon gets tossed as evidence which was used in Guede's trial. Then he has grounds for an appeal because now the murder weapon used against Guede isn't the murder weapon used in part to convict him. Thus his conviction has a major flaw in it. If Knox/Sollecito's conviction are overturned, that throws an even bigger hammer in his conviction. Guede took a fast track, which means he pretty much wasn't able to question the evidence. However, if evidence starts getting tossed because of contamination or just bad science then his conviction based on the same evidence that was used against knox/sollecito becomes a conviction based on the same evidence. Thus he has even greater room for an appeal. Though in italy they can basicly take you back to court again and try you again. Which is possible in Guede's case. However, the trial judge would have to weigh in what could be admitted and what couldn't be admitted. Anything that happens concerning evidence in Knox/Sollecito's trial can be used as a reason for appeal.