ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 30th December 2012, 01:45 PM   #5441
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
I don't think it's accurate to describe indirect clues, in any murder investigation, as "unknowns." It is more accurate to think of them as an incomplete set of facts. In this case, they form a pattern that suggests one, specific conclusion as to what happened and who did it.
This referred to the list of things that proved Meredith had to be attacked very early. Her jacket, not calling back, book on the bed, wash in the washer when we don't know if she normally would leave her jacket on in a cool room, whether she normally called after 9, whether the book was placed there on arrival or later, and whether just forgot about the wash or some other reason. The line of thinking that because there is a list of things, all unproven, should be considered as a whole is not solid thinking.


Quote:
But here you seem to suggest that a number of different conclusions are equally likely. If I understand that correctly, I strongly disagree. I think the only likely scenario is that Meredith walked in on a burglary in progress and was murdered in her bedroom within minutes after doing so.
Okay that's what you think. Perhaps the most likely scenario but clearly not the only one. Sometimes that side-effect that only affects one in a hundred does affect someone. Odds against but still it happens.
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:18 PM   #5442
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,156
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
This referred to the list of things that proved Meredith had to be attacked very early. Her jacket, not calling back, book on the bed, wash in the washer when we don't know if she normally would leave her jacket on in a cool room, whether she normally called after 9, whether the book was placed there on arrival or later, and whether just forgot about the wash or some other reason. The line of thinking that because there is a list of things, all unproven, should be considered as a whole is not solid thinking.
In your first sentence, you should replace the word "proved" with "indicated" or "tended to suggest", and "had to be" with "was most probably".

If you do that, then you'll accurately reflect my opinion (and, I believe, that of most other pro-acquittal/pro-innocence posters here).
LondonJohn 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:20 PM   #5443
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,976
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
I think that many a case in Italy demands the use of probably in order to write a motivation report. I know that most of them in Massei's report are quotes of experts that properly use probable when giving their assessments.
What I'd like to know is why you use the word "meme" so much?

You use it as a euphemism for, "you're lying".

You see, I think what is quoted above is true.... it is, in fact, a meme. Most of the probablies in Massei's report are probablies, rightfully identified as such by the experts who are asked to give expert opinions.

And if I were to ask, "Why do you keep repeating this meme?", that would imply something that strains the word. Because my own answer to that question is, "Grinder keeps repeating that meme because it is true, and worthy of the word 'meme', and actually needs to be repeated."

The fact is that whether 39 or 41 or whatever, Hellmann himself identifies 39 probablies that Hellmann himself believes that Massei improperly used in determining the guilt of the students - a guilt that fell way way short of the standard of guilt needed.

You yourself said you could find 35. You list those 35 and I'll fill in the other 4. Or 6. Why are we having this discussion. It always feels like a pissing contest.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 30th December 2012 at 02:22 PM.
Bill Williams 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:28 PM   #5444
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
In your first sentence, you should replace the word "proved" with "indicated" or "tended to suggest", and "had to be" with "was most probably".

If you do that, then you'll accurately reflect my opinion (and, I believe, that of most other pro-acquittal/pro-innocence posters here).
Nope. It wasn't your opinion I was describing. There are several posters here that believe that their innocence has been proven. I won't list them but it should be easy for you to list them yourself.
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:37 PM   #5445
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,790
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What I'd like to know is why you use the word "meme" so much?

You use it as a euphemism for, "you're lying".

You see, I think what is quoted above is true.... it is, in fact, a meme. Most of the probablies in Massei's report are probablies, rightfully identified as such by the experts who are asked to give expert opinions.

And if I were to ask, "Why do you keep repeating this meme?", that would imply something that strains the word. Because my own answer to that question is, "Grinder keeps repeating that meme because it is true, and worthy of the word 'meme', and actually needs to be repeated."

The fact is that whether 39 or 41 or whatever, Hellmann himself identifies 39 probablies that Hellmann himself believes that Massei improperly used in determining the guilt of the students - a guilt that fell way way short of the standard of guilt needed.

You yourself said you could find 35. You list those 35 and I'll fill in the other 4. Or 6. Why are we having this discussion. It always feels like a pissing contest.
I am not sure Hellman says Massei used his probablies improperly. In the conclusion he says:

Quote:
In truth, a reading of the ruling under appeal does not show that the first-level Corte di Assise confronted [si sia posta, lit. "posed itself"] the problem of assessing the evidence [risultanze probatorie] on the basis of the principle established by C.P.P. Article 533, since the reconstruction of facts is always carried out according to a criterion of probability. Indeed, the word “probable” (or “improbable”) occurs some 39 times in the course of the motivation. Obviously, this is only an observation about vocabulary, but a significant one all the same.
It's too simplistic to reject evidence based on probability. DNA evidence is based on nothing more than the probability that a particular profile is not shared by anyone else on the planet. To really know for sure, we should test everybody. The problem with Massei is his 'probablies' strike many as no such thing.
anglolawyer is online now   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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:44 PM   #5446
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,156
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Okay that's what you think. Perhaps the most likely scenario but clearly not the only one. Sometimes that side-effect that only affects one in a hundred does affect someone. Odds against but still it happens.

And a note on highly-unlikely possibilities and their place in "reasonable doubt".

Suppose that Adam was on trial for a betting scam involving a minor professional tennis match between Bob and Charlie.

Suppose that Adam had placed a $20,000 bet on Bob to lose the match 1-6, 0-6, and that this had indeed been the result of the match (giving Adam winnings of, say, $200,000)

Suppose that Adam had never before bet on tennis matches.

Suppose that there was evidence of extensive mobile phone contact between Adam and Bob in the period before and after the match in question.

Suppose that there was a bank transfer of $50,000 from Adam's bank account to Bob's bank account three days after the match.


Now, suppose that Adam's defence team advanced the argument that Adam had simply decided for the first time in his life to bet on this particular result as a sheer whim; that Adam's conversations with Bob before and after the match had been about classic car restoration, rather than fixing a tennis match; and that the $50,000 bank transfer after the match was simply Adam generously gifting Bob some of his lucky winnings so that Bob could spend it on their mutual classic car hobby.


All of the above argument is totally possible. After all, it's hardly unusual for people to make random sports bets out of the blue, and why would it be unusual for someone who'd fortuitously come into unexpected money to genreously make a gift of some of it?

However, any reasonable person would look at the entirety of the circumstances and conclude that it could be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Adam and Bob had colluded for Bob to throw the match, for Adam to place a substantial bet on the pre-agreed outcome, and for Adam to pay Bob a kickback from the winnings.

Sometimes there can be an explanation for events that is entirely feasible and possible, but where an application of human reason can deduce it to be unlikely to the point of practical impossibility.
LondonJohn 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:52 PM   #5447
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What I'd like to know is why you use the word "meme" so much?

You use it as a euphemism for, "you're lying".
No. It is a way to describe a repetitive wide spread idea often on the Internet. Also there is an element of having a life of its own.

The 39 probables is repeated often but I'm trying to break it down - why don't you just list 5 or 10?

I'm in no way saying it's a lie. I'm saying that vast majority of them are of no consequence. So it's misleading and an exaggeration but not a lie.

If the meme was that doubt was used 50 times but it was not mentioned that 'no' preceded all but three of the doubts, that would be misleading.

The vast majority of the probables have nothing to do with Massei's opinion but rather totally proper use by experts.

I think discussing the "real" probables would be of value. Repeating the 39 probables meme has little to no value.
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:53 PM   #5448
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,790
Originally Posted by LJ
Sometimes there can be an explanation for events that is entirely feasible and possible, but where an application of human reason can deduce it to be unlikely to the point of practical impossibility.
'So as to leave no reasonable doubt' would be another (and better) way to finish this sentence.
anglolawyer is online now   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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:53 PM   #5449
Bill Williams
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,976
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I am not sure Hellman says Massei used his probablies improperly. In the conclusion he says:

Quote:
In truth, a reading of the ruling under appeal does not show that the first-level Corte di Assise confronted [si sia posta, lit. "posed itself"] the problem of assessing the evidence [risultanze probatorie] on the basis of the principle established by C.P.P. Article 533, since the reconstruction of facts is always carried out according to a criterion of probability. Indeed, the word “probable” (or “improbable”) occurs some 39 times in the course of the motivation. Obviously, this is only an observation about vocabulary, but a significant one all the same.
It's too simplistic to reject evidence based on probability. DNA evidence is based on nothing more than the probability that a particular profile is not shared by anyone else on the planet. To really know for sure, we should test everybody. The problem with Massei is his 'probablies' strike many as no such thing.
True - yet Hellmann feels compelled to point it out. In civil cases "probably" cuts it. In criminal cases they do not. My reading of Hellmann, in even bringing it up, is that Hellmann is sticking the knife into Massei purposely and as only another judge can. Massei's proper response should be, "I'm standing right here, you know!"

Whether 39 or 41, and as Grinder rightly identifies in his meme (the experts probablies do not count because that's what the experts are called to express opinions about) the sheer volume of what Massei puts together on his own as porbablies (the staged break-in, the transport of the knife, etc.) is unworthy of a judicial judgement which finds the exact opposite of what one would expect the motivations to be explaining.

That you take this one step further, that the "probably" actually points in the other direction, is even more damning.

Then you are like that!
Bill Williams 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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:58 PM   #5450
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,790
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
True - yet Hellmann feels compelled to point it out. In civil cases "probably" cuts it. In criminal cases they do not. My reading of Hellmann, in even bringing it up, is that Hellmann is sticking the knife into Massei purposely and as only another judge can. Massei's proper response should be, "I'm standing right here, you know!"

Whether 39 or 41, and as Grinder rightly identifies in his meme (the experts probablies do not count because that's what the experts are called to express opinions about) the sheer volume of what Massei puts together on his own as porbablies (the staged break-in, the transport of the knife, etc.) is unworthy of a judicial judgement which finds the exact opposite of what one would expect the motivations to be explaining.

That you take this one step further, that the "probably" actually points in the other direction, is even more damning.

Then you are like that!
I would be assisted if you posted an illustrative extract from Massei.
anglolawyer is online now   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
Old 30th December 2012, 02:59 PM   #5451
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Innocent yes

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post

Unlike the rest of Perugia (keep my footer in mind) they were at the cottage before and after the crime. Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's (yes we all know she lived there) and as Amanda said herself, she gave confusing explanations about the time of the crime.

Many people here do believe they have proved the kids' innocence. I don't. Using the beyond a reasonable doubt, which we all know isn't required for the verdict, they haven't.
I'd be the first to agree with you that we have not proved 100% that A&R were innocent. The problem with looking at that perspective is that you are putting the onus to prove their innocence.

Even so, I do believe that we have proved it 99.999%. There is as much evidence that Filomena killed Meredith as Amanda or Raffaele. Any thought that two lovers on a cold November morning left their cozy flat and rushed home to kill Meredith strains belief. There is no motive, no known association with the well proven killer. (a meeting does not constitute an association)

The bigger question is what did the prosecution prove?
Does Amanda and Meredith's mixed genetic material in a "shared bathroom" demonstrate that this likely happened in the commission of the murder? Hardly, it is a totally worthless piece of evidence for connecting Amanda to the murder. If Rudy had been a known regular visitor, his prints or DNA in innocent locations would also be worthless.

Did they prove that A&R were at the cottage the night of November 1? Did they offer any CCTV evidence or "credible witnesses" that lends credence to them being there? No in fact the only available evidence would lead a reasonable mind to think otherwise.

All the prosecution actually has are two confusing statements made by A&R under duress. Every single piece of evidence points in another direction.

You said that the prosecution did not prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which is the "criminal standard" in the US. In civil court, it is necessary to prove a fact with a preponderance of evidence. I contend that the preponderance of evidence proves the fact they weren't there that evening.

You of course can believe what you want.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 03:21 PM   #5452
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,790
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'd be the first to agree with you that we have not proved 100% that A&R were innocent. The problem with looking at that perspective is that you are putting the onus to prove their innocence.

Even so, I do believe that we have proved it 99.999%. There is as much evidence that Filomena killed Meredith as Amanda or Raffaele. Any thought that two lovers on a cold November morning left their cozy flat and rushed home to kill Meredith strains belief. There is no motive, no known association with the well proven killer. (a meeting does not constitute an association)

The bigger question is what did the prosecution prove?
Does Amanda and Meredith's mixed genetic material in a "shared bathroom" demonstrate that this likely happened in the commission of the murder? Hardly, it is a totally worthless piece of evidence for connecting Amanda to the murder. If Rudy had been a known regular visitor, his prints or DNA in innocent locations would also be worthless.

Did they prove that A&R were at the cottage the night of November 1? Did they offer any CCTV evidence or "credible witnesses" that lends credence to them being there? No in fact the only available evidence would lead a reasonable mind to think otherwise.

All the prosecution actually has are two confusing statements made by A&R under duress. Every single piece of evidence points in another direction.

You said that the prosecution did not prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which is the "criminal standard" in the US. In civil court, it is necessary to prove a fact with a preponderance of evidence. I contend that the preponderance of evidence proves the fact they weren't there that evening.

You of course can believe what you want.
It should be remembered we have not seen a trial in which what was at issue was whether they are innocent on a balance of probabilities. Such a trial would not be identical to the ones that played out in Italy. If a PGP were sued for defamation by Amanda or Raffaele and pleaded 'justification' then they would have to prove the truth of their statement to the civil standard, that it was more probable than not that the plaintiffs murdered Meredith Kercher. In that case, one might expect a positive case for innocence to be made in order to tilt the scales the plaintiffs' way, in addition to passive demolition of the defendant's case. In a criminal case there is more emphasis on the latter than the former.
anglolawyer is online now   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
Old 30th December 2012, 03:27 PM   #5453
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I'd be the first to agree with you that we have not proved 100% that A&R were innocent. The problem with looking at that perspective is that you are putting the onus to prove their innocence.
This is... Read the footer. I'm responding to those that say they have proven it. The kids don't need to prove anything.


Quote:
If Rudy had been a known regular visitor, his prints or DNA in innocent locations would also be worthless.
If his DNA were found mixed with Meredith's but no one else's in Filomena's room that wouldn't be an issue?

Quote:
Did they prove that A&R were at the cottage the night of November 1?
Sure they had Curatolo that put them in the plaza and lying about it. Of course I don't believe C but they did.

Quote:
All the prosecution actually has are two confusing statements made by A&R under duress. Every single piece of evidence points in another direction.
Massei had the DNA on the knife and the bra.

Quote:
You said that the prosecution did not prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Which is the "criminal standard" in the US. In civil court, it is necessary to prove a fact with a preponderance of evidence. I contend that the preponderance of evidence proves the fact they weren't there that evening.
Read my footer "I don't believe the ILE proved their case and people don't have to prove they are innocent."
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 03:37 PM   #5454
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,156
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It should be remembered we have not seen a trial in which what was at issue was whether they are innocent on a balance of probabilities. Such a trial would not be identical to the ones that played out in Italy. If a PGP were sued for defamation by Amanda or Raffaele and pleaded 'justification' then they would have to prove the truth of their statement to the civil standard, that it was more probable than not that the plaintiffs murdered Meredith Kercher. In that case, one might expect a positive case for innocence to be made in order to tilt the scales the plaintiffs' way, in addition to passive demolition of the defendant's case. In a criminal case there is more emphasis on the latter than the former.

I believe that where the alleged libel alleges criminal conduct, the courts would take a criminal acquittal as sufficient to demolish a "justification" or "fair comment" defence. If no criminal trial had yet (or ever) taken place, then my understanding is that the civil courts would either defer the matter pending any criminal trial, or if the prosecuting authorities indicated no potential charges, this would also demolish a "justification/fair comment" defence.

You'll remember the recent firestorm at the BBC over the Jimmy Savile allegations. It appears that the main reason why the Newsnight report into Savile's alleged criminal activities was dropped is that the editor believed that for ethical considerations they should be making the decision to broadcast based on the premise that Savile were still alive. Had he been alive, then he would very likely have been able to successfully sue for libel, since he had never been charged with any criminal acts. That's substantially why the Newsnight dropped the story (even though in reality they were under no threat of legal action, since one cannot libel the dead).

My belief, therefore, is that if the Italian Supreme Court affirms the acquittals in March, anyone subsequently accusing Knox or Sollecito of "being murderers" (or similar) is open to libel actions, and that they will have no available "justification" or "fair comment" defence. If I'm correct, then the vindictive little oddballs over at .org and .net have a couple of months yet to indulge their little fantasies and channel their righteous anger. After 25th March, however, they might want to watch what they write very carefully indeed. Just sayin'...

Last edited by LondonJohn; 30th December 2012 at 03:40 PM.
LondonJohn 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
Old 30th December 2012, 03:38 PM   #5455
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Deliberate or Plain stupid or innocent mistake?

Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Question to Acbytesla: how can you hold both these ideas in your head at the same time?

If the frying were deliberate then it seems to me inevitable there was a proper, spoken, fully formed criminal conspiracy. Otherwise you have to imagine some specialist technician coming up with the idea all by himself for absolutely no reason.

My area of expertise is assembling evidence to prove stuff. Unfortunately, the sorts of things I need to prove are not as exotic as what we are dealing with here. Nevertheless, I find it very difficult to believe either that they left the clasp behind or 'found' it 46 days later. Watching the relevant film in which its retrieval is shown as a genuine event leads me to conclude it is very much more likely that all those involved were engaged in a deliberate, conscious conspiracy to fabricate incriminating evidence against Raffaele, against whom, contrary to Locard, they had nothing.
I'm confused by own thoughts on this Anglo, I don't understand a rationale of trying to frame A&R. But I do understand the motivation for someone to avoid embarrassment. I just can't get over how the frying of three drives consecutively is possible.

As I have said IDE cable connectors are keyed with one pin hole filled in with plastic. If you try to put it on backwards you end up breaking or bending a pin. Maybe you can find a cable connector that is not keyed but these connectors are plastic poured into a mold. Hundreds of millions of them are made the same way every year. If I saw the cable that was used, I might be convinced that this is possible. I need to see how this happened.

I've been saying this seems to be a question of corruption or stupidity. But maybe I'm going too far with that. I'm not there with the tech to see how this was done and how it might be an innocent mistake made by a very inexperienced technician. But I'd need to be convinced. The odds against this happening innocently in my opinion are very high.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 03:50 PM   #5456
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
My problem with the hard drive intentional erasing is that they wouldn't know whether the contents would help or hurt the prosecution until they looked at them.

Very hard to believe that a technician would see the data that would free the kids and then fry the drives. Even harder to believe he would keep it a secret for this long.
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 04:11 PM   #5457
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,156
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
My problem with the hard drive intentional erasing is that they wouldn't know whether the contents would help or hurt the prosecution until they looked at them.

Very hard to believe that a technician would see the data that would free the kids and then fry the drives. Even harder to believe he would keep it a secret for this long.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think that the near-unbelievable destroying of the hard drives was deliberate, far less that it was part of any bigger plan to frame Knox or Sollecito.

I think that this was nothing more than grotesque incompetence by the very people who are supposed to be specialist investigators in this area. To that end, I think it speaks very strongly to the massive incompetence at many levels within the Italian State Police. The ludicrously improper way in which the so-called "scientific police" conducted the forensic examination(s) in the cottage is futher evidence that they were totally out of their depth, badly trained and incompetent in a huge number of respects.

My opinion is that the Perugia police were not used to this sort of investigation, and also that they were more than used to - shall we say - "bending the rules" to get confessions and testimony. I think Stefanoni was manifestly unqualified to even participate in (let alone supervise!) the scene-of-crime investigation. And I also think that the police and prosecutors were unhealthily concerned about preserving or enhancing their own reputations (and rather enjoyed the global media spotlight as part of that process), ahead of a disinterested, fair investigation (which would have involved them admitting they were wrong in their early rush to judgement).
LondonJohn 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
Old 30th December 2012, 04:23 PM   #5458
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
What did they have?

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
If his DNA were found mixed with Meredith's but no one else's in Filomena's room that wouldn't be an issue?
I don't even understand this question. The problem with Rudy leaving his DNA mixed with Meredith's anywhere in the girl's flat is that there is no previous evidence of Rudy being there before the night of the murder. If his DNA was found mixed with Meredith's downstairs, I 'd say it proves nothing.
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Sure they had Curatolo that put them in the plaza and lying about it. Of course I don't believe C but they did.
This would be the third time that Curatolo would be named as a witness in a homicide. Italy has an annual homicide rate of .000,000,9 per person. What are the odds that one person would be an eyewitness in 3 murder trials? It is astronomical.
Then of course you have the fact that Curatolo was a homeless junkie who clearly couldn't tell the difference between October 31st and November 1st.

Did they really have Curatolo? The fact that this loser was used by the prosecution at all demonstrates the prosecution's desperation. They had nothing so using an American expression, they were throwing mud on the wall hoping for some of it to stick. There is a reason that Hellman rightfully said "not in my court room"
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Massei had the DNA on the knife and the bra.
Both of which are so problematic that they really shouldn't be used.
1. The knife clearly did not match the geometry of the blood stain on the sheet. So now you have to be saying that multiple knives had to be involved?

2. It was a kitchen knife, that would have had to be carried to the scene of crime and then back?

3.Then of course, there is Stefanoni's testing methodologies and his unwillingness to provide the electronic records to review his work.
4. The selective nature of which this knife and only this knife were removed from Raffaele's flat.

The Bra clasp is so ridiculous with the 46 days and 4 other unknown DNA profiles also found on it.

What the prosecution proved is that instead of following the evidence, they followed their suspects and used shaky rationale at best.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 04:44 PM   #5459
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 9,790
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
My problem with the hard drive intentional erasing is that they wouldn't know whether the contents would help or hurt the prosecution until they looked at them.

Very hard to believe that a technician would see the data that would free the kids and then fry the drives. Even harder to believe he would keep it a secret for this long.
We could use an Italian policeman or prosecutor contributing to the thread. Without either, we have a hard time imagining their world and what makes them tick. Whether it's fame, fortune or something else, we find it hard to imagine the motivation for out and out corruption. But if that's what it was then you would fry the hard drives regardless of content because the content could only ever be neutral or unhelpful (since your suspects are innocent and you know they are).

What we do seem to have is a decent selection of people who know how hard it is to destroy a hard drive, to whom I defer. The less technically knowledgeable among us may be too ready to discount what they are telling us.
anglolawyer is online now   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
Old 30th December 2012, 04:45 PM   #5460
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Not bad

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
My problem with the hard drive intentional erasing is that they wouldn't know whether the contents would help or hurt the prosecution until they looked at them.

Very hard to believe that a technician would see the data that would free the kids and then fry the drives. Even harder to believe he would keep it a secret for this long.
Good logic. Except, that Raffaele has stated that he was on his computer that night.

I don't like the idea that this was deliberate, but where did they get this un-keyed cable?

Also Dan O. said that they used a forensic USB to IDE cable. That seems strange to me to. As USB ports are very common on laptops even in 2007 so why do it this way? You break the clamshell of the laptops when you could just as easily plug a USB cable between two computers or connect an ethernet cable? Doesn't make sense to me.

Last edited by acbytesla; 30th December 2012 at 04:57 PM.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 04:50 PM   #5461
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't even understand this question. The problem with Rudy leaving his DNA mixed with Meredith's anywhere in the girl's flat is that there is no previous evidence of Rudy being there before the night of the murder. If his DNA was found mixed with Meredith's downstairs, I 'd say it proves nothing.
you had posed the scenario if Rudi had been a regular visitor upstairs

Quote:
This would be the third time that Curatolo would be named as a witness in a homicide. Italy has an annual homicide rate of .000,000,9 per person. What are the odds that one person would be an eyewitness in 3 murder trials? It is astronomical.
Then of course you have the fact that Curatolo was a homeless junkie who clearly couldn't tell the difference between October 31st and November 1st.
Yes but the court believed him so that was part of the conviction - so they did have some "evidence" in their minds

Quote:
Did they really have Curatolo? The fact that this loser was used by the prosecution at all demonstrates the prosecution's desperation. They had nothing so using an American expression, they were throwing mud on the wall hoping for some of it to stick. There is a reason that Hellman rightfully said "not in my court room"
Agreed but they had evidence - we just dismiss it.

Not worth more - they had evidence in their minds that was enough for conviction

you said "All the prosecution actually has are two confusing statements made by A&R under duress. Every single piece of evidence points in another direction."

but they felt they had good DNA etc. - I never agreed

anyway....
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 05:06 PM   #5462
Antony
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,321
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
My opinion is that the Perugia police were not used to this sort of investigation, and also that they were more than used to - shall we say - "bending the rules" to get confessions and testimony. I think Stefanoni was manifestly unqualified to even participate in (let alone supervise!) the scene-of-crime investigation. And I also think that the police and prosecutors were unhealthily concerned about preserving or enhancing their own reputations (and rather enjoyed the global media spotlight as part of that process), ahead of a disinterested, fair investigation (which would have involved them admitting they were wrong in their early rush to judgement).
Add to this that they (and Mignini) were not used to any kind of scrutiny, which is why they acted as though everything they did and said would automatically be accepted at face value. Of course through the Massei trial their confidence seemed justified, right up until Hellmann started ruling against them.
Antony 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
Old 30th December 2012, 05:16 PM   #5463
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
Originally Posted by Antony View Post
Add to this that they (and Mignini) were not used to any kind of scrutiny, which is why they acted as though everything they did and said would automatically be accepted at face value. Of course through the Massei trial their confidence seemed justified, right up until Hellmann started ruling against them.
Allegations of abuse of office
In 2006, Mignini was charged with abuse of office for allegedly ordering the illegal wiretapping of the phones of various police officers and journalists involved in the Monster of Florence case.[21] In January 2010, a Florence court found him guilty of exceeding the powers of his office but acquitted of the remaining charges.[5] He was given a 16-month suspended sentence. Mignini appealed the conviction, saying "My conscience is clear, I know I did nothing wrong." [22] He remained in office through the appeal process, as Italian law does not consider convictions final until all appeals are exhausted.[23][24] In November 2011, the Court of Appeal in Florence overturned Mignini's conviction for lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the prosecutor in Turin to decide whether to re-file the charges.[25] According to Rome-based journalist and author Barbie Latza Nadeau, even if Mignini were convicted, minor offenses such as this are rarely grounds for removing a prosecutor from office.[26]
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 05:44 PM   #5464
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,140
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Good logic. Except, that Raffaele has stated that he was on his computer that night.

I don't like the idea that this was deliberate, but where did they get this un-keyed cable?

Also Dan O. said that they used a forensic USB to IDE cable. That seems strange to me to. As USB ports are very common on laptops even in 2007 so why do it this way? You break the clamshell of the laptops when you could just as easily plug a USB cable between two computers or connect an ethernet cable? Doesn't make sense to me.

That's what a computer geek would do. But forensics have different requirements. The computer to computer connection is still running under the control of the target computer and therefore is capable of overwriting critical information such as the last access times for files. What the forensic team wants to do is isolate the target hard drive behind a physical adaptor that forbids any command that could change the evidence. From that connection, they would then make 3 copies of the drive. One for the prosecution, one for the defence and one for the court. This is all done while the defense console is watching.

The name of the actual adaptor they used was in one of the reports. I can look it up on my other computer but I recall it was a WriteProtect.


I've been back and forth on the motivation behind frying the hard drives. I believe I've settled on monumental stupidity. THough the possibility still exists for intentional tampering and it doesn't have to be by the postals. The computers were in the hands of the prosecution before they were turned over for this official function.
__________________
Please help Meredith Kercher find true justice by signing the petition at Change.org.
Dan O. 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
Old 30th December 2012, 05:52 PM   #5465
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
evidence of what?

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
you had posed the scenario if Rudi had been a regular visitor upstairs
OK, if he was a regular visitor and mixed DNA was found in Filomena's room that could be viewed more innocently.

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Yes but the court believed him so that was part of the conviction - so they did have some "evidence" in their minds
It's not very good evidence, this is just proof that the court started with a presumption of guilt instead of innocence. I can't explain the twisted logic that Massei used to come up with a finding of guilt.

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Agreed but they had evidence - we just dismiss it.
Of course it is evidence, but evidence of what?
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
you said "All the prosecution actually has are two confusing statements made by A&R under duress. Every single piece of evidence points in another direction."

but they felt they had good DNA etc. - I never agreed
That's the problem with DNA evidence, so many people think of it like a smoking gun, when in fact it's far more nuanced than that. I could agree that Stefanoni found Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp and Meredith's DNA on the knife blade . But how did the DNA come to be there? What does it mean?

OK, the prosecution had some evidence that you could create a story that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. But other stories easily are as believable about that evidence. Then there is the problem that prosecution story ignores other facts and strains belief.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 05:54 PM   #5466
Supernaut
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,271
It's quiet here.

TOO quiet.

Surely only a matter of time before the "old hands" wade in and get this thread back into "moderated" status?
Supernaut 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
Old 30th December 2012, 06:04 PM   #5467
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Thanks Dan O.

Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
That's what a computer geek would do. But forensics have different requirements. The computer to computer connection is still running under the control of the target computer and therefore is capable of overwriting critical information such as the last access times for files. What the forensic team wants to do is isolate the target hard drive behind a physical adaptor that forbids any command that could change the evidence. From that connection, they would then make 3 copies of the drive. One for the prosecution, one for the defence and one for the court. This is all done while the defense console is watching.

The name of the actual adaptor they used was in one of the reports. I can look it up on my other computer but I recall it was a WriteProtect.
Thanks Dan O You've explained a lot to me. So is this "Write Protect" cable not keyed? I guess I have to wonder if the drive made "noises" while it was crashing? Or did each drive just come up with sector errors?

Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
I've been back and forth on the motivation behind frying the hard drives. I believe I've settled on monumental stupidity. THough the possibility still exists for intentional tampering and it doesn't have to be by the postals. The computers were in the hands of the prosecution before they were turned over for this official function.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 06:14 PM   #5468
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,140
Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
We know from the report that she used the phone the next two days in October so less likely that she was out of minutes on a monthly plan. Not too likely that she would leave the phone off on purpose or wouldn't buy new minutes, because of her mother's condition.

What we do know is that she didn't use her English phone to call her mother on the 29th or send a SMS. That seems to indicate that she didn't talk to her mother every day, which makes it more plausible she not calling later after the 8:56 attempt wasn't an indicator of anything.

Not having the details of her calls, time and to whom, is an example of things insiders would have, that might be important. I wonder what information the Kerchers have been given that outsiders have no idea about.

Do all cell plans start on the 1st of the month? It would be advantageous for the company to stagger start times so they are not overwhelmed at the end of the month. We may not be able to find the explicit details of the plan Meredith was on but there should be information that helps restrain the possibilities.

She had a second phone. If she left the English phone at home that day because the battery had died, she could have used the Italian phone to make that one call.

I don't believe the Kerchers would have had to be given anything. They could have gotten Meredith's last billing statement from the provider easier than the prosecution.
__________________
Please help Meredith Kercher find true justice by signing the petition at Change.org.
Dan O. 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
Old 30th December 2012, 06:22 PM   #5469
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
WriteProtect or Forensic cables.

Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
That's what a computer geek would do. But forensics have different requirements. The computer to computer connection is still running under the control of the target computer and therefore is capable of overwriting critical information such as the last access times for files. What the forensic team wants to do is isolate the target hard drive behind a physical adaptor that forbids any command that could change the evidence. From that connection, they would then make 3 copies of the drive. One for the prosecution, one for the defence and one for the court. This is all done while the defense console is watching.

The name of the actual adaptor they used was in one of the reports. I can look it up on my other computer but I recall it was a WriteProtect.
The problem is that I keep looking at these forensic cables and every single one that I can find online use off the shelf molded connectors which are all keyed. I can't find a brand called "WriteProtect" but write protect adapters are readily available from multiple vendors.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 06:38 PM   #5470
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,140
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The problem is that I keep looking at these forensic cables and every single one that I can find online use off the shelf molded connectors which are all keyed. I can't find a brand called "WriteProtect" but write protect adapters are readily available from multiple vendors.
WriteProtect is the model. The brand was Logicube Forensics. The product is apparently discontinued now as the link I have no longer works. Here is one of my earlier posts on the subject: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...01#post7078601
__________________
Please help Meredith Kercher find true justice by signing the petition at Change.org.
Dan O. 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
Old 30th December 2012, 07:03 PM   #5471
Grinder
Philosopher
 
Grinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,486
this company http://www.logicube.com/
Grinder 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
Old 30th December 2012, 07:07 PM   #5472
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Blaming the drive destruction on the drives being hot swapped makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
WriteProtect is the model. The brand was Logicube Forensics. The product is apparently discontinued now as the link I have no longer works. Here is one of my earlier posts on the subject: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...01#post7078601
This post was great Dan O. The un keyed cable made zero sense to me. Yes it could have been a home brew cable, but he would still have to use a connector that was off the shelf and the connectors are made with molds with that keyed hole filled in.

No, the hot swap explanation makes a lot more sense. And if the drive didn't make unusual noises, I can imagine them just plugging drives in consecutively. This is the most logical explanation I've heard for 3 drives being destroyed.

But I will say this, I've seen countless IDE drives "hot swapped" very successfully"

But I never heard they recovered two of the drives? Any illumination on that would be great.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 07:10 PM   #5473
Supernaut
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,271
You see, the problem is that this thread KEEPS getting bumped to the top of the forum. I can see why it irks some people.

Last edited by Supernaut; 30th December 2012 at 07:12 PM.
Supernaut 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
Old 30th December 2012, 07:17 PM   #5474
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Thanks

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Thanks Grinder, unfortunately for this argument, they don't offer pictures (just descriptions) of the cables on their web site
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 07:19 PM   #5475
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
What problem???

Originally Posted by Supernaut View Post
You see, the problem is that this thread KEEPS getting bumped to the top of the forum. I can see why it irks some people.
And why is this a problem?
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 08:02 PM   #5476
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,576
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I'm inclined to agree. I don't think that the near-unbelievable destroying of the hard drives was deliberate, far less that it was part of any bigger plan to frame Knox or Sollecito.
It had to be deliberate. Have you ever hooked up a hard drive to a power source? It is 100 percent idiot proof with respect to damaging the drive.

But, if you spliced together a special connecting device that feeds AC wall current directly into the drive, it would fry the circuit board in an instant. That is what I suspect they did.
Charlie Wilkes 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
Old 30th December 2012, 08:28 PM   #5477
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,140
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This post was great Dan O. The un keyed cable made zero sense to me. Yes it could have been a home brew cable, but he would still have to use a connector that was off the shelf and the connectors are made with molds with that keyed hole filled in.

No, the hot swap explanation makes a lot more sense. And if the drive didn't make unusual noises, I can imagine them just plugging drives in consecutively. This is the most logical explanation I've heard for 3 drives being destroyed.

But I will say this, I've seen countless IDE drives "hot swapped" very successfully"

But I never heard they recovered two of the drives? Any illumination on that would be great.
What I know of the hard drives is that the drive from Raffaele's MacBook Pro was never affected. The drives from Raffaele's other computer and Meredith's MacBook were both fried but they were able to recover the data mostely intact by swapping the logic cards with one from a good drive. Amanda's drive from her Toshiba was also fried but swapping the logic card didn't help and may have made the problem much worse to the point where the professional data recovery services couldn't help.

I think Massei makes a brief mention of Rudy's laptop. I haven't found any other details on this. It might just be a translation error.

There is also little information on Filomena's laptop. The only account I know of is from Frank's old Perugia-Shock dated 2009-12-01 (Mignini didn't like what frank was posting and had Google shut the blog down. But I managed to snag the content out of Google's own cache. It should also still be on the wayback machine if you can get Mr. Peabody to show you how to operate it.)
THOSE COMPUTERS BURNED OUT

The accusation team had been ironic about his request to shed light even on the computer accident. But maybe there was some reason to. As we know, indeed, Amanda, Raffaele and Meredith's computers were mysteriously shocked and destroyed. And, especially the last two, could contain important evidence.
Here too, some media (certainly not this website) promptly explained the event as the murderers who had done a clean-up even in their devices...
Speaking, instead, of a realistic hypothesis, the counselor can hardly accept that the Postal Police -- computer experts-- destroy hard disks as soon as they touch a laptop. The accidents must have happened somewhere else.
As we know even Filomena's laptop was burned. She collected it on November 2, still in its suitcase, but the police asked her to leave it with them. Next day they returned it: shocked. The murderers have been there, was their explanation.
__________________
Please help Meredith Kercher find true justice by signing the petition at Change.org.
Dan O. 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
Old 30th December 2012, 08:36 PM   #5478
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
Maybe, maybe not

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes View Post
It had to be deliberate. Have you ever hooked up a hard drive to a power source? It is 100 percent idiot proof with respect to damaging the drive.

But, if you spliced together a special connecting device that feeds AC wall current directly into the drive, it would fry the circuit board in an instant. That is what I suspect they did.
Charles, I still think this could have been done deliberately but not by the technician in view of a witness from the defense council. You are 100% correct that the power connector could never ever be connected mistakenly and I seriously doubt it could have done with the IDE cable either.

But Dan O's linked post discusses the damage could have been done by "hot swapping" the drives (not powering down the system to exchange disk drives). I have serious reservations about this explanation as well, but I'd say this explanation is the most plausible one I've heard so far for three drives being innocently damaged.

I need to go back and review the make and model drives and then see if the manufacturers say whether they are hot swap capable.
acbytesla 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
Old 30th December 2012, 08:52 PM   #5479
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,565
Filomena's room

Originally Posted by Grinder View Post
Nope. It wasn't your opinion I was describing. There are several posters here that believe that their innocence has been proven. I won't list them but it should be easy for you to list them yourself.
I'm not one of them, but I think that if the police had not harmed the access times and whatnot, I would probably be.

With respect to Filomena's room and Locard, the situation is very different. Rudi was not there very long, may have worn gloves, and did not commit a violent act there. Also, we don't know where the police sampled for DNA, other than the luminol positive areas and the rock. If they had sampled more, it is possible that they would have found more.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th December 2012 at 08:54 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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
Old 30th December 2012, 09:05 PM   #5480
acbytesla
Philosopher
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,100
I just realized I posted something that may be 100% wrong. I said that I've seen IDE drives successfully hot swapped. Now, thinking about it, this might just be faulty memory. I would like to change that to say I "may" have seen IDE drives hot swapped.

The reason I'm modifying my earlier statement is that 30 years in this business may have made me confused.

There are IDE, SCSI and SATA drives. SCSI drives are almost all if not all hot swap capable. This is the type of drive that has been common to servers for decades. This is the majority of my work.
Until recently IDE drives have been the standard with some exceptions what you would find in stand alone PCs and laptops.
The literature for IDE all seems to point that hot swapping IDE drives is dangerous and could damage the drives.
Today the majority of drives in laptops and stand alone PCs are SATA introduced in 2003(Serial ATA) and they are entirely hot swap capable. As for USB, there really aren't USB drives just SATA drives with an adapter that translates SATA to USB. So if you see an external USB drive for sale, if you open up that enclosure you will find it to actually be a SATA drive.
acbytesla 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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.