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

[LondonJohn]

Side point of technical interest: Why does Machiavelli never show as "online" in the check-circle underneath his name and photo, even when he self-evidently is? How is that technically possible? I'm genuinely intrigued. Is there a trick to doing this?

 

[Diocletus]

But beyond connection, the mail service provider would retain the sending information.

And was this information requested from said mail service provider? And if so, what were the results?

The internet connection showed activity which could not be tracked to Sollecito's computer,

No? Then where did this activity go?

and moreover it was consistent with the automatic functioning of a runging p2p app.

Oh no. Not this word "consistent" again! This word is so abused by you people. What else is the activity "consistent" with?

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps one of Sollecito's sisters. Perhaps one of his two cleaning ladies. Perhaps his father. Perhaps his father's "hence persons" (aunt, cousins, etc.) Perhaps his university friend...

Did they all have key access to Sollecito's flat then?

 

[Diocletus]

Perhaps one of Sollecito's sisters. Perhaps one of his two cleaning ladies. Perhaps his father. Perhaps his father's "hence persons" (aunt, cousins, etc.) Perhaps his university friend...

We don't know that any of them were in the apartment at the relevant time. We do know that the police were there.

 

[acbytesla]

To anyone. As for any standard of common sense.

Who's common sense? How would you know about common sense? It's not like you have ever shown any.

There are a lot of people with common sense who say that the police were on his computer afterwards and messed up the data.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact is I completely disagree on this. I don't think the "PLE" (as you call it) made a mess. There are several errors by various people, but nothing determinant.



There was only one public camera that could have been useful, belonging to the city administration, but was inactive.

I don't know about the military camera, but that only shoots on their entrance gate; I think it doesn't even record continuously.

The parking camera was active, but it did not record 24/h, it would set on recording only on the passing of cars along the road (it did not activate on passers by).

Bear in mind also that in Italy there are laws which prevent the owners of tv cameras to retain video recordings of public places beyond a short time (usually 24 hours). In 2007 the law was even more ambiguous and so possibly more strict thant today.

There was at least one private security camera on Corso Garibaldi that was in full working order - it was at a Bank just down the road from Sollecito's apartment. It would necessarily and without any doubt have recorded the movement of everybody down Corso Garibaldi, and thus would unequivocally have captured Knox and/or Sollecito going to or from the cottage (whether on the night of the murder or the morning after).

Too bad that the police waited so long to request the footage that the data had been overwritten......

 

[christianahannah]

Side point of technical interest: Why does Machiavelli never show as "online" in the check-circle underneath his name and photo, even when he self-evidently is? How is that technically possible? I'm genuinely intrigued. Is there a trick to doing this?

A few posters do this, Dan O is one as is Grinder. They just post out of nowhere.

I think you can check a hidden tag under your user profile (or something like that).

 

[LondonJohn]

We don't know that any of them were in the apartment at the relevant time. We do know that the police were there.

Actually, IIRC, the web browsing actually occurred AFTER the police had searched Sollecito's apartment and seized his laptops. I believe it's almost certain that the laptop was actually connected online by the police within the police station, and was then used to browse various websites.

I'm away from home at the moment, so don't have the resources (or time) to check this for sure, but I'm fairly confident that this is the case.

 

[LondonJohn]

A few posters do this, Dan O is one as is Grinder. They just post out of nowhere.

I think you can check a hidden tag under your user profile (or something like that).

Ah right Thanks - it was just intriguing me....

 

[davefoc]

...


Why didn't they just use his knives that he carried and "find" the DNA on those knives? Why didn't they put a trace of Meredith's blood on the knife of choice? Why would they just want to get Amanda?

These are exactly the kind of questions that I ask myself when I am trying to figure out what went on with the knife DNA test results. I don't have an answer except that there are things that we don't know about the knife collection and testing. There are a limited set of possibilities with regard to explaining the test results and each possibility seems unlikely based on the evidence. Other people might have been able to make more sense of this based on their better understanding of the evidence and the issues than I can but I think every explanation is unlikely but one of the unlikely explanations must be true.

There is nothing in the record to substantiate your theory of taking a kitchen knife to scare him. Nothing.

I don't know how Bill intended for his theory to be taken, but I took it that he offered it as a possibility and not a fact. My thought is that Bill has gone through the a similar process that I have with regard to trying to make sense out of what we know about the knife DNA testing and results and he came up with this as a possible partial explanation, but I think he would acknowledge that this is an area where the evidence isn't available to prove his conjecture.

Who has backed Raf's story of being offered a deal?

Who would? This is the kind of thing that seems so likely that unless there was evidence to the contrary, I think it's reasonable to assume that it happened.

 

[Strozzi]

D'oh! They didn't do that because they simply KNEW (osmotically, of course ) that none of these knives was used.

I can't believe that you underestimate the parapsychological predictive powers of the Italian State Police in this way! Heretic!

You're right, LondonJohn. I underestimated the Italian State Police's parapsychological powers. I'm not well acquainted with the black arts!

I do know that Giobi was in the audio/video control room when Amanda was being interrogated/manipulated by senior detectives and that Giobbi said he heard her screams. Mignini joined him in the control room, didn't he? I seem to recall that Mignini said he and Giobbi were watching Amanda's BODY LANGUAGE as she was being interrogated. I'm sure their expert behavior analysis and projection skills make them able to discern the truth. Funny such highly skilled officials forgot to turn on the recorder while watching her.

They are lucky they are Italians living in Italy. Nowadays where I live senior police or prosecutors observing such an action and failing to stop it would probably be convicted and sentenced to prison.

 

[davefoc]

A few posters do this, Dan O is one as is Grinder. They just post out of nowhere.

I think you can check a hidden tag under your user profile (or something like that).

I continue to learn about a diverse range of things in this thread. I didn't know about the on-line check mark, thank you christianahannah and thanks to LondonJohn for asking the question

 

[Grinder]

Has there been discussion concerning retention policy of the tapes of public and private cameras? When was the car park video first accessed by police? Is it known the retention record of that particular camera?

Also, it appears Patrick's computer was successfully cloned which was among the five computers seized.

Proper police procedure would have the videos collected withing a day or two. Retention policy should not have come into play even with the smallest retail store.

If they have public video cams that have less than a week's worth of retention it would be an example of poor use of the resource.

I have no idea about the car parks particulars.

If Patrick's was successfully clones that would prove they knew how to do it yet they fried all the others. How can that be explained?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't know how Bill intended for his theory to be taken, but I took it that he offered it as a possibility and not a fact. My thought is that Bill has gone through the a similar process that I have with regard to trying to make sense out of what we know about the knife DNA testing and results and he came up with this as a possible partial explanation, but I think he would acknowledge that this is an area where the evidence isn't available to prove his conjecture.

Yes, it's all conjecture. The worse possibility would be if the PLE chose this knife, this lone knife, for no reason at all. Otherwise it was the fastest & luckiest solving of a crime based on pure instinct since the Reichstag Fire Trial.

But look what it made Massei do in his motivations report. Massei at least had the sense to know that this knife is inextricably linked to motive. And since neither Amanda or Raffaele had a motive, so says Massei, then he had to invent the equally ridiculous, "Amanda carried it for protection," theory.

Good theories are supposed to converge on a hypothesis. Massei kept having to diverge into peripheral theories (like the "carrying for protection" theory) to plug leaks in his reasonings.

Who has backed Raf's story of being offered a deal?

Who would? This is the kind of thing that seems so likely that unless there was evidence to the contrary, I think it's reasonable to assume that it happened.

I also think this is reasonable. True, it's conjecture, but it also fits with the plucking of the random knife. They were intent to lean on Raffaele until he turned on Amanda. They thought he would buckle.

They thought wrong.

 

[Grinder]

Side point of technical interest: Why does Machiavelli never show as "online" in the check-circle underneath his name and photo, even when he self-evidently is? How is that technically possible? I'm genuinely intrigued. Is there a trick to doing this?

A few posters do this, Dan O is one as is Grinder. They just post out of nowhere.

I think you can check a hidden tag under your user profile (or something like that).

Yes there is an option not to show active or not. I leave the page open when I'm doing other work so decided I didn't want people thinking I was watching when I wasn't.

 

[davefoc]

That the police were surfing the internet in Sollecito's apartment it's a defence theory (or claim), not a proven fact.
That was allegedly the other hard drive, and wouldn't be enough to delete traces of Sollecito's previous activity, anyway (information which in fact was recovered).

...

And I recall that some of the data in the computers was in fact overwritten because the police were surfing the internet and watching movies on the computers.

Perhaps one of Sollecito's sisters. Perhaps one of his two cleaning ladies. Perhaps his father. Perhaps his father's "hence persons" (aunt, cousins, etc.) Perhaps his university friend...

Who was viewing the web pages (some of which were actually about the crime) that were provably in the cache of Sollecito's computer, and which were time-stamped AFTER Sollecito and Knox had both been arrested?

Perhaps somebody broke into Sollecito's flat, used his laptop to surf the net, then left, all without leaving a trace? Perhaps an intelligent ant in Sollecito's flat learnt how to power up Sollecito's laptop and surf the net? Who knows? It's a genuine mystery!

We don't know that any of them were in the apartment at the relevant time. We do know that the police were there.

Machiavelli, doesn't it strike you as a little strange that there wasn't an investigation to find out who was using Sollecito's computers after he had been arrested if it wasn't the police? I don't understand why there wasn't an investigation on this point regardless. Police mess with the evidence without authorization and you think this is something that should not be looked into? Or as you suggest, some random individual gets into Sollecito's apartment after the arrest and plays with his computer and you think this is something that shouldn't be investigated? Maybe they took away or added incriminating evidence. Somebody couldn't have just asked the police if they had accessed the computer? Do you think they would have lied about it?

 

[Mary_H]

I fail to see the relevance of this. What is relevant to guilt or innocence, is whether evidence exists or not.

Says the man who believes lies are all the evidence he needs against Amanda.

 

[RandyN]

Side point of technical interest: Why does Machiavelli never show as "online" in the check-circle underneath his name and photo, even when he self-evidently is? How is that technically possible? I'm genuinely intrigued. Is there a trick to doing this?

I have his email address...would you like to ask him personally?

 

[Grinder]

I don't know how Bill intended for his theory to be taken, but I took it that he offered it as a possibility and not a fact. My thought is that Bill has gone through the a similar process that I have with regard to trying to make sense out of what we know about the knife DNA testing and results and he came up with this as a possible partial explanation, but I think he would acknowledge that this is an area where the evidence isn't available to prove his conjecture.[/quote[

It doesn't make sense because had they wanted "to scare him" into turning they would have picked a knife that fit the outline or just used his knives. They already had his knives so why the odd choice of the kitchen knife. BW has made this case numerous times and it appears he is "sure" that is what happened.

Who would? This is the kind of thing that seems so likely that unless there was evidence to the contrary, I think it's reasonable to assume that it happened.

His family or his attorneys could have verified it. He wasn't alone in a room when Mignini offered him a deal. He would have told of the offer by someone and they would be able to confirm. If there was good reason for them not to confirm, why did he publish it?

 

[billyryan]

Side point of technical interest: Why does Machiavelli never show as "online" in the check-circle underneath his name and photo, even when he self-evidently is? How is that technically possible? I'm genuinely intrigued. Is there a trick to doing this?

LJ just click on "User CP" on top left hand corner of page
Then click on "Edit options"
The fist box that opens gives you an option to "use invisible options" put a tick in the box and you become invisible,then scroll to bottom of page and click on "save changes"