Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ampulla of Vater]

Results from Google translate for "witness" noun & verb (do "witnesses" get bugged?):

Translations of witness
noun

la testimonianza= testimony, witness, evidence, proof, demonstration, deposition

testimone= witness, deponent

lo spettatore= viewer, spectator, onlooker, beholder, bystander, witness

teste= witness


verb

testimoniare= witness, testify, attest, record, depose

assistere a= attend, witness

constatare= note, observe, ascertain, witness

autenticare= authenticate, certify, witness

It is better to understand completely the possible uses of a foreign word. Just adding a prefix, suffix, or supporting word can completely alter the meaning. Here is a place where you can check on this:

Online translators can only be used in conjunction with a more in depth source, as a computer cannot understand all the nuances of language.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I think about 50 of his cases are under review, as well as those of his partner. They were referred to as "Batman and Robin", and supposedly had a phenomenal track record in obtaining confessions.

Don't have the link in front of me, but I've posted it before, great series of articles in the NY Times about these two. And it looks like the cases that are being re-examined, even that's just the tip of the ice-berg.

The homeless prostitute was known as "Louie's goto witness" and had testified in four trials.

Curatolo could have been a contender, if he hadn't screwed up at the Hellman appeal trial. Very interesting by the way, that Curatolo was jailed in the middle of the case. Shows that not everyone in law enforcement was on Mignini's side.

The Florence prosecutor, Paolo Canessa, both tried Mignini's 'Narducci trail' cases in Florence, and was subject to Mignini's illegal investigations himself as a target of Mignini, and tried the case against Mignini on his charges for abuse of office! (saying, "Mignini had fallen prey to a delirium").

And of course the extraordinary thing about this is that Curatolo's conviction and imprisonment were for a crime committed several years before Kercher was murdered! The police and PM had the goods on Curatolo for Heroin dealing (including film of him dealing to a police plant!), yet appear to have sat on it inexplicably for all those years.

The more cynical and worldy-wise among us wonder (just wonder.....) if the police and prosecutors might somehow have held the threat of this prosecution (and near-certain conviction and imprisonment) over Curatolo over all those intervening years. If they did so, the inquiring mind wonders what they might possibly have demanded from Curatolo in return. Could it be, could it be, that Curatolo was cultivated as a willing police informant regarding criminal activity around his area of "habitation" (i.e. Piazza Grimana and its surroundings) in return for the police/PM holding back on the Heroin-dealing charges. And therefore, could it just possibly be that Curatolo was unusually eager to assist the police and PM in their investigation against Knox and Sollecito......?

 

[Numbers]

{1} I would observe that some are posting in this thread merely to agitate and take pot-shots - their object of amusement/vitriol/anger is not the case itself, but rather the commentators and the meta-subject of this thread. I would suggest that such behaviour is rather sad and pointless, as well as being a strong indicator of mental deficiency and anger management issues. But that's just me.......

But back to the discussion of the case itself: the posted testimony certainly strongly suggests that Lumumba's phone was indeed tapped well in advance of 5th November 2007. I would also observe that if we are still wondering whether these references were to Lumumba's phone being bugged or whether they refer to Lumumba's bar being bugged, it's almost certainly his phone that's being talked about. That's because it's a whole few orders of magnitude more difficult for the police to place a listening device in a premises such as Lumumba's bar than it is to tap his phone. To bug the bar itself, the police would have had to gain entry to the premises under some pretence, and place a listening device somewhere in a very crowded space, and all of this without Lumumba's knowledge. By contrast, tapping his phone is as simple as flicking a switch at the mobile network centre.

{2} I am now in little doubt that Lumumba's mobile phone was tapped before 5th November 2007. And the ONLY reason for police to have done so was if they suspected Lumumba of some level of personal involvement. And of course, this all chimes perfectly with Knox "buckling" and telling the police "what (they) already knew to be correct".

{Highlighting and numbers added.}
LondonJohn,

I am in full agreement with you.

1. The guilters' postings are full of misstatements and hoaxes. This applies to a) mistranslations of Italian that they foist upon the forum; b) misstatements of Italian law - the content of which typically is not stated; c) misstatements of ECHR principles, with no case-law ever being cited; d) misstatements of events (such as confusing whether Lumumba's phone or pub was bugged; e) misstatements of basic forensic principles and literature results (for example, the luminol "controversy"); f) misstatements of the evidence; and g) errors of logic. Otherwise, their postings are quite valuable.

2. Why did the police believe Lumumba was involved prior to Amanda's false statement at her coercive interrogation? Of course, the police "belief" that Lumumba was involved may actually be that they needed Lumumba as part of their frame of Amanda, the official misconduct the police may have chosen to pursue. There are several possibilities: a) in their search of Amanda's phone records, the police came upon the texts Patrick and she had exchanged on the evening of Nov. 1, 2007, and they became suspicious of them; b) they had found some evidence that a sub-Saharan African had been involved in the crime, and Lumumba was linked to Meredith through Amanda; c) they knew that a sub-Saharan African, Rudy Guede, had committed the crime and they needed a stand-in to protect Guede. Perhaps you have some thoughts on these possibilities or others?

 

[Vibio]

Mach did say that it was Lumumba's bar that was bugged, and not his phone. And he said it was bugged to catch conversations that Amanda Knox was having there.

Going over the trial testimony in Italian, as far as I can see it was Lumumba's bar that was bugged. The way the questioning unfolds it's not clear to me if his phone was bugged.

Mach says:

Buratti doesn't state that Lumumba's phone was bugged before Nov 5th.
Thus, attributing this to Buratti's words is a false claim.

And that's true.

Mach adds:

There is no information about whether his phone was bugged or not...

This is where I can't comment, because it's unclear to me in the testimony. This is something I'd like to hear Mach comment further on.

If you want to believe that the tapping of Lumumba began before the 5th, fine. But nothing of the kind is said in the testimony. All that is said is that the first authorizations for taps of those under investigation where given from the 2nd and then added as the investigation progressed.

 

[Numbers]

It is better to understand completely the possible uses of a foreign word. Just adding a prefix, suffix, or supporting word can completely alter the meaning. Here is a place where you can check on this:

Online translators can only be used in conjunction with a more in depth source, as a computer cannot understand all the nuances of language.

Yes, I agree with you. Also, it is important to understand the context in which the word is used. However, as I understand it, one or more of the Italian posters confused the verb with the noun use of the same word ("indagati" = "investigate" [v] or "suspects" [n]). The word was being used as a noun, since it had the article "gli" ("the") before it.

My joke (a weak one) was that "gli" itself has different meanings or translations, since it can be a pronoun, according to Google translate.

 

[Numbers]

Going over the trial testimony in Italian, as far as I can see it was Lumumba's bar that was bugged. The way the questioning unfolds it's not clear to me if his phone was bugged.

Mach says:



And that's true.

Mach adds:



This is where I can't comment, because it's unclear to me in the testimony. This is something I'd like to hear Mach comment further on.

If you want to believe that the tapping of Lumumba began before the 5th, fine. But nothing of the kind is said in the testimony. All that is said is that the first authorizations for taps of those under investigation where given from the 2nd and then added as the investigation progressed.

Looking at the translation of the testimony, it is clear that all the other bugging (Amanda, Raffaele, Laura, Filomena) is of phones; and they all have mobile phones. It would be surprising, then, and unlikely because of differences in technique (as pointed out by LondonJohn) , that the reference to bugging Lumumba is to anything but his phone.

ETA: Starting a bug on Lumumba's (or anyone's) mobile phone would take almost no time from the technical viewpoint; it could have started on Nov. 3, for example. By Nov. 5, the police would have already decided to arrest Amanda and Raffaele and needed some "reasonable suspicion" beyond Giobbi's behavioral (BS) analysis. But when Lumumba's phone was bugged is not stated in the snippet of testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here is the confirmation that Patrick's phone was bugged:

The answerer says quite clearly there that Patrick's phone was bugged. He answers "Yes" to that question.

The person answering was Buratti, correct? Do you remember who the questioner was?

As for what I can read this is not clear at all. Buratti had just mentioned Lumumba's bar, and might be addressing those recordings. Moreover he puts Lumumba together with Guede, while we know that Guede possessed no cell phone. But above all, Buratti never states "Lumumba cell phone was bugged before the 5th", this is speculation, possible, but certainly does not belong to Buratti's testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is where I can't comment, because it's unclear to me in the testimony. This is something I'd like to hear Mach comment further on.

If you want to believe that the tapping of Lumumba began before the 5th, fine. But nothing of the kind is said in the testimony. All that is said is that the first authorizations for taps of those under investigation where given from the 2nd and then added as the investigation progressed.

We come to the identical conclusion, since it is impossible to understand from Buratti's words what kind of recording was done about Lumumba, I mean we can read that his pub was tapped (maybe with a video device) but we can't understand anything about his phone. Buratti's speech is too elliptical.
I can see that Lumumba is mentioned together with Guede, and we know Guede's tapping was not a phone bugging.

 

[LondonJohn]

We come to the identical conclusion, since it is impossible to understand from Buratti's words what kind of recording was done about Lumumba. Buratti's speech is too elliptical.
I can see that Lumumba is mentioned together with Guede, and we know Guede's tapping was not a phone bugging.

What was Guede's tapping then? And why would the police have been tapping Guede before 5th November 2007?

Surely the police/PM didn't suspect that Guede had some involvement in this murder at this early point in the investigation........... did they??

 

[Numbers]

As for what I can read this is not clear at all. Buratti had just mentioned Lumumba's bar, and might be addressing those recordings. Moreover he puts Lumumba together with Guede, while we know that Guede possessed no cell phone. But above all, Buratti never states "Lumumba cell phone was bugged before the 5th", this is speculation, possible, but certainly does not belong to Buratti's testimony.

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Mach,

Is their concrete evidence that Guede had no registered or borrowed cell-phone?

Perhaps Buratti meant he bugged Guede's apartment, if he had indeed bugged Lumumba's bar.

ETA: And I second LondonJohn in asking when they would have bugged Guede's apartment. Also, Guede left for Germany, on or before Nov. 4, if I recall correctly.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach did say that it was Lumumba's bar that was bugged, and not his phone. (...)

This is exactly what Buratti says. Talks about the bar, doesn't talk about Lumumba's phone. Impossible to tell whether his phone was tapped.
That the did so to catch Knox's communications, is my speculation, I assume so because they certainly intended to bug Knox's conversations. That would require also record her working place. They couldn't know in advance whether she was going there over the following days.

 

[Annella]

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Mach,

Is their concrete evidence that Guede had no registered or borrowed cell-phone?

Perhaps Buratti meant he bugged Guede's apartment, if he had indeed bugged Lumumba's bar.

ETA: And I second LondonJohn in asking when they would have bugged Guede's apartment. Also, Guede left for Germany, on or before Nov. 4, if I recall correctly.

During a skype call from Germany...Guede told his friend Giacomo that he had sold his phone there for food.I will try to find the quote.

 

[acbytesla]

We come to the identical conclusion, since it is impossible to understand from Buratti's words what kind of recording was done about Lumumba, I mean we can read that his pub was tapped (maybe with a video device) but we can't understand anything about his phone. Buratti's speech is too elliptical.
I can see that Lumumba is mentioned together with Guede, and we know Guede's tapping was not a phone bugging.

I doubt that the pub was bugged since it would not be practical. (Where would you put it and how would you place it without arousing his suspicion? ) But I wouldn't be surprised all that they tapped all of his phones though which can be done through the telco.

 

[Kauffer]

Looking at the translation of the testimony, it is clear that all the other bugging (Amanda, Raffaele, Laura, Filomena) is of phones; and they all have mobile phones. It would be surprising, then, and unlikely because of differences in technique (as pointed out by LondonJohn) , that the reference to bugging Lumumba is to anything but his phone.

ETA: Starting a bug on Lumumba's (or anyone's) mobile phone would take almost no time from the technical viewpoint; it could have started on Nov. 3, for example. By Nov. 5, the police would have already decided to arrest Amanda and Raffaele and needed some "reasonable suspicion" beyond Giobbi's behavioral (BS) analysis. But when Lumumba's phone was bugged is not stated in the snippet of testimony.

Actually not quite right. The pub was certainly bugged. See here:

"ANSWER – They are pretty much, if I’m not mistaken 83 wiretaps, which are called ‘Rit’, so any wiretap corresponds to a user or to an environment, 83, 5 of them are environmental, of those, three in prison, one in the police station and the other was at Lumumba’s Pub"

But Buratti then goes on to talk about phones. So we have 78 non environmental taps, starting it would seem with Ms Knox, Mr Sollecito, Romanelli and Mezzetti and apparently taking in Lumumba and probably some of the friends between the 2nd and the 5th. Interestingly, Guede's name is mentioned! We should try to explain this!

If I remember correctly, dozens of these taps were later used on Mr Sollecito's family to discover his defence strategy.

I think I'm correct in saying that none of these taps produced any evidence of any value - the work product of a paranoid prosecutor and dumbcops who latched on to an implausible theory.

I wonder if they tapped the lawyers?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach did say that it was Lumumba's bar that was bugged, and not his phone. And he said it was bugged to catch conversations that Amanda Knox was having there.

Although from Nov. 2, 2007 (when she and Raffaele were to go on a trip, which was cancelled because of the discovery of Meredith's body) to Nov. 5, 2007 (when she went to the police station with Raffaele and was later arrested) she spent about 40 hours at the police station and probably none inside Lumumba's bar.

But for the Migninians, reality is a fabric to be draped to suit their fantasies.

What was Guede's tapping then? And why would the police have been tapping Guede before 5th November 2007?

Surely the police/PM didn't suspect that Guede had some involvement in this murder at this early point in the investigation........... did they??

I think Guede's recording might be his Skype conversation with Benedetti. But could also mean his apartment.
But one thing to say, is that Buratti and Comodi are not talking about just the early days of the investigation. The dialogue is not that orderly. At first Buratti understands he should address the early days, but then the discourse immediately spans over the extended investigation over many days and week, and Comodi starts saying no need to follow a chronological order.
It's also clear that Filomena and Laura were bugged likely from the very beginning, and all "friends" and cottage people too.

 

[Numbers]

Annella;10370846]During a skype call from Germany...Guede told his friend Giacomo that he had sold his phone there for food.I will try to find the quote.[/HILITE]

Annella,
Thanks! So Guede apparently had a mobile phone when he left for Germany. If this is correct, the questions are: what the police know about Guede, when did they know it, and when was his mobile bugged.

When did the police really know that Guede had been in the upstairs flat and his DNA and finger/palm (?) prints identified?

 

[Machiavelli]

During a skype call from Germany...Guede told his friend Giacomo that he had sold his phone there for food.I will try to find the quote.

The Micheli report found that Guede possessed no active cell phone on Nov. 1 and days around.

 

[Machiavelli]

Annella,
Thanks! So Guede apparently had a mobile phone when he left for Germany. If this is correct, the questions are: what the police know about Guede, when did they know it, and when was his mobile bugged.

(...)

He says he didn't have a SIM card. This is why Giacomo can't call him, and they have to talk on Skype from an internet café.

 

[Machiavelli]

I doubt that the pub was bugged since it would not be practical. (Where would you put it and how would you place it without arousing his suspicion? ) But I wouldn't be surprised all that they tapped all of his phones though which can be done through the telco.

Well, Buratti says they bugged his pub, and that it was an environmental bugging. Knox and Meredith worked there, I guess it was a video bugging.

 

[carbonjam72]

Annella,
Thanks! So Guede apparently had a mobile phone when he left for Germany. If this is correct, the questions are: what the police know about Guede, when did they know it, and when was his mobile bugged.

When did the police really know that Guede had been in the upstairs flat and his DNA and finger/palm (?) prints identified?

Or because they recognized his burglary method, consistent with Napoleone's testimony that he was known to police for his burglaries in Perugia.

And just 5 days earlier, the Perugian authorities had intervened to get Guede released from Milan police, put on a train back to Perugia.

They screwed up by not prosecuting Guede for his crimes in Perugia, and bringing him back from Milan.

Mignini and police own Rudy Guede's crime of killing Ms Kercher. And I maintain framing Amanda and Raf and patrick was consciously done to deflect attention away from Mignini's failures and give him a high profile victory.

There aren't enough jails in Italy to fill with the crooked police, prosecutors, judges and lawyers. Where do they think they are, New Jersey?