Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

This is all about trying to come up with a reason to justify having imprisoned Amanda Knox for four years,The Italian criminal justice system don't care about the Kerchers any more than they care about imprisoning Raffaele,they know they get away with such things all of the time,CNN and the other big US networks are reporting on this case,and this case is just the tip of the iceberg of what is happening in Italy,the criminals who run the Italian justice system are well aware that in neighbouring countries across the Meditierranean in Eygpt in Syria and in Lybia the ordinary people have turned on their oppressors and they are desperate to prove that they are slightly less corupt

This is precisely why everyone should fear this urge to "strike a balance." It's that even after yesterday's (presumed) debunking of the knife as a murder weapon.......

...... it's amazing running into some who still claim, "There's something she's not telling us." It's the lingering, "there's something she's not telling us," that could pull the Florence court off course, even with ALL the outstanding issues defined by last March's ISC satisfied in Sollecito's and Knox's favour.

Even if ALL the issues are satisfied in the direction of complete innocence, this mythical urge to "strike a balance" could produce an equally undeserved conviction on some mythical lesser charge.

It's one of the fascinations with this case - which would be fascinating even more, if it was not for the fact it started with an innocent victim (Meredith) and two subsequent victims of judicial abuse.

 

[acbytesla]

This is all about trying to come up with a reason to justify having imprisoned Amanda Knox for four years,The Italian criminal justice system don't care about the Kerchers and more than they care about imprisoning Raffaele,they know they get away with such things all of the time,CNN and the other big US networks are reporting on this case,and this case is just the tip of the iceberg of what is happening in Italy,the criminals who run the Italian justice system are well aware that in neighbouring countries across the Meditierranean in Eygpt in Syria and in Lybia the ordinary people have turned on their oppressors and they are desperate to prove that they are slightly less corupt

Is it? Mistakes in justice happen all the time, even in the US and the UK and every where else for that matter. They didn't really have to justify having imprisoned Amanda and Raffaele for four years. They can always say that there definitely was enough to suspect Amanda and Raffaele. (even though there are many including me to say there really wasn't any more reason to suspect Amanda any more than suspecting Filomena)

I'm torn trying to understand what the ISC was trying to accomplish with their ruling and what is the thinking involved in this legal process. Trying to apply logic and common sense doesn't seem to work.

The fact is that the ISC actually refocused the spotlight on the insane Italian judicial system. I've thought this was more a response to Amanda's and Raffaele's book and possibly even more attention with a Hollywood movie that portrays their system in a bad light. But I tend to think that is just over thinking it all.

My real opinion is this about the personal egos of judges. It is like a football or soccer game where officials want to be involved in the game so they call more penalties. They just can't help but put their own stamp on the game instead of being invisible.

 

[Bill Williams]

Respectfully, Bill, I don't think there is any evidence supporting the idea that the Kerchers will find peace through this process. The reality is this process does not seem designed to reach a conclusive answer. Instead, its purpose seems to be about creating ambiguity as a way of saving face for the Italians.

I suppose the court might go for the "middle" verdict, case not proved, as opposed to the Hellmann verdict, they didn't do it. Maybe that will be enough to placate these vindictive magistrates.

Now THAT would be a fascinating motivations report to read.

So far there is nothing, nada, nil, niente, zilch, zero.... to even suggest that Sollecito and Knox were involved with this horrible crime. So far, it seems, EVERYTHING the ISC ordered reevaluated has gone the defence's way...

So on what basis would Nencini reinterpret Hellmann's and Zanetti's, "they didn't do it," with a, "they may know something, but the prosecution simply didn't prove it"?

I mean, is it too much to ask the Italian judiciary to be logical? Hellmann says they didn't do it, the ISC reverses that saying more stuff needs to be examined, the de novo trial looks at that stuff and finds nothing.....

...... and all of a sudden that elevates a "they didn't do it," to "not proven"?

I really do not understand Italy. The country that brought the world Da Vinci, Galileo, and Michaelangelo..... as well as Masonic conspiracies!..... Italy just defies sense sometimes.

 

[Grinder]

I am by no means a rock climber and I never have been Grinder. There is little doubt that experienced rock climbers develop skills that are unique. That said, the climb would be easy for someone of Rudy's athleticism and body frame. Rudy being both fairly tall, and thin and I'm sure fairly strong. I have never thought that would be difficult of someone like Rudy. If he was built like a an American football where he was strong and heavy, the probably couldn't have scaled it. But of course he wasn't.

I don't believe the climb was as easy as the trained experienced rock climber made it look with the addition of the grates on the upper window. The technique used by the climber was not in any way used by the lawyer. I doubt that Rudy had that much experience using a lower window grate to coil and spring upward to grab the sill. Rudy could have made the climb but I doubt he would have used a similar technique.

The lawyers' office was far different as was the Milan nursery and Ct's place.

I don't doubt Guede could have made it. I doubt the shutters were closed. I think he broke the window. I don't think he climbed but entered through the front door. I think there would have been more of Locard on the wall.

 

[acbytesla]

As previously admitted, I'm not sure what all that means either. I get a 'last modified' date for things I download which I'm guessing is the rough equivalent for the 'last amended' date on something uploaded. Would this be more or less the same thing as assuming that because my computer has a 'last modified' date for when I downloaded something that I 'must' have created that content?

If so, oh vey!

It really depends on the type of document and the program that created it. Some programs provide a lot of different information about how the file was created. A MS Word 3 document for example provides "Created date, a Modifed date and a last accessed date, Also in the metadata is Title, Subject, Author, Manager, Company, Category, Key Words, Comments and Hyperlink base, Last saved by, Revision number, Total Editing Time and even more information. This is more metadata that was part of MS Word 95 and I'm sure the latest version MS Word even provides more Metadata. The copy of the letter that Raffaele sent was a PDF file, which is an Adobe standard, but that document could have been created by a few different programs including FOXIT. Each might offer more or less metadata with the file. According to my properties tab for the letter. It says the following.

Subject: (left blank)
Author: Raffaele Sollecito
Creator: Pages
Producer: Mac OS X 10.8.4 Quartz PDFContext
Created: 2013-07-12 22:59:48
Modified: 2013-07-12 22:59:48
PDF Version: PDF-1.3

It is possible that there MAC Quartz program actually provides more metadata that my Foxit doesn't read.

Never the less. This is the info about the metadata.

 

[acbytesla]

Now THAT would be a fascinating motivations report to read.

So far there is nothing, nada, nil, niente, zilch, zero.... to even suggest that Sollecito and Knox were involved with this horrible crime. So far, it seems, EVERYTHING the ISC ordered reevaluated has gone the defence's way...

So on what basis would Nencini reinterpret Hellmann's and Zanetti's, "they didn't do it," with a, "they may know something, but the prosecution simply didn't prove it"?

I mean, is it too much to ask the Italian judiciary to be logical? Hellmann says they didn't do it, the ISC reverses that saying more stuff needs to be examined, the de novo trial looks at that stuff and finds nothing.....

...... and all of a sudden that elevates a "they didn't do it," to "not proven"?

I really do not understand Italy. The country that brought the world Da Vinci, Galileo, and Michaelangelo..... as well as Masonic conspiracies!..... Italy just defies sense sometimes.

You are of course making the classic mistake that we all seemed to do when reviewing this case and that is trying to apply logic and common sense.

 

[billyryan]

One day I will convince you that this is not about striking some mythical "balance". In my opinion, this is what (now) threatens to go wrong in Florence in the only court that matters.. There may be absolutely no evidence, there might be a review of everything the ISC said needed reviewing, they could come to the conclusion that there is nothing there to implicate Knox or Sollecito......

...... but to strike a "balance" they will take Andrea Vogt's advice and convict the pair on a lesser charge.

IMO - trying to strike a balance is what is wrong now. You obviously disagree.

Please also note how your post changes the goalpost position. I did not say Vogt broke the story. I said she reported it, esp. into the Seattle media market. At the time she only reported one side of it - the side the judge (at the time) was (apparently) taking. She did not report on the other side of the argument - that "I was there" meant she was at Raffaele's. She's been that one-sided ever since.

Re: starch - the jury is out on that one. Given that the ISC seems not to have ordered the Florence court to determine the make-up of 36B, mainly because 36B was destroyed in the test, we will never know will we? Is it starch as C&V suggest? Is it Meredith's and of unknown and unknowable origin, except that it is not blood DNA?

In this atmosphere it is hard to know what "misreporting" is. Please note, I am not defending Dempsey - what I have known about her though, is that if someone like Grinder goes to her, rather than me, you'll get an answer from her that you, yourself, can evaluate. That is the only meaningful difference between Vogt and Dempsey that I care about really.

You seem on a mission to discredit FOA, all for the goal of achieving some sort of "balance". Like an umpire who can't tell a ball from a strike... what is the "balanced" position for the umpire?

As for Mignini's promotion - I am told that one of the benefits of that promotion is that now Mignini is not in a position to investigate people any more. I could be wrong, but that's what I was told. IMO that is a face saving measure, put him out of harms' way by kicking him upstairs!

I'm also now of the opinion that Mignini is less of an issue here in Oct 2013 than I've been assuming. It makes it all the more strange that Mignini would write a letter to the editor defending himself from a five-year old claim; a claim, BTW, that no less than John Kercher knows about and that Kercher himself concedes is controversial - the "Satanic Rite" theory.

And yes I do check the Italian papers - with Google-translate as my unreliable friend. And yes, I do read the true crime books - and evaluate them on the basis of who sticks around to defend their work from questions.

Channel 5 made a documentary,its analysis finished something along the lines,there is absolutely no way you can send someone to jail for twenty five years on the evidence that they have got,that was from a top Italian lawyer who was making the case for the defence.Aveillo was brought in,in the hope he could be pressured to say Raffaele confessed to him in prison,seemingly Aveillo has more integrity than the Italian prosecutors forensic scientists and judges who so far have worked and judged this case and did what the state employees are incapable of doing,he told the truth,another attempt was made to try one last desperate test on the knife to see could they come up with anything to justify the four years of torture they put Amanda and Raffaele through,I think the penny had dropped that testing anything from a crime scene,to implicate what they know are two innocent defendants is not going to work.
I bet that behind the scenes the judges in Florence are ordered find something to justify the torture of the American girl or else find a scapegoat or two to save the reputation (privileged positions)of the high ranking members of the Italian criminal justice system

 

[acbytesla]

I don't believe the climb was as easy as the trained experienced rock climber made it look with the addition of the grates on the upper window. The technique used by the climber was not in any way used by the lawyer. I doubt that Rudy had that much experience using a lower window grate to coil and spring upward to grab the sill. Rudy could have made the climb but I doubt he would have used a similar technique.

The lawyers' office was far different as was the Milan nursery and Ct's place.

I don't doubt Guede could have made it. I doubt the shutters were closed. I think he broke the window. I don't think he climbed but entered through the front door. I think there would have been more of Locard on the wall.

I agree that it may very well not have been as easy for Rudy as it was for the experience rock climber. That said, I think it was probably still pretty damn easy for someone like Rudy. My older brother when I was young could scale walls like Spiderman and he never rock climbed in his life. I remember watching him climb up a 4 story wall to get into a window of my sister's apartment when we didn't have a key. I for the life of me would have been pressed to climb to the second story. And he made it look easy.

 

[Grinder]

...... but to strike a "balance" they will take Andrea Vogt's advice and convict the pair on a lesser charge.

The only balance I referred to was the bad reporting by Vogt, on one side, and CD on the other.

Please also note how your post changes the goalpost position. I did not say Vogt broke the story. I said she reported it, esp. into the Seattle media market. At the time she only reported one side of it - the side the judge (at the time) was (apparently) taking. She did not report on the other side of the argument - that "I was there" meant she was at Raffaele's. She's been that one-sided ever since.

You said in the first post I found - Wow. She was the reporter who uncritically passed on the "I was there" statement, that Knox said in a secretly recorded conversation between Knox and her mother. The plain meaning of the comment is Knox telling her mother she'd been at Raffaele's. Vogt reported that it was a confession, that Knox had secretly confessed to her mother that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder. Vogt never corrected that report.

I gave you link that said the exact same thing. I sympathize with Mach. I could find other posts where you make the statement in even stringer terms.

Why don't you find the first mention of "I was there" and post it? I'll bet it wasn't Vogt. You weren't following the case and you are making up this Vogt was "the reporter who uncritically passed on the "I was there".statement,

Re: starch - the jury is out on that one. Given that the ISC seems not to have ordered the Florence court to determine the make-up of 36B, mainly because 36B was destroyed in the test, we will never know will we? Is it starch as C&V suggest? Is it Meredith's and of unknown and unknowable origin, except that it is not blood DNA?

My recollection is that they said that contamination couldn't be ruled out. They did not say the substance isn't DNA it is starch. I'm not checking 36B versus others. I'm saying the Meredith DNA on the knife was not ruled to be starch.

In this atmosphere it is hard to know what "misreporting" is. Please note, I am not defending Dempsey - what I have known about her though, is that if someone like Grinder goes to her, rather than me, you'll get an answer from her that you, yourself, can evaluate. That is the only meaningful difference between Vogt and Dempsey that I care about really.

You seem able to determine when Vogt misreports.

You seem on a mission to discredit FOA, all for the goal of achieving some sort of "balance". Like an umpire who can't tell a ball from a strike... what is the "balanced" position for the umpire?

I believe comparing me to a baseball umpire that "can't tell a ball from a strike" is a violation of JREF rules about attacking a fellow member.

As for Mignini's promotion - I am told that one of the benefits of that promotion is that now Mignini is not in a position to investigate people any more. I could be wrong, but that's what I was told. IMO that is a face saving measure, put him out of harms' way by kicking him upstairs!

Yes of course his promotion proves no one believes in him.

I'm also now of the opinion that Mignini is less of an issue here in Oct 2013 than I've been assuming. It makes it all the more strange that Mignini would write a letter to the editor defending himself from a five-year old claim; a claim, BTW, that no less than John Kercher knows about and that Kercher himself concedes is controversial - the "Satanic Rite" theory.

Doh! Mignini is not a key player in this appeal.

 

[acbytesla]

I suppose the court might go for the "middle" verdict, case not proved, as opposed to the Hellmann verdict, they didn't do it. Maybe that will be enough to placate these vindictive magistrates.

My real point Charlie is that I don't think the Kerchers will ever feel peace. They may not be as vocal as many of the hard core guilters, but I think they are unable to shed the belief that A&R were involved in murdering their daughter regardless of what is presented in this latest trial.

They are emotionally vested in a guilty verdict. Anything less to them is Amanda getting away with murder somehow. The middle verdict will leave them convinced of that and they will never have peace. The best verdict for the Kerchers in my opinion is scathing criticism of the Perugia case and a total vindication of Amanda Knox and Raffaele and maybe even an apology directed towards them. That in my opinion is the only way to possibly make this settled and give them peace and even that isn't certain. A not proven verdict will guaranty their long lasting belief that justice wasn't served.

 

[Grinder]

From ABC. "'We are certain that they are not organic traces, but just starch cells,' Ghirga said." What he probably meant was that the organic matter was starch (which is by definition an organic compound) but not cellular matter. I don't expect lawyers or reporters to get scientific concepts exactly right. That is as much as I am going to say about this tempest in a teapot.

Chris you full well know that C&V didn't say that the material on the knife that produced the DNA of Meredith was really starch.

From an interesting piece on the C&V report =

In summary, there are a few possible scenarios to consider:

-Based on the confusion with regards to the quantitation, potential questions emerge about the authenticity of the analysis.

-Is the DNA profile even reportable according to the laboratory’s guidelines, and….are such guidelines supported by appropriate validation studies?

-The DNA is actually a contaminant and was not present on the knife.

-The DNA was actually present on the knife. It clearly cannot be associated with blood. At the level that the DNA was detected, there are numerous possibilities for how the DNA may have gotten on the knife via innocent transfer.


CD wrote on Sept. 30, 2013 "In the last trial, a speck the police claimed was the victim’s DNA turned out to be starch. Independent experts won’t test the knife this time; the judge handed that task off to the carabinieri ris. (Update: Filippo Barni and Andrea Berti). I have my fingers crossed for fairness."

I think it is an example of the lack of understanding of this case.

Because you demur from further comment I can only pass on best source information and I do not find any source that says C&V said the DNA on the knife attributed to Meredith was starch.

ETA - since we know that the sample was destroyed by testing how could C&V possibly have determined that what Stefanoni tested was starch?

 

[Bill Williams]

The only balance I referred to was the bad reporting by Vogt, on one side, and CD on the other.

What "unbalances" it for me is that Dempsey is far more willing to engage those who disagree with her, and defend her position. I'm not sure if I've EVER seen Vogt actually defend a position she's taken. Like most guilters she seems only to assert her position as if it is, by nature, unchallangeable.

You disagree. Good.

You said in the first post I found - Wow. She was the reporter who uncritically passed on the "I was there" statement, that Knox said in a secretly recorded conversation between Knox and her mother. The plain meaning of the comment is Knox telling her mother she'd been at Raffaele's. Vogt reported that it was a confession, that Knox had secretly confessed to her mother that she'd been at the cottage at the time of the murder. Vogt never corrected that report.

I gave you link that said the exact same thing. I sympathize with Mach. I could find other posts where you make the statement in even stringer terms.

Why don't you find the first mention of "I was there" and post it? I'll bet it wasn't Vogt. You weren't following the case and you are making up this Vogt was "the reporter who uncritically passed on the "I was there".statement,

.... which didn't address the way the goalposts were moved.... I've never claimed that Vogt "broke" or "first reported" the story. I, too, would bet the first mention was not Vogt... yet Vogt wrote this story for the Seattle news market, and unlike others, has not changed, apologized, or amended her account. If I put my mind to it, which I really am not going to do, we could all find instances of where people like Follain and/or Pisa or even Barbie Nadeau for that matter have changed as they've learned more stuff. Nadeau particularly, now only clings to the "she knows something she's not telling us," rather than the other earlier more sexified conspiratorial stuff you'll find from Nadeau with a simple YouTube search.

Once again, I've lost track of what you are criticizing.... I've never claimed what you're trying to disprove about my posts. Then again, this IS an exchange between you and me, so why should it be any different - us talking past each other...

You seem able to determine when Vogt misreports.

Can't you? Or do you agree with her interpretation of what "I was there" means? Do you agree with her that Rudy's convicting court also de facto convicted Sollecito and Knox? Do you agree with her that Knox misremembering the 12:45 pm call to her mother is key to suspecting Knox committed murder?

I believe comparing me to a baseball umpire that "can't tell a ball from a strike" is a violation of JREF rules about attacking a fellow member.

I don't see it that way, but you're free to complain if that's your need. I was saying it in relation to my opinion that you do not seem to be able to discern non-accountable misreporting from Vogt, to Dempsey allowing her self to be fully accountable for what she's blogged about. You seem, to me at least, to want to "strike a balance", where to me there is no middle position.

I will withdraw the analogy if it truly offends you. But aside from the analogy, this business of trying to be seen as occupying a middle ground, by unfairly criticizing FOA (when you actually agree with the vast majority of FOA conclusions!) is misguided and misrepresentative.

That is only my opinion.

I'm also now of the opinion that Mignini is less of an issue here in Oct 2013 than I've been assuming. It makes it all the more strange that Mignini would write a letter to the editor defending himself from a five-year old claim; a claim, BTW, that no less than John Kercher knows about and that Kercher himself concedes is controversial - the "Satanic Rite" theory.

Doh! Mignini is not a key player in this appeal.

I am perhaps full value for your "Duh!" I will not report you to JREF because you could very well be right.

I now am suspecting that I am more wrong than even your "Duh" suggests. Mignini is defending himself from a "Satanic Ritual" accusation about 5 years after its relevancy.... why? For heaven's sake, even John Kercher has written that Mignini floated this "controversial" (Kercher's word) theory.

Why even defend himself from it? Why not just say, "Yes, I briefly entertained that theory, but soon accepted new information and thought of it as merely a sex game gone wrong"?

I now suspect that Mignini is going to rue the day that the ISC quashed the Hellmann acquittals. Having simply another round in the, now, Florentine Nencini court where (so far at least) everything is going the defence's way (presumably) - this is simply prolonging the embarrassment for Mignini who originated this mess - the prolonging of a conclusion for the Kerchers, and a prolonging of a wrongful prosecution.....

Instead for the next couple of weeks, Mignini's shadow will hang over all this, whether he's presently involved or not. Once again, people worldwide will now be asking, "Why'd he prosecute THIS?" Why has it taken THIS long to admit the obvious?

 

[Grinder]

Bill here is the first mention in the PI of "I was there"

It was written by NICOLE WINFIELD, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Dec. 1, 2007.

The PGP say that Vogt is responsive and that CD deleted there comments etc. etc.

ETA - Go Dawgs

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

My real point Charlie is that I don't think the Kerchers will ever feel peace. They may not be as vocal as many of the hard core guilters, but I think they are unable to shed the belief that A&R were involved in murdering their daughter regardless of what is presented in this latest trial.

They are emotionally vested in a guilty verdict. Anything less to them is Amanda getting away with murder somehow. The middle verdict will leave them convinced of that and they will never have peace. The best verdict for the Kerchers in my opinion is scathing criticism of the Perugia case and a total vindication of Amanda Knox and Raffaele and maybe even an apology directed towards them. That in my opinion is the only way to possibly make this settled and give them peace and even that isn't certain. A not proven verdict will guaranty their long lasting belief that justice wasn't served.

From everything I know, it seems clear the Kerchers do not want to hear from Amanda. They have not shown any interest in hearing from those of us who support her claim of innocence. Their peace of mind is out of our hands. I think we should respect their wishes by accepting that.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill here is the first mention in the PI of "I was there"

It was written by NICOLE WINFIELD, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Dec. 1, 2007.

The PGP say that Vogt is responsive and that CD deleted there comments etc. etc.

ETA - Go Dawgs

Great! What does Nicole Winfield think now? Has she seen Mignini as her primary contact for "objective" facts from the case?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't believe the climb was as easy as the trained experienced rock climber made it look with the addition of the grates on the upper window. The technique used by the climber was not in any way used by the lawyer. I doubt that Rudy had that much experience using a lower window grate to coil and spring upward to grab the sill. Rudy could have made the climb but I doubt he would have used a similar technique.

A real climber could have easily made that climb without either grating. The climber on 5 chan reached the upper sill with his feet still on the lower sill.

I don't doubt Guede could have made it. I doubt the shutters were closed. I think he broke the window. I don't think he climbed but entered through the front door. I think there would have been more of Locard on the wall.

You keep saying that but you don't provide any supporting evidence. Here is a simple question for you to ask yourself: What is the time span between Rudy's entry to the cottage and the first high resolution photos that would show evidence of a climb if there was one? How much rain and wind has there been in that time span that would tend to diminish any evidence of climbing?

Also, why was Rudy taking a dump in the wrong bathroom?


The evidence all supports the scenario of Rudy entering the cottage through Fillomena's window while nobody is there.

 

[Bill Williams]

From everything I know, it seems clear the Kerchers do not want to hear from Amanda. They have not shown any interest in hearing from those of us who support her claim of innocence. Their peace of mind is out of our hands. I think we should respect their wishes by accepting that.

I agree. They are victims here as much as Sollecito or Knox.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't believe the climb was as easy as the trained experienced rock climber made it look with the addition of the grates on the upper window.

The climber made a second demonstration without touching the grates. It looked easy and in his expert opinion something easily done by someone without training.

The technique used by the climber was not in any way used by the lawyer. I doubt that Rudy had that much experience using a lower window grate to coil and spring upward to grab the sill.

Rudy could have made the climb but I doubt he would have used a similar technique.

The lawyer used the nail to pull himself up even more easily. Rudy might have used it, too.

The lawyers' office was far different as was the Milan nursery and Ct's place.

Maybe, I'd love to see some pictures showing the differences but I don't think the break-ins we know about are representative. I suspect there are many more that were not linked to him.

I don't doubt Guede could have made it. I doubt the shutters were closed. I think he broke the window. I don't think he climbed but entered through the front door.

There's no evidence that he entered through the door and it doesn't make logical sense. There's evidence that he cleared the window frame. There's no reason to do this unless he needed to open that window from the outside.

 

[acbytesla]

From everything I know, it seems clear the Kerchers do not want to hear from Amanda. They have not shown any interest in hearing from those of us who support her claim of innocence. Their peace of mind is out of our hands. I think we should respect their wishes by accepting that.

I agree. I'm just pointing out what I think is the absurdity of this trial resolving the issue for them and making them feel settled. Although I do believe it is a mistake to refer to the Kerchers monolithically. I think each may have a different perspective of this case, but those who may be softer about Amanda's guilt do not want to upset the apple cart at home.

I think Amanda and her family has done all they can in reaching out to the Kerchers. And I think they will leave it like that," in the Kercher's court."

 

[Kaosium]

It really depends on the type of document and the program that created it. Some programs provide a lot of different information about how the file was created. A MS Word 3 document for example provides "Created date, a Modifed date and a last accessed date, Also in the metadata is Title, Subject, Author, Manager, Company, Category, Key Words, Comments and Hyperlink base, Last saved by, Revision number, Total Editing Time and even more information. This is more metadata that was part of MS Word 95 and I'm sure the latest version MS Word even provides more Metadata. The copy of the letter that Raffaele sent was a PDF file, which is an Adobe standard, but that document could have been created by a few different programs including FOXIT. Each might offer more or less metadata with the file. According to my properties tab for the letter. It says the following.

Subject: (left blank)
Author: Raffaele Sollecito
Creator: Pages
Producer: Mac OS X 10.8.4 Quartz PDFContext
Created: 2013-07-12 22:59:48
Modified: 2013-07-12 22:59:48
PDF Version: PDF-1.3

It is possible that there MAC Quartz program actually provides more metadata that my Foxit doesn't read.

Never the less. This is the info about the metadata.

Ah, I think I see now. They saw that 'author' listed as Raffaele and jumped to the conclusion he must have written the letter?

Oh. Dear.