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

[Grinder]

Rafael was interviewed on TV when he first came to the US, before his book was published. He stated during the TV interview that while in prison he had been approached with a suggestion (offer) that if he were to change his story and (falsely) burn Amanda, he would then receive leniency. Rafael's father in Italy was reported in the immediate aftermath of Rafael's statement to be doing damage control to protect Rafael from what he had said on American TV. The reason given is that it is illegal to engage in deal making of that sort in Italy and Rafael was opening himself up to further prosecution by the PLE for saying it occurred.

And he wrote about it but no one will substantiate it. If it is illegal to make such an offer and the prosecution did make such an offer, why wouldn't the witness lawyers et al. tell all?

 

[Machiavelli]

Would there normally be traffic at 8 to 10 on that type of evening?

I don't live in Perugia, so I can't tell exactly, but my guess is no. There would be very little traffic. Moreover that road is an area with limitation on traffic permissions (this is why there are video cameras); I don't know what the rules were in 2007; but not many people, basically only the residents would enter that road with a car. They won't do that at dinner time, on a holiday.
I think there would be nobody, no vehicle passing.

 

[Machiavelli]

Rafael was interviewed on TV when he first came to the US, before his book was published. He stated during the TV interview that while in prison he had been approached with a suggestion (offer) that if he were to change his story and (falsely) burn Amanda, he would then receive leniency. Rafael's father in Italy was reported in the immediate aftermath of Rafael's statement to be doing damage control to protect Rafael from what he had said on American TV. The reason given is that it is illegal to engage in deal making of that sort in Italy and Rafael was opening himself up to further prosecution by the PLE for saying it occurred.

Sollecito's father openly denied what Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel wrote in their book. And you call this "damage control"?

 

[Machiavelli]

And he wrote about it but no one will substantiate it. If it is illegal to make such an offer and the prosecution did make such an offer, why wouldn't the witness lawyers et al. tell all?

Rather than illegal, it just makes no sense. Sollecito locates the alleged "offer" in a time when he was already appealing his conviction.
But why would the prosecution (Mignini and Comodi) make an "offer" to a person whom they have already convicted? after they have already won?
At that point, their office (the Procura della Repubblica) was not even the one prosecuting them. Now it was the Prosecution General (Galati and Costagliola), at best they would have had the power of changing something, moving "against" Comodi and Mignini.
History is, instead of departing from their line, Galati hired them. But that was their choice.
It's really unrealistic and makes no sense to imagine that prosecutors (Mignini. Comodi) would offer a "deal" with Sollecito at that point. That would contradict their own previous work, their own prosecution appeal, and Raffaele could offer nothing in exchange for that, there would be no reason to do that.

 

[Strozzi]

Why do you think they chose that knife?



I don't know whether they are or not. I don't see why that is something either side would reveal.

In the several days after Kerscher's murder the police searched the neighborhood for the knife used to kill her. They did not find it.

During his night-interrogation the night that he and Amanda were arrested, Rafaelle invited the police to go to his apartment with him to look at his computer to see his explanation of what he and Amanda had been doing on the computer the night Kerscher was murdered. They took him there, handcuffed and now shoeless.

When they entered, one of the policemen, Armando Finzi, loudly announced (incorrectly) that the place smelled of bleach. Finzi repeated it several times. The police pulled the place apart.

I now copy verbatim what Rafael wrote in Honor Bound(pp. 64-65):

"When Finzi came across a drawer full of kitchen knives, he called Chiacchiera over immediately. He pulled out the first knife that came to hand, a large chopping knife with an eight-inch blade.
"Will this knife do?" Finzi asked Chiacchiera.
"Yes, yes, it's great" came the answer.
Much later, in court, Finzi made no secret of the fact that this was simply a random pick. He had no reason to select such a knife. He hadn't been given any specifics on the murder weapon from the coroner's report, or anything else, and had nothing to go on other than what he called his "investigative intuition." (end of text, p. 65).

 

[xinonix]

"Confession. Shoe prints. Accomplice. Staged break-in. No verifiable alibi. Inability to remember details of the evening."
Mignini already knew that Amanda and her boyfriend and the Black man killed Meredith during a satanic rite. He learned this from his psychic. He couldn't tell the jury about the psychic, but the jury could see that he had no doubt in his mind, and how serious was the need for the jury to work with him and get the satanists behind bars, because of non-verbal communication.
While the evidence was bad, Mignini was able to sell it to the jury as good evidence.
It might be OK for Mignini to do what he thought was nessasary to convict Raffaele, but when he tried to frame Amanda, he crossed a line. Amanda is a American citizen and Mignini is an Italian. We Americans just can't let some foreigner frame a fellow American. We must see to it that Mignini suffers some consequences. If we don't, all those other people in those countries who hate America will think " If MIgnini got away with it ,maybe I can too".

 

[Dan O.]

My understanding - which may be incorrect, since I am not a computer expert - is that it is not exactly true that Sollecito's Mac entered a screensaver mode for periods of no longer than six minutes; the correct datum - but just my understanding, as for my memory - is that it was the "windowsserver" system application which did not remain inactive for periods longer than 6 minutes.

It is your understanding that is incorrect. The screensaver itself does not record a log of its activity. The defense experts when analyzing the system log files for the period in question noticed unexplained entries in WindowServer.log. They we're able to determin that these entries coincided with the activation and deactivation of the screensaver. They presented this information along with sufficient data for the prosecution to reconstruct the findings in the addendum to their appeal. Rather than present the direct claim to which the prosecution would simply counter by saying that they found no such result, the defense asked for an independent review. Hellmann deferred the defense review until after the review of the prosecution claims and in the end determined that there was no need as the prosecution didn't have a case.

The screensaver data is frozen in place on the forensic copies of Raffaele's hard drive it remains valid awaiting that independent review. Until then we have the defense claim which stands uncountered by the prosecution.

 

[billyryan]

"Confession. Shoe prints. Accomplice. Staged break-in. No verifiable alibi. Inability to remember details of the evening."
Mignini already knew that Amanda and her boyfriend and the Black man killed Meredith during a satanic rite. He learned this from his psychic. He couldn't tell the jury about the psychic, but the jury could see that he had no doubt in his mind, and how serious was the need for the jury to work with him and get the satanists behind bars, because of non-verbal communication.
While the evidence was bad, Mignini was able to sell it to the jury as good evidence.
It might be OK for Mignini to do what he thought was nessasary to convict Raffaele, but when he tried to frame Amanda, he crossed a line. Amanda is a American citizen and Mignini is an Italian. We Americans just can't let some foreigner frame a fellow American. We must see to it that Mignini suffers some consequences. If we don't, all those other people in those countries who hate America will think " If MIgnini got away with it ,maybe I can too".

I would so love to see the Americans get angry,the Italians have abused Amanda for six years now,maybe at tomorrow's congressional presentation someone will decide its time to give her a bit of support and stand up to the bullies/cowards

 

[Machiavelli]

It is your understanding that is incorrect. The screensaver itself does not record a log of its activity. The defense experts when analyzing the system log files for the period in question noticed unexplained entries in WindowServer.log. They we're able to determin that these entries coincided with the activation and deactivation of the screensaver.(...)

I think that this inference is the problem (in terms of evidence). Linking the windowsserver activity with activation/deactivation of the screenserver is arbitrary; it's speculation. It doesn't make really sense, in my opinion, because it does just not make sense that a person sits at the computer all night and moves the mouse or strikes a key just to de-activate the screen saver every 4-5 minutes, while doing nothing else. Doesn't even listen to music, nothing. It makse no sense as an activity.
It makes sense rather to assume the windowsserver is logging the screen refreshings of some application. It only shows there was no screensaver.
It's obvious that a final assessment would require experts.
But it is not the only diference between their alibi and the records.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Idaho Freedom of Information Act

A commenter elsewhere noted that there is an exemption in the freedom of information act in Idaho that reads in part, "trade secrets including academic research..." I look forward to Dr. Hampikian's publishing the details of his DNA transfer experiments, but in good time.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
ETA: what I actually find remarkable is that there is a prosecutor in perugia who has gone after both this prison guard and napoleoni (...)

The prosecutor going after Argirò is Massimo Casucci, who is the prosecutor "closest" to Manuela Comodi, her greatest cooperator.
Comodi & Casucci are known for their working together on cases of financial frauds and fiscal crimes in Umbria.

 

[Mary_H]

Clearly you no matter how many of your fans agree with you.

Have you ever considered using the "preview" feature before posting?

We all agree that they were incompetent. Raf was already scared but the real question is what did they think scaring more would do. If he had been involved he would know they had a wrong knife and if he wasn't what would he now do because of being scared.

Nobody knows why they grabbed the knife!!!

You got me on "?"

Phew! Every once in a while...

They wanted to frame Amanda, whatever.

You and I both already have said they did not want to frame Amanda at that point! Can you get with the program?

I doubt they were scheming on the 6th notwithstanding Anglo's theories.

Pssst, don't tell Anglo, but I can't call his theories about that to mind on demand.

(Mary_H) I just wrote this about 12 hours ago. I can't believe you are not hanging on my every word.

Oh but I do.............somethimes.

As it should be.

I just don't buy that at all. Stabber. Pretty sure they were thinking Patrick at the moment they took the knife.

I just got back from having two happy hour margaritas and even I can tell you misunderstood what I wrote.

 

[Mary_H]

Naw. I am always happy when posters on forums, who would probably like one another should they meet in person, can be agreeable towards one another, all the while holding dear to their beliefs or advocacy, yet respecting those of their foe (or at least rebutting in a reasonable manner).

This doesn't apply to those posters who are obvious jerks but I don't place you or Machiavelli in that category.

christianahannah, I appreciate your efforts at always trying to play the middle ground. I think you want to see the good in everyone; I do, too. That's why I am a very big fan of mediation, reconciliation, restorative justice and reparations. I am opposed to retaliation and punishment. I also am opposed to people not taking responsibility for the wrongs they have done to other people.

If you are honest, there comes a time when you want to acknowledge reality. As SkepticGinger, the originator of these threads, said many times, either Amanda is guilty or she is not. It is not realistic or even helpful to say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, or that you don't want to make a decision about it.

That doesn't mean you have to stop being fair, or you have to start hating anybody. If someone dear to you does a bad thing, it is fair to see it and to say that they have done a bad thing. If someone has behaved in a way that is beneath their dignity as a human being, then those who care about them should ask that they acknowledge their faults and try to correct them, for their own sake as well as the sakes of the people they hurt.

Everyone makes mistakes. Some people make bigger mistakes than others, but all mistakes can be acknowledged and corrected (to the greatest possible extent), no matter how big or small.

I like almost everyone I meet in person. However, I don't think it is kind to expect people to sit down and "be agreeable towards one another, all the while holding dear to their beliefs or advocacy," when their beliefs or advocacy harm other people. Would you sit down with criminals, sexual abusers and exploiters -- or their advocates -- and pretend that everything they did was okay? That is not really connecting with other people -- that is avoiding connecting.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think that this inference is the problem (in terms of evidence). Linking the windowsserver activity with activation/deactivation of the screenserver is arbitrary; it's speculation. It doesn't make really sense, in my opinion, because it does just not make sense that a person sits at the computer all night and moves the mouse or strikes a key just to de-activate the screen saver every 4-5 minutes, while doing nothing else. Doesn't even listen to music, nothing. It makse no sense as an activity.

Makes no sense compared to what? Sliding around on towels after cutting someone's throat?

If this file is like the xorg log files on a Linux system, it wouldn't record what the user was doing. It would record what the graphics system on the computer was doing, which would arise from user activity that might be anything.

It makes sense rather to assume the windowsserver is logging the screen refreshings of some application. It only shows there was no screensaver.
It's obvious that a final assessment would require experts.
But it is not the only diference between their alibi and the records.

If qualified experts were to study the log files and conclude that the computer was in use throughout the evening, you would find some glib way to dismiss their findings, and then you would attack their credentials and their character. I have seen how you operate.

 

[Strozzi]

And he wrote about it but no one will substantiate it. If it is illegal to make such an offer and the prosecution did make such an offer, why wouldn't the witness lawyers et al. tell all?

Grinder, I don't know that Rafaelle has a witness who will own up to the conversation. This may be just his word against the intermediary.

Rafaelle already spent 4 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Some of it in solitary confinement whose sole purpose in Rafaelle's case was to psychologically harm his human spirit. Much of it surrounded by very volatile criminals. The PLE has a lot of power to retalliate by piling on additonal charges - real or false - colunnia is just one. The corrupt legal process has already destroyed Rafaelle financially as he tries to defend himself without real access to exculpatory evidence.

I don't know what there would be for Rafaelle to gain in Perugia by formally complaining of the PLE maneuver. Expose yourself to more retaliation? As lonely and difficult as it is, I believe Rafaelle's life is better outside of Italy.

Will you pay for the next round of lawyers if he is brave enough to state his claim in Italy?

 

[Bill Williams]

It makes sense rather to assume the windowsserver is logging the screen refreshings of some application. It only shows there was no screensaver.
It's obvious that a final assessment would require experts.
But it is not the only diference between their alibi and the records.

If qualified experts were to study the log files and conclude that the computer was in use throughout the evening, you would find some glib way to dismiss their findings, and then you would attack their credentials and their character. I have seen how you operate.

Indeed.

Machiavelli would claim that they were criminals for daring to speak against the PLE or Mignini, either that or that they were "approximate reporters", as he calls Barbie Nadeau.

Either that or that they'd been paid off by the Masons.... or could decide not to sleep and suffer no consequences for not sleeping, as analysed by the way these computer experts write code. Or that they spoke Mafia code to each other.

Or..... that they were in thrall to Rudy Guede, trading either sex or computer hacking for drugs, and that it was a well known fact they'd had a prior relationship with Guede.

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't believe you are not hanging on my every word.

The problem is, there's just too many of them.

 

[RandyN]

Gosh, Bill Williams. Next you'll be agreeing with something Machiavelli writes.

It is a good article as are many of her articles. By the same token much of what Machiavelli writes is good, too and informative.

Vogt is scum sucking yellow tabloid trash writer not capable of writing a good article. Plus she is a liar. Everything Machiavelli writes is biased slanted and mostly illogical trash. A paid prosecutor shill at best.

 

[RandyN]

Kudos to Andrea Vogt for her reporting. Yes, I said that. (I have a gripe, but on the main issue, AV is to be congratulated.)

The male prison guard who Amanda Knox accused of sexually harassing her is, apparently, going to trial. The prosecutor handling the accusation believes Amanda Knox.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poliziapenitenziaria.it%2Fpublic%2Fpost%2Famanda-knox-accusa-di-molestie-sessuali-ispettore-di-polizia-penitenziaria-la-procura-le-crede-e-ac-2890.asp%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dtwitter%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2BPoliziaPenitenziaria-societGiustiziaESicurezza%2B%2528Polizia%2BPenitenziaria%2B-%2BSociet%25C3%25A0%2BGiustizia%2Be%2BSicurezza%2529

Vogt is taking Knox's side on this, and tweets that she expects flak.

Yet, she does ruin it by expressing a wish that Knox could be "this honest" about the events of Nov. 2007. Why'd she have to spoil it?

But credit needs to go where credit is due. Machiavelli, we have something to go to dinner for afterall.

Bill your posts get dumber every day!

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that this inference is the problem (in terms of evidence). Linking the windowsserver activity with activation/deactivation of the screenserver is arbitrary; it's speculation. It doesn't make really sense, in my opinion, because it does just not make sense that a person sits at the computer all night and moves the mouse or strikes a key just to de-activate the screen saver every 4-5 minutes, while doing nothing else. Doesn't even listen to music, nothing. It makse no sense as an activity.
It makes sense rather to assume the windowsserver is logging the screen refreshings of some application. It only shows there was no screensaver.
It's obvious that a final assessment would require experts.

My understanding - which may be incorrect, since I am not a computer expert.....

Q.E.D.

I really wish that Machiavelli would stop making pronouncements on things that he doesn't understand. It's transparent, biased, and increasingly embarrassing.