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

[christianahannah]

Yes. Or maybe no.

Do will you EVER get to the point?

Probably not.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have overlooked an element to the case in my theory/accusation that Stefanoni made sure that Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp hook, as she would not make the expedition to Perugia with her entourage of assistants and videoographer and lighting guy to collect the clasp and then take it back to her lab in Rome only on the off-chance that it might have Raffaele's DNA on it. What I have overlooked is that she then destroyed the bra clasp by immersing the cloth and metal bra clasp in liquid. Destroyed it so that it cannot be tested by anyone else. It's like the tiny amout of matter (too low, too low) that she claims she found on the knife blade that was completely consumed in testing and therefore cannot be examined by anyone else.

When one reads Massei's rendering of the full story of the sample 36b, it's hard to believe Massei would say what he would say in a judicial document...

For those with copies of Massei's report, pay attention to pages 224-225.

There's the issue of the striation, a groove in which (she claimed) 36b was found, apparently trapped.

She reaffirmed that on the blade of knife Exhibit 36 a striation was visible but ‚placing the exhibit under a source of illumination < like the conventional sort that has a Reprovit, which is the instrument we use for photography; it was possible to observe it only by placing it under a strong spotlight and by changing the angle at which the light hit the blade, it was only in this way that these striations became visible to the naked eye < photos were attempted but it was too reflective < only white spots of light came out‛

In other words, it's not just that 36b and the bra-clasp are no longer with us, the very striation in which 36b was seen by no one, except Stefanoni. Massei quotes Stefanoni's rationale for why the striation is not visible in photos.

But there's more. There's then Massei's discussion about the very point in question... if there's a test for blood, then thta destroys the sample, and if it comes out positive (a big if) you still do not know it's owner because the blood test is destructive.

In relation to this aspect, she added that ‚the test for blood had to be carried out on a small portion of this striation, because otherwise < we would remove the probable genetic material which would no longer be available for the genetic test, because after examination of the blood-derived material, it is not possible to preserve the same material and use it for genetic analysis. And so we, to try this kind of analysis, an analysis of the kind of specimen, we sacrifice a small part of the specimen<, after which, I [226] however went ahead and sampled the rest of the striation with this swab, because this was the main purpose of the genetic analysis, to establish a genetic profile. Therefore, the origin of the specimen is sacrificed for the benefit of the possible identification that you get with DNA examination, because knowing that it is blood, but not knowing who it belongs to, means very little; conversely, knowing the genetic profile while not knowing its nature is much more informative, because I know that that DNA, whatever its source, belongs to that person < In general<in genetic analysis, you give priority to the extraction of DNA and the analysis of DNA, then, obviously, if it is possible to establish its nature as well, all the better, it is more complete information; but the main goal is getting an identification via the DNA

This leaves out the procedure as outlined by the RIS Carabineiri to the Nencini court.... that at least two tests need to be done anyway, highlighting tha:

Stefanoni:

- did a test inside a striation no one else has seen,
- all the while guilters claim the striation is visible in photographs
- while Massei felt compelled to quote Stephanoni's reason why the striation was not visible in photographs!
- to do a one-time-only destructive test
- which didn't i.d. the owner of the because as the RIS Carbineiri said another test has to be done...​

So where are we with all this? Did Stefanoni purposely destroy 36B? Or did she just fail to report to the court the problems with her methods, which meant, really, that 36b was forensically useless?

No wonder the Massei court refused to appoint an independent DNA expert to analyse Stefanoni's results....

Because THAT'S the only way you can convict....

 

[Dan O.]

I think it depends on the browser Dan. For example, Chrome shows me each time I visit a page. And this is the default cache setting.

But you can change the cache settings. You can have your browser clean out the cache frequently, in fact after every page visit so there would be no record.
IE works similarly. I have very little experience with Macintosh, so I couldn't say about Safari. There are also third party programs that manage your cache allowing you more flexibility than what is in Chrome and IE.

I don't believe Safari keeps around more than it needs. The Safari History only shows the last time a given page was accessed. The purpose of the cache is to bypass fetching the content for a page (or page objects) that haven't changes since the last time that page or object was loaded. There is just no need to keep the older content around.

 

[acbytesla]

But clearly they track searches and keep that data at Google. I am under the impression that history of online use is not just found in the computer's cache.


Well I'm not arguing because I certainly don't know. I wonder if writing emails and not sending them would survive the PLE saute.

If it was a webmail program like gmail, I think so since the "draft" would store at the webmail program's host computer.

However, that operates a bit like posting to this forum. If I right click on quote and select open link in new tab, it would open the email program in another tab but the webmail program wouldn't log it until you saved the draft or sent it, so it could sit in an open window on your computer for hours even days without the webmail program logging it.

So the answer is maybe. How's that for definitive to you?

Maybe the NSA knows, but I doubt they will tell you. Call Snowden

 

[acbytesla]

I don't believe Safari keeps around more than it needs. The Safari History only shows the last time a given page was accessed. The purpose of the cache is to bypass fetching the content for a page (or page objects) that haven't changes since the last time that page or object was loaded. There is just no need to keep the older content around.

Your right about the cache, but browsing history offers more than that. It gives you a memory to find things you looked at previously and might want to revisit. It also provides statistics for apple and other vendors.

 

[Dan O.]

Your right about the cache, but browsing history offers more than that. It gives you a memory to find things you looked at previously and might want to revisit. It also provides statistics for apple and other vendors.

I don't have a tool to look at the cache. But I do regularly use the history. I found it quite annoying when searching through the cache for something I'd seen and each page I revisit jumps back to the top of the list. If Safari kept more of a history it wouldn't need to to that.

 

[Grinder]

IIRC the visit to pick up additional material in December included coordinating with the defense hence the video and some of the delay.

If the PLE and Stefanoni wanted to plant something they sure could have done a better job. Certainly the knife if planted could have had enough DNA to get a reading using standard DNA not LCN.

I don't understand why Raf would mention the emails if he can't prove he sent them unless he was using a program like Outlook. If he was using an email program, he could have written emails and kept them in the draft folder. Some people like to write and then review later. This would be likely if he had a measured Internet ISP that charged by the time. I can't find verification of DSL, which doesn't indicate I don't believe he had it.

Europe had some odd charges for Internet and cell usage and may still.

 

[acbytesla]

IIRC the visit to pick up additional material in December included coordinating with the defense hence the video and some of the delay.

If the PLE and Stefanoni wanted to plant something they sure could have done a better job. Certainly the knife if planted could have had enough DNA to get a reading using standard DNA not LCN.

While I agree with this, I've always been under the impression that if there was a deliberate attempt to frame Amanda and Raffaele the knife evidence was never meant to be it. That it was only a piece of evidence strong enough to keep Amanda locked up. That they were only tentatively framing Amanda at this point. They made it so their actions were reversible. That if overwhelming evidence came to light such as ironclad confirmable alibi, they could blame it on contamination. But then it became in for a penny, in for a pound.

I don't understand why Raf would mention the emails if he can't prove he sent them unless he was using a program like Outlook. If he was using an email program, he could have written emails and kept them in the draft folder. Some people like to write and then review later. This would be likely if he had a measured Internet ISP that charged by the time. I can't find verification of DSL, which doesn't indicate I don't believe he had it.

Well, maybe he thought the emails could be proven. I haven't really looked at this closely. Email uses the SMTP protocol. (also POP3 and IMAP), but I'll focus on SMTP which is Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. Email servers have the capability to log and time stamp emails, but it depends on the settings of the servers. Say you send me an email, and your using a Webmail client. You compose an email and the Webmail server actually translates your email into an SMTP email that which is forwarded through routers until it reaches the SMTP server on my end. smtp.verizon.net for example. That email would sit there until my Outlook client would go and pick up the mail. Outlook has settings where it can pick up the email, every minute or once a day. Once Outlook picks up the email. Most servers would delete the file immediately. Or at least they use to. It really depends on the server. When I use to work as an IT broker, I received hundreds of emails a day. What I'm not sure is how emails are time stamped. Corporate email servers are almost always set that they don't delete these emails, so they can recover accidentally deleted emails by a user. What's more the users email file Outlook.dat would remain on the server. In a corporate world emails almost never die and they are logged very accurately. In a consumer world where email is free, the practices vary as much as the phases of the moon.

It is my understanding that Raffaele had DSL and was always on.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is supposed to be a summary of Crini's speech to the Nencini court... can anyone fathom what the heck it means?

"Allora quando si ragiona di un qualche cosa che viene, come dire, censurato nelle fondamenta no? del ragionamento… del ragionamento giudicante, quando cioè si viene a discutere non tanto del singolo passaggio, per cui si suggerisce alla corte “guarda magari non hai apprezzato bene quell’aspetto”, no! qui in qualche modo la censura è spalmata un po’ su tutta la vicenda. Certamente è giusto, io credo è doveroso, interrogarsi sul senso di questa censura, cioè se la stessa, come posso dire, vada al di là della semplice indicazione di questo, quello, quell’altro e quell’altro punto ancora per arrivare a 16, ovverosia se la stessa non abbia invece, come dire, una caratterizzazione che in qualche modo questi punti un po’ li raggruppa, almeno in parte. Direi è un dubbio ragionevole, o meglio più che un dubbio è un’evidenza ragionevole, chi si vede come dire recapitare un fascicolo di questo tipo, no? con una sentenza di appello sostanzialmente rasa al suolo, eh certamente, signori, avrà necessità di capire come mai."

 

[Grinder]

While I agree with this, I've always been under the impression that if there was a deliberate attempt to frame Amanda and Raffaele the knife evidence was never meant to be it. That it was only a piece of evidence strong enough to keep Amanda locked up. That they were only tentatively framing Amanda at this point. They made it so their actions were reversible. That if overwhelming evidence came to light such as ironclad confirmable alibi, they could blame it on contamination. But then it became in for a penny, in for a pound.

Too much time with Anglo and Bill. They had her "accusation/confession" and confused imprecise account of her activities that night. It seems clear that in Italy keeping people locked up isn't very difficult. If anybody was about to get out it would be Raf as they had nothing on him except delaying telling the "truth" about Amanda going out.

Well, maybe he thought the emails could be proven. I haven't really looked at this closely. Email uses the SMTP protocol. (also POP3 and IMAP), but I'll focus on SMTP which is Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. Email servers have the capability to log and time stamp emails, but it depends on the settings of the servers. Say you send me an email, and your using a Webmail client. You compose an email and the Webmail server actually translates your email into an SMTP email that which is forwarded through routers until it reaches the SMTP server on my end. smtp.verizon.net for example. That email would sit there until my Outlook client would go and pick up the mail. Outlook has settings where it can pick up the email, every minute or once a day. Once Outlook picks up the email. Most servers would delete the file immediately. Or at least they use to. It really depends on the server. When I use to work as an IT broker, I received hundreds of emails a day. What I'm not sure is how emails are time stamped. Corporate email servers are almost always set that they don't delete these emails, so they can recover accidentally deleted emails by a user. What's more the users email file Outlook.dat would remain on the server. In a corporate world emails almost never die and they are logged very accurately. In a consumer world where email is free, the practices vary as much as the phases of the moon.

It is my understanding that Raffaele had DSL and was always on.

If he sent out emails to his professors they should have received them and the school's system should have kept them for some time. If he used an email program like Outlook the sent emails would be there. If he used the cloud then the sent emails should be on their server.

I don't see why four years after the event he would say he was emailing if there was no trace unless he was specifically contending that the evidence was destroyed by the PLE saute of his computer.

I agree with the PGP that Raf isn't the brightest bulb and should STFU.

Where do you get the understanding that he had DSL that was always on? As I said above, Europe has had high costs for things we pay little for here and it is easily believable to me that he paid attention to usage. Meredith was said to be very frugal with cell phone minutes at a time that most of us here had unlimited minutes.

 

[Grinder]

This is supposed to be a summary of Crini's speech to the Nencini court... can anyone fathom what the heck it means?

"Allora quando si ragiona di un qualche cosa che viene, come dire, censurato nelle fondamenta no? del ragionamento… del ragionamento giudicante, quando cioè si viene a discutere non tanto del singolo passaggio, per cui si suggerisce alla corte “guarda magari non hai apprezzato bene quell’aspetto”, no! qui in qualche modo la censura è spalmata un po’ su tutta la vicenda. Certamente è giusto, io credo è doveroso, interrogarsi sul senso di questa censura, cioè se la stessa, come posso dire, vada al di là della semplice indicazione di questo, quello, quell’altro e quell’altro punto ancora per arrivare a 16, ovverosia se la stessa non abbia invece, come dire, una caratterizzazione che in qualche modo questi punti un po’ li raggruppa, almeno in parte. Direi è un dubbio ragionevole, o meglio più che un dubbio è un’evidenza ragionevole, chi si vede come dire recapitare un fascicolo di questo tipo, no? con una sentenza di appello sostanzialmente rasa al suolo, eh certamente, signori, avrà necessità di capire come mai."

Basically evidence must be looked at as a whole and each piece can't be judged on its own and that is why the ISC threw out Hellmann's verdict.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

early morning emails

If he sent out emails to his professors they should have received them and the school's system should have kept them for some time. If he used an email program like Outlook the sent emails would be there. If he used the cloud then the sent emails should be on their server.

I don't see why four years after the event he would say he was emailing if there was no trace unless he was specifically contending that the evidence was destroyed by the PLE saute of his computer.

I think that if he sent emails, he sent them too late to be an alibi. If he released the information, it would expose the recipients to unwanted scrutiny, both inside and outside of Italy, if you get my drift. Therefore, I think that Raffaele is behaving in a reasonably intelligent way by not releasing that information.

I am not certain that the full extent of the loss of metadata was confined to the Stardust file, but more documentation would be helpful. MOO.

 

[acbytesla]

Too much time with Anglo and Bill. They had her "accusation/confession" and confused imprecise account of her activities that night. It seems clear that in Italy keeping people locked up isn't very difficult. If anybody was about to get out it would be Raf as they had nothing on him except delaying telling the "truth" about Amanda going out.

If he sent out emails to his professors they should have received them and the school's system should have kept them for some time. If he used an email program like Outlook the sent emails would be there. If he used the cloud then the sent emails should be on their server.

I don't see why four years after the event he would say he was emailing if there was no trace unless he was specifically contending that the evidence was destroyed by the PLE saute of his computer.

I agree with the PGP that Raf isn't the brightest bulb and should STFU.

Where do you get the understanding that he had DSL that was always on? As I said above, Europe has had high costs for things we pay little for here and it is easily believable to me that he paid attention to usage. Meredith was said to be very frugal with cell phone minutes at a time that most of us here had unlimited minutes.

Actually Europe when it comes to broadband services, they actually led the United States. But it varied from country to country. But I know that the cottage had DSL and so did Raffaele.

As to the emails sent to his professors, I wouldn't count on the University's practices being sophisticated where this is logged carefully and I don't think you should either. This is 30 years of IT talking. Every installation is different. It all depends on the IT administrator and the practices at that particular institution. There are accepted practices Grinder, but that doesn't mean companies, universities etc necessarily follow them.

Also, emails are the most unsecure part of the Internet. Emails can be faked, the time stamps on them can be altered.

I'm just saying, that to criticize this, you damn well better know what your talking about. I have far more expertise in this area, and I can't tell you without a lot more info, I wouldn't jump to a conclusion about it.

 

[Grinder]

I think that if he sent emails, he sent them too late to be an alibi. If he released the information, it would expose the recipients to unwanted scrutiny, both inside and outside of Italy, if you get my drift. Therefore, I think that Raffaele is behaving in a reasonably intelligent way by not releasing that information.

I am not certain that the full extent of the loss of metadata was confined to the Stardust file, but more documentation would be helpful. MOO.

The emails would explain why he up late and slept in. Why mention something he won't prove.

Why wouldn't one or more professors come forward and say they received an email sent at 4:30 am which would explain the 5;30 am music.

We will respectfully disagree that he is acting in an intelligent fashion. The professor that cleared PL wasn't harassed.

This is a murder case. No time to be so concerned about minor irritations to professors.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is supposed to be a summary of Crini's speech to the Nencini court... can anyone fathom what the heck it means?

"Allora quando si ragiona di un qualche cosa che viene, come dire, censurato nelle fondamenta no? del ragionamento… del ragionamento giudicante, quando cioè si viene a discutere non tanto del singolo passaggio, per cui si suggerisce alla corte “guarda magari non hai apprezzato bene quell’aspetto”, no! qui in qualche modo la censura è spalmata un po’ su tutta la vicenda. Certamente è giusto, io credo è doveroso, interrogarsi sul senso di questa censura, cioè se la stessa, come posso dire, vada al di là della semplice indicazione di questo, quello, quell’altro e quell’altro punto ancora per arrivare a 16, ovverosia se la stessa non abbia invece, come dire, una caratterizzazione che in qualche modo questi punti un po’ li raggruppa, almeno in parte. Direi è un dubbio ragionevole, o meglio più che un dubbio è un’evidenza ragionevole, chi si vede come dire recapitare un fascicolo di questo tipo, no? con una sentenza di appello sostanzialmente rasa al suolo, eh certamente, signori, avrà necessità di capire come mai."

Basically evidence must be looked at as a whole and each piece can't be judged on its own and that is why the ISC threw out Hellmann's verdict.

I ran it through Google translate, and thought it said as much but it didn't exactly make sense. That one is either my bad, or Google translate's bad.

Would you care to try a loose paraphrase line by line? If it is as you say, Crini is adopting a curious line of prosecution... in total he hasn't actually toed the ISC line....

The ISC, it seems to me, not only threw out the acquittals because of this curious "osmotic" reasoning... but also with very specific (alleged) fumbles of Hellmann in mind, and in a couple of points with fumbles by both Hellmann AND Massei in mind.

And what is curious to an outsider like me (and many others) is that the ISC seemed to also overrule findings of fact. Both Hellmann and Massei found that whatever motive there was in the horrible killing, it did not belong to AK and RS. To me that seems to be a finding of fact.

And the ISC seemingly "overruled" that, and this is only peripherally connected to the "osmotic" reasoning is it not?

Then what does Crini do? Instead of saying anything at all about the sex-game gone wrong, a fact that the ISC overrules both Massei and Hellmann on, Crini goes with turd in the toilet and tensions between Meredith and Amanda - a finding that even Massei did not believe - and Massei heard all the testimony.

What is equally amazing is that this "osmotic" way of thinking is exactly the way of thinking that the guilters themselves cannot accomplish.... meaning, put together a comprehensive theory of this crime which explains the evidence.

Indeed, everytime someone tries (like, presumably, Crini) they have to reinvent it... the latest in this 6 year nightmare is tension over cleanliness, sparked buy a pooh in the toilet....

Shouldn't a case of obvious guilt converge on evidence? Isn't this call to continually look at "the overall scheme, despite the evidence" actually a sign that there is no case?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

If you get my drift

We will respectfully disagree that he is acting in an intelligent fashion. The professor that cleared PL wasn't harassed.

He was subjected to a long interrogation IIUC. However, I was thinking as much or more about harassment from people not officially part of the case.

 

[Grinder]

He was subjected to a long interrogation IIUC. However, I was thinking as much or more about harassment from people not officially part of the case.

I never heard he was harassed. I'm sure Peggy, Harry and PQ would rally their troops to email their bosses but really that would beyond courtesy that would just be stupid.

Raf shouldn't have written about the emails if he wasn't going to prove them. He should have been telling his lawyers about them on the first opportunity and they should have put them into evidence, regardless of their send times. The prosecution might have produced a street cleaner that remembered a scream from 3 am.

 

[Dan O.]

IIRC the visit to pick up additional material in December included coordinating with the defense hence the video and some of the delay.

If the PLE and Stefanoni wanted to plant something they sure could have done a better job. Certainly the knife if planted could have had enough DNA to get a reading using standard DNA not LCN.

I don't understand why Raf would mention the emails if he can't prove he sent them unless he was using a program like Outlook. If he was using an email program, he could have written emails and kept them in the draft folder. Some people like to write and then review later. This would be likely if he had a measured Internet ISP that charged by the time. I can't find verification of DSL, which doesn't indicate I don't believe he had it.

Europe had some odd charges for Internet and cell usage and may still.

Grinder, either you don't have the mind of a criminal or you are a master pretending to be a rube (actually, most criminals don't even have a mind worth comparing to). If the police were experienced in planting evidence they would be aware of the possibility that their target might come up with an irrefutable alibi and they would need an alternate explanation for the convicting evidence other than it being planted.

Raffaele doesn't mention the emails until after he and his lawyers have had plenty of time to go over all of the evidence. Also, hasn't he already said that these emails were outside of the time window of the murder so they don't provide an alibi.

If Raffaele were concerned about his internet usage he wouldn't be running a P2P file sharing service on his computer and leaving it run continuously.

I did a quick verification and found that DSL was indeed available in the region in 2007 in that it was being offered as an amenity for rentals. Here is one in December 2007 and only 40km from perugia: https://web.archive.org/web/2007120...rmhousesrental.com/Artists_apartment/home.htm. There was also cable broadband and wimax being offered in italy at the time. But I lean towards DSL as otherwise there is no reason for Raffaele to have the landline.

 

[ArtemisTheCat]

Amanda did complain to her lawyers about her treatment and they went to the head of the prison and complained. The guard was not allowed in the womens section after that.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, either you don't have the mind of a criminal or you are a master pretending to be a rube (actually, most criminals don't even have a mind worth comparing to). If the police were experienced in planting evidence they would be aware of the possibility that their target might come up with an irrefutable alibi and they would need an alternate explanation for the convicting evidence other than it being planted.

They could have explained a real DNA find by secondary transfer. Why would they set up a plant that forced them go to beyond the machine's limits? Idiotic theory. By the time the knife DNA came out they were positive that the kids had no solid alibi.

Raffaele doesn't mention the emails until after he and his lawyers have had plenty of time to go over all of the evidence. Also, hasn't he already said that these emails were outside of the time window of the murder so they don't provide an alibi.

Reading comprehension issues? Why would he mention them if they provide nothing for his defense? They could as written above show that he was up until the music played early in the morning explaining that. Pretty elementary to understand that four years after the lawyers have seen the evidence.

If Raffaele were concerned about his internet usage he wouldn't be running a P2P file sharing service on his computer and leaving it run continuously.

I did a quick verification and found that DSL was indeed available in the region in 2007 in that it was being offered as an amenity for rentals. Here is one in December 2007 and only 40km from perugia: https://web.archive.org/web/2007120...rmhousesrental.com/Artists_apartment/home.htm. There was also cable broadband and wimax being offered in italy at the time. But I lean towards DSL as otherwise there is no reason for Raffaele to have the landline.

So what? Were there dial ups available? Bet a yacht they were. How was the DSL billed at his flat not some farmhouse.

Did anyone ever say DSL wasn't available? Other than your P2P analysis is there any proof or source that he had DSL? I'm not saying he didn't, but I would like some explanation that makes sense as to why the emails haven't surfaced at the recipients.