View Single Post
Old 12th November 2010, 02:10 AM   #14547
Published Author
RoseMontague's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Elon, NC
Posts: 7,152
Broken_English at IIP members forum has provided a good summary of the documents posted recently from Raffaele's lawyers:

The text is written in "legalese", very difficult to translate.
The journalists of TGCOM have not reported a part of these "additional motivations" presented by the defense of Raffaele. The journalists of TGCOM have published 9 pages not consecutive, probably drawn from the most significant.
The 9 pages report some criticisms to the examination performed by the Postal Police on Raffaele's computer.
In these pages there isn't evidence that at the time of the murder Raffaele was at the computer.(Maybe this evidence is contained in other pages, not published by TGCOM).
But in these pages there is evidence that the expertise of the Postal Police is unreliable and that the Court of Assizes could not ruled out that at the time of the murder Raffaele were at his home.
The Court (of Assizes) has considered decisive element for the verdict of guilty the lack of interaction with the computer.
This argument is illogical, because of inconclusive/wrong evidence submitted by the Postal Police.
Let us now proceed to present our technical arguments, attempting to use a precise and understandable language.

To carry out the investigation was necessary to analyze the computer of Raffaele.
The postal police used the software "Encase".
As described on page 322 of the Judgement, it was considered the interval of time between 6pm on November 1 and 8am November 2, 2007.
This choice will prove to be inappropriate.

As follow-up actions, on a computer, can change the tracks of previous operations, restrict the interval of time has taken away the ability to find possible causes of changes or deletion of information.

Based on the analysis performed by the Postal Police with "Encase", described on page 324 of the sentence, in the examined time interval only two files were used at 9:10:30pm on November 1 and at 5:32:09am November 2, 2007.

In Mac OS X systems (such as the computer of Raffaele Sollecito) temporal data are 5 and are stored partly in the inodes of the file system HFS + and partly in another memory area. In particular, inodes hold information about the last file access.

(Here surely it's missing a page.)

access to a file (eg a film) causes the overwriting of previous temporal data.
For example, a quick access to the film "Amelie" in the days after November 1 2007 would result in the absence of any response to interaction with the film "Amelie" in the period between 6pm and 9:21:32pm of November 1.

Consequently, the lack of files changed since the 9:21:32pm can not be considered as evidence of the absence of interactions with the system.

In fact many interactions with the computer, without the presence of files with modified dates in the period covered by "Encase", are possible for several reasons:

- watching a movie, then removed it at a later date (and not found by investigators given the limited amount of time considered by "Encase")

- watching a movie, then reviewed it at a later date: notice how by the survey conducted by consultants of the defense a large number of videos (including "Naruto", episode 101) showing dates changed at 1:30 pm of November 6, 2007 (time of seizure)

- listening to music then repeated it: is common practice to listen the music with the so-called "playing list". In this case listening to a list remove the traces of the previously list played. In this regard it is noted that in the interactions documented through the iTunes application logs, that have not even been examined in the study of the prosecution, between 5.44am and 6.20am of the November 2, 2007 are heard just two sequences of "playing list" who deleted data from previous plays of the same, also the listening counters (indicators that measure how many times a song has been played) of some of these songs are quite high (from 2 to 26)

- listening to music directly from CD-ROM: this type of play does not leave traces of changes to files. Note that, recorded in the minutes, from the computer of Raffaele Sollecito was extracted by the Postal Police a CD of a band.

In the study of the Police Post is NEVER highlighted this inability to prove with certainty the absence of interactions in the periods in which the keyboard was active

The report of the consultants of the defense noted that to analyze the interactions in the Apple computer of Raffaele Sollecito occurred between 6pm November 1, 2007 and 8am of the following November 2 would FIRST have to examine the file "windowsserver.log" which records the history of the periods in which keyboard and mouse are disabled from the screensaver

(follows a long description of what is a screensaver)

(Here probably it's missing a page.)

(This page begins with the History of the screensaver from 6am to 12am of November 2)
Translating into a language more "understandable" is clear that in the period between November 1, 6:26pm and 6:22am on November 2, the periods in which there is a certain lack of interaction ARE OF A MAXIMUM OF 6 MINUTES while all other periods are of interaction/potential no interaction, calling "potential non-interaction" an ACTIVE CONDUCT OF THE USER ON THE COMPUTER that, while not using the keyboard or mouse, uses the system by acting on its peripherals such as opening/closing the drawer of the CD/DVD and engaging in behavior incompatible with the absence from the place where the computer is located.

Mind you that from the analysis of this file [windowsserver.log] results that the screensaver was never switched off.

Instead the file "windowsserver.log" and the log file of the screensaver "" were completely ignored in the analysis of the Postal Police.

This analysis with the software ENCASE has examined only the files created, accessed, modified or deleted during the period mentioned ignoring the information from log files

(Here probably it's missing a page.)

- severe alterations to the data occurred in the period following the seizure of computer (and before the acquisition of the hard disk) which led to the modification of the date for many files (over 520)

Based on the foregoing, it is considered necessary that these elements are evaluated by an expert appointed by the Court of Assizes of Appeal. We insists that a report is prepared on computer Macbook.Pro used by the accused in order to ascertain what were the real interactions in the period between 1 and 2 November 2007

At this point it's open a chapter devoted to Curatolo, but on page 8 and page 9 is summed only who he is and what he has declared. At the end of page 9 it is doubtful that the facts narrated by Curatolo have taken place on the evening of Nov. 1, citing the testimony of Ceccarelli Alessia (newsstand owner in the square Grimana).... but here ends the page.

My take on this is that the Police computer expert has again showed a lack of expertise and there is more than sufficient evidence for further outside expert review asked for in the appeals.
RoseMontague is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top