Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #11

[sherlockh]

Ha!..in that case, here is some homework for you A wiretap between RS, his father and stepmother. Where some posters claim AK never changed her story (and was only coerced once), RS's father is very clear about the number of changed versions she has given.

http://perugianotizie.blogspot.com/2008/07/raffaele-contro-amanda.html
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=340&start=2000 (translation is on this page)

There is a better translation on the PMF link I gave. It is on that page. I forgot how to link to a post

 

[SMK]

respectfully snipped

Why would RS say "since the FIRST version that I have given" if there were not others?

So we can see he was NOT on the computer, and he changed his story at least more than once.

OK, well, they went out, MAYBE. Maybe. Would they have wanted to admit it, though? Would there be an alibi? I was reading an April 2011 post on TJFMK last night, someone giving additional motive commentary to the Massei report. I ALMOST began to doubt RS and AK. Almost. But it raises many questions. Many. too many holes. And what is the bit about AK and the bloody nose?
(if interested see
Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Fine-Tuning Of A Previous Post On Motive In The Meredith Kercher Case And Its Addressing By Massei)http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[SMK]

There is a better translation on the PMF link I gave. It is on that page. I forgot how to link to a post

:floorlaugh: the Google is too funny, keeps calling Amanda "he" and saying "he knows something in the character of strange, heh?":floorlaugh:

 

[sherlockh]

:floorlaugh: the Google is too funny, keeps calling Amanda "he" and saying "he knows something in the character of strange, heh?":floorlaugh:

It would have been funnier if they had mentioned ms. Comodi

 

[SMK]

I think it is clear also that Dr. Sollecito does not know Amanda, and suddenly finds his son implicated in a murder. He just wants Raffaele to have NO connection at this point. Changing stories, yes, but since they could not prove their alibi of being alone together, this may have been done from panic? And the computer was what, not proving RS was on it? I thought ILE ended up ruining the hard drive, and if so, what can be known?

 

[SMK]

It would have been funnier if they had mentioned ms. Comodi

 

[sherlockh]

I think it is clear also that Dr. Sollecito does not know Amanda, and suddenly finds his son implicated in a murder. He just wants Raffaele to have NO connection at this point. Changing stories, yes, but since they could not prove their alibi of being alone together, this may have been done from panic? And the computer was what, not proving RS was on it? I thought ILE ended up ruining the hard drive, and if so, what can be known?

Not sure what Dr. Sollecito is thinking. To me it doesn't seem like he cares much about the truth. He doesn't say, 'just tell the truth son'. He wants him to say that he was on the computer (that one was not destroyed), and RS knows that would be problematic. RS wants to forget about that computer and go back with his alibi with AK I think or at least for part of the evening. It is a bit too short to make much of it. I just thought that bit about AK was telling.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, the only computer that supposidly 'held' their alibi was not messed up.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

WAIT JUST A BISCUIT EATING SECOND HERE...

There were OCELOTS at a DAYCARE?!! :crazy:

 

[SMK]

Yes, the only computer that supposidly 'held' their alibi was not messed up.

But why were the others messed up? In addition, each time I find myself doubting them, I wind up seeing that the evidence simply will not hold. Insofar as Dr. Sollecito goes, this is his only son, and I think he does not want him drawn into something , where the "truth" would destroy his young life and the involvement may have been peripheral and accidental. Pretty much a parent's instinct. But the truth does not seem to emerge in this case in any clear way. I wind up back where I began, after seeing a picture of "Raffael's" bloody footprint, and then seeing with my own eyes, it is actually a match to Guede's - and finding out "blood" does not even mean blood, and dna is miniscule and collected a month and a half after the fact, etc. I think conviction was a mistake. But I almost fell to believing that scenario I read last night.

 

[SMK]

Yes, the only computer that supposidly 'held' their alibi was not messed up.

OK, what does it show?

ETA: I ask because recently this confused me a lot. http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2011/01/windowserverlog-raffaele-sollecitos.html

 

[SMK]

as well as this:


Sollectio's Appeal Summary: Raffaele’s Computer
The prosecution stated that the last time Raffaele used his computer on November 1, 2007 was 21:10. The defense argues that the prosecution did not take into account downloading activity on Raffaele's computer at 21:26. The court also ignored the computer activity from 5:40 to 6:38. Raffaele was listening to music. The prosecution’s analysis of Raffaele’s computer usage is incomplete. Apparently, the software used by the prosecution’s expert was not effective in retrieving all of the data from Raffaele’s MacBook-pro computer. In light of these circumstances, further investigation is required to ascertain the exact interactions that actually occurred on Raffaele’s computer on November 1, 2007, under Article. 603, first paragraph, cpp.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html

It seems the computer evidence does not prove or discount alibi definitively, when viewed from a computer forensic analyst's POV. And TOD is questionable and further complicates. One more foggy area that never brings one beyond reasonable doubt at all in this case.

The core argument between the prosecution and the defense has been regarding the use of Encase which is a computer forensics tool. Encase was used to interact with Macs, running the OSX operating system on the POSIX level, the stuff common to every UNIX. So the prosecution did not look at anything which is OSX specific, for example the defense objected to the fact that the prosecution only examined the 3 types of timestamps used by POSIX vs. all 5 types of timestamps that OSX supports. The defense argues that there is evidence in some of the OSX files and flags showing signs of human activity, and that these signs are not present in the POSIX things that the prosecution examined. To give you an analogy If I were describing a book in Chinese I might have to talk about its color, its weight, the front cover illustration if there is one, the number of pages. That's a limited amount of information. While if I were talking about a book in English I could talk about its title, the description on the back or dust jacket, other books by the same author. And the defense's argument is that they have found evidence in that additional information proving human activity at the time of the murder.

Getting more specific the defense argues that there is exactly the kind of exculpatory evidence that could have been missed via. inappropriate methodologies in the windowserver.log file. Windowserver.log is part of OSX's NeXTSTEP heritage. On most POSIX systems the sorts of messages in the Windowserver.log file would have been caught at the X11 level, not by the windowserver and thus wouldn't have been logged.

 

[flourish]

:floorlaugh:Flourish!

I woke my dogs up laughing when i read this post!!! I'm gonna have to read it again tomorrow when I'm not crying with laughter and tears.

You are hereby our poo and toilet forensic expert!!! Thanks for going where no one else had been willing to go!



:floorlaugh::rocker::floorlaugh:

"What's your poo telling you?" LOL DONT ANSWER that question.


But You got some detailed information, so I'm gonna read this tomorrow. I just had to tell you how hard you made me laugh tonight with the title of that book and the pictures!

:floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

OMG I am dying of laughter here!!! The gang, in our straight jackets while relaxing in Perugia has now taken on a whole new meaning

On a more serious note, the information you researched is actually quite important. Ask anyone with gastro problems, Celiac, IBD,

Yes they do float depending on density, composition (like fats) etc etc

Oh man I am killing myself laughing :giggle: to funny flourish

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

dang I truly was looking forward to flourish's response :innocent:

I'm pretty sure flourish's poo post was about the funniest post I've read in a long time!!!

I don't even care why we would want to know anymore! It made me snort a little

:curtsey::takeabow:Thanks folks My mother would be so proud!

And I realized this morning that I didn't even address positioning of the booty upon the toilet and how that may affect the poo

 

[SMK]

:curtsey::takeabow:Thanks folks My mother would be so proud!

And I realized this morning that I didn't even address positioning of the booty upon the toilet and how that may affect the poo

:floorlaugh:

 

[Nova]

Yes, you are right. You know, another thing about what you point out above, is that it totally discounts this idea that AK and RS knew MK would be the only one home, and planned the attack with Guede ( I was just reading this aspect about the Massei motivation). It is a major aspect of this theory of the 3 on 1 attack, that it was pre-planned, and contingent upon no one but MK being there that weekend. I also find it bizarre that it was supposedly to teach MK a lesson about the stolen money, drive her from Perugia, as if she would not simply report them to the authorities for such a "hazing". I guess no one knows the answer to my question last night about AK's blood in the bathroom supposedly pointing to a nose-bleed (which she is supposed to have gotten from being punched my Meredith!) This is being supposed still in April 2011 on a recent post at TJFMK.

Excellent point! FR's testimony does indeed rule out several of the various theories of motive, any that involved premeditation and the assumption that MK would be home alone.

 

[Nova]

With all due respect to your promises but you have no idea. Filomena had a decent alibi which checked out just fine. Why in the world do you promise something you know nothing about? Sorry, but that makes no sense at all.

Of course the one discrepancy I mentioned is rather minor compared to others. They weren't convicted based on whether one said the door was open or not, but you already know that. Stick to the truth and all memory problems will be 'magically' solved

Obviously, "I promise" is a colloquial expression; I trust you understood that. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to bet if you can get transcripts of their sessions with LE.

My point is that no two people ever remember everything exactly the same.

The sentence of yours I bolded is precisely the problem; that isn't true except in TV shows. In fact, the opposite can be true at times: it may be easier to stay consistent with a well-rehearsed lie.

 

[Nova]

Or maybe Mignini told all the police to coerce the witnesses as well so they all fit into his grand scheme of blaming poor 'innocent' AK :crazy:

Maybe he (or the lead investigator) did. It wouldn't necessarily require an overt order; a supervisor can easily communicate the results he or she wants in subtler ways.

And it wouldn't require that police coerce witnesses to "lie", it might well be a matter of deciding the truth in advance and refusing to accept or explore any testimony to the contrary. It's obvious that happened here, regardless of whether AK and RS are guilty or not.

 

[SMK]

Maybe he (or the lead investigator) did. It wouldn't necessarily require an overt order; a supervisor can easily communicate the results he or she wants.

True---Nova, I am wondering if you think this is going to lean toward Mignini's "giving up the ghost", or on the contrary, becoming more aggressive re AK and RS? https://cpj.org/2011/04/journalists-threatened-for-reporting-on-murder-cas.php

 

[dgfred]

@SMK,

'the defense argues'... in 'their' appeal. Grasping at straws IMO as it would have been quite easy to show you were 'using' a computer if you were in fact really using it.

 

[SMK]

@SMK,

'the defense argues'... in 'their' appeal. Grasping at straws IMO as it would have been quite easy to show you were 'using' a computer if you were in fact really using it.

Well, I would love to say it were that simple, but the computer analysis shows it is actually very murky, if you take the time to read it.