Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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.

I do recall a general assumption that Guede did not have an active phone and hadn't for some time, but the reference to Guede being tapped meaning the Skype call doesn't ring true. It could be the cops tried to tap his last known number. What's interesting is if they tapped him or tried to tap him, when was that? You would have expected Buratti to say "No" when Commodi puts Guede's name to him if they didn't do something. But the important question is when not what, I think.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Meredith didn't work there.

 

[Desert Fox]

I do recall a general assumption that Guede did not have an active phone and hadn't for some time, but the reference to Guede being tapped meaning the Skype call doesn't ring true. It could be the cops tried to tap his last known number. What's interesting is if they tapped him or tried to tap him, when was that? You would have expected Buratti to say "No" when Commodi puts Guede's name to him if they didn't do something. But the important question is when not what, I think.

One item I would love to know was why Giacomo was suspicious of his friend? He seems to have disappeared after this. . . . .

 

[Numbers]

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.

Mach,

To be fair, Vibio needs to chime in here with a posting that "Migninians are liars".

Possibly both Lumumba's pub and his mobile phone were bugged.

 

[LondonJohn]

I do recall a general assumption that Guede did not have an active phone and hadn't for some time, but the reference to Guede being tapped meaning the Skype call doesn't ring true. It could be the cops tried to tap his last known number. What's interesting is if they tapped him or tried to tap him, when was that? You would have expected Buratti to say "No" when Commodi puts Guede's name to him if they didn't do something. But the important question is when not what, I think.

Quite. When was Guede tapped? If it was at any time prior the first of a) his prints being matched to the bloody hand print on the pillow case or b) his friend going to the police to inform them of his (the friend's) suspicions of Guede, then that in and of itself would add a considerable further layer of intrigue.

As a slight aside, I find it rather hard to believe that a person such as Guede had no cell phone at the time of the murder. Young people - especially in Italy - were near-ubiquitous owners/users of mobile phones, even back in 2007. And Guede strikes me as exactly the sort of person to whom the ownership and use of a mobile would be very important (to the point of being a necessity). I can be pretty certain that a) there was a thriving black market in Perugia for dodgy/stolen mobile handsets and SIMs, and b) Guede knew very well how to tap into that market.

 

[Annella]

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.

Giacomo asked him to use his phone to keep in touch ( or a similar request) and Guede stated he had sold phone for food. Now why would Giacomo talk to Guede about a phone unless he knew he possessed one?
I have learnt not to take what is stated by a Judge in any Italian Court as gospel. Sad state of affairs huh Mach?

I will get the link btw....

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, it could be as the result of blackmail. It could also be that the blackmail or intimidation was that he could be arrested again for some reason or no reason and again subjected to mistreatment. Plus, his business could be once more closed; a "reason" could always be found. Why did the police keep his bar closed even after he was released following the Swiss professor providing him an alibi and Guede's surrender and arrest? It was a message to shut up about them mistreating him, IMO. No other blackmail necessarily required.

ETA: And the police would want to bug his phone to know that he was no longer talking to the press or other authorities about his mistreatment. The police in Italy do have their honor, and they defend that honor no matter what they need to do.

I acknowledged that there are other possible explanations, but William of Ockham came to me in a dream and said: 'You dumbass, this is Italy! It's their national pastime! Besides that you've a prosecutor convicted (in part) for his illegal wiretaps, you know he blackmailed Douglas Preston out of Italy by insisting comments made while wiretapped were 'code' for criminal acts, you know he had a bug up just about everyone's butt in this case....so Patrick probably had some taxes he didn't pay or some cute foreign barmaid he was boning he didn't want his wife to know about and that's the easiest explanation for why he became the number one fan of the police who abused him and the number one detractor of Amanda Knox.'

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

And this is another illustration of just how the deep tentacles of the fascist police state still infect Italy's systems of government. It's frankly outrageous that the police could obtain this number of taps in a case of this nature. And that's not to mention the massive inevitable cost of monitoring all these taps (they are useless unless a human is actually listening to their content) and transcribing anything that's remotely "interesting".

Of course, many pieces and reports have been written about Italy's obscene and anti-libertarian use of police wiretaps, and the ludicrous ease with which these taps can be "authorised" and set up. It's a dreadful state of affairs, and not one that should be present in a country that calls itself a modern liberalised democracy.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Considering that Patrick was Amanda's boss, he'd just met Meredith and they had a wiretap up the kazoo of just about everyone and Buratti specifically mentions Patrick, why wouldn't you assume his phone was tapped if you have to admit his bar was probably tapped too? As has been pointed out it's much easier to tap a cell than a barroom...

 

[Welshman]

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......?

If Curalto was paid to say he had seen Amanda and Raffaele, this was the police manufacturing evidence. If the police had a mountain of solid evidence and a slam dunk case, why did the prosecution have to resort manufacturing evidence against Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[Machiavelli]

I do recall a general assumption that Guede did not have an active phone and hadn't for some time, but the reference to Guede being tapped meaning the Skype call doesn't ring true. It could be the cops tried to tap his last known number. What's interesting is if they tapped him or tried to tap him, when was that? You would have expected Buratti to say "No" when Commodi puts Guede's name to him if they didn't do something. But the important question is when not what, I think.

The Milan police knew Guede didn't have a cell phone, since they had seized the only one he was carrying. But the point is that Comodi and Buratti make clear that recordings of Guede do exist. I don't see why they couldn't be the Skype calls, since we know they were transcribed.
One thing you can't do is to replace his words so that a recordings becomes an "attempt", as if they just tried to make a recording but made none. Clearly Buratti says they have 83 recordings of various kinds, some environmental but most of them electronic interceptions, and the whole number includes Guede. But we know he had no phone.

 

[carbonjam72]

Quite. When was Guede tapped? If it was at any time prior the first of a) his prints being matched to the bloody hand print on the pillow case or b) his friend going to the police to inform them of his (the friend's) suspicions of Guede, then that in and of itself would add a considerable further layer of intrigue.

As a slight aside, I find it rather hard to believe that a person such as Guede had no cell phone at the time of the murder. Young people - especially in Italy - were near-ubiquitous owners/users of mobile phones, even back in 2007. And Guede strikes me as exactly the sort of person to whom the ownership and use of a mobile would be very important (to the point of being a necessity). I can be pretty certain that a) there was a thriving black market in Perugia for dodgy/stolen mobile handsets and SIMs, and b) Guede knew very well how to tap into that market.

Do you believe that Guede came to mind of Monica Napoleone when she was first on the scene to investigate the crime scene, on Nov 2, 2007?

Napoleone testified the police were familiar with Rudy from his earlier burglaries in Perugia. Do you have an opinion on this question?

Nencini states for some reason that polcie would have recognized Rudy's MO for breaking and entry.

Do you have a position on this issue?

 

[Machiavelli]

Considering that Patrick was Amanda's boss, he'd just met Meredith and they had a wiretap up the kazoo of just about everyone and Buratti specifically mentions Patrick, why wouldn't you assume his phone was tapped if you have to admit his bar was probably tapped too? As has been pointed out it's much easier to tap a cell than a barroom...

I simply don't assume anything. Facts are Buratti doesn't state so.
Buratti doesn't state Lumumba's phone was tapped before the 5th. Not that that would have any implication; that wouldn't imply the police had a special interest for Lumumba (they would just bug his number insofar as he is among the most recent Knox's phone contacts). But in fact, Buratti just doesn't state he was bugged before the 5th at all, so there is no evidence of that.

 

[Annella]

The Milan police knew Guede didn't have a cell phone, since they had seized the only one he was carrying. But the point is that Comodi and Buratti make clear that recordings of Guede do exist. I don't see why they couldn't be the Skype calls, since we know they were transcribed.
One thing you can't do is to replace his words so that a recordings becomes an "attempt", as if they just tried to make a recording but made none. Clearly Buratti says they have 83 recordings of various kinds, some environmental but most of them electronic interceptions, and the whole number includes Guede. But we know he had no phone.

We dont know Guede had no phone. Dont forget that Nencini called him a shrewd experienced thief, and for sure he could lay his hands on an important item such as that, anytime he wanted to. The Spanish guy who wrote of his friends seeing Guede's apartment full of computers ( yet no internet connection) said that Guede took phone numbers of people but would not give his. Now that could be for two reasons. 1/ Yes, he had no phone so would make calls from a public telephone if he needed to or 2/ he did have phone but wanted nobody knowing the number. I can imagine an awful lot of reasons for that.

 

[Machiavelli]

And this is another illustration of just how the deep tentacles of the fascist police state still infect Italy's systems of government. It's frankly outrageous that the police could obtain this number of taps in a case of this nature. And that's not to mention the massive inevitable cost of monitoring all these taps (they are useless unless a human is actually listening to their content) and transcribing anything that's remotely "interesting".

Of course, many pieces and reports have been written about Italy's obscene and anti-libertarian use of police wiretaps, and the ludicrous ease with which these taps can be "authorised" and set up. It's a dreadful state of affairs, and not one that should be present in a country that calls itself a modern liberalised democracy.

These taps were ordered by an Investigating Judge, not by the police. And the job was wisely done, since the phone tapping did indeed unveil elements of a conspiracy, and subsequently those family members also had criminal charges.
Sollecito in his book claims to have a "mole" in the Perugian prosecution office and claims connections to Carabinieri and Police. His sister arranged contacts with politicians, MPs from two political parties. All those seeking connections are illicit, his daughter lost her job also as a consequence of this behavior.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, it could be as the result of blackmail. It could also be that the blackmail or intimidation was that he could be arrested again for some reason or no reason and again subjected to mistreatment. Plus, his business could be once more closed; a "reason" could always be found. Why did the police keep his bar closed even after he was released following the Swiss professor providing him an alibi and Guede's surrender and arrest? It was a message to shut up about them mistreating him, IMO. No other blackmail necessarily required.

ETA: And the police would want to bug his phone to know that he was no longer talking to the press or other authorities about his mistreatment. The police in Italy do have their honor, and they defend that honor no matter what they need to do.

I acknowledged that there are other possible explanations, but William of Ockham came to me in a dream and said: 'You dumbass, this is Italy! It's their national pastime! Besides that you've a prosecutor convicted (in part) for his illegal wiretaps, you know he blackmailed Douglas Preston out of Italy by insisting comments made while wiretapped were 'code' for criminal acts, you know he had a bug up just about everyone's butt in this case....so Patrick probably had some taxes he didn't pay or some cute foreign barmaid he was boning he didn't want his wife to know about and that's the easiest explanation for why he became the number one fan of the police who abused him and the number one detractor of Amanda Knox.'

Both explanations could be true. We won't be able to find out precisely, and the "system is overdetermined" in an engineering sense. Once the police had the blackmail evidence, they could stop the bugging. I believe that Patrick's pub remained closed after he was released from jail for a reason, and that it was to teach him to shut up about those "false" claims he was making against the police. Just to make sure, the police blackmailed him about something else, why not - it didn't really cost them any more. But I think they continued bugging Patrick - and I don't know if or when they stopped - in order to maintain control of (that is, stop) his potential human rights claims. I don't think it mattered to the police whether or not he left Italy; the important issue was the statute of limitations for police abuse. Again, it's difficult to be sure what his motivations are/were in his suit and comments against Amanda; it could be that he genuinely came to believe she was the source of his problems with the police, or he may have been responding to the "suggestions" of the police, or both.

 

[Machiavelli]

Giacomo asked him to use his phone to keep in touch ( or a similar request) and Guede stated he had sold phone for food. Now why would Giacomo talk to Guede about a phone unless he knew he possessed one?
I have learnt not to take what is stated by a Judge in any Italian Court as gospel. Sad state of affairs huh Mach?

I will get the link btw....

Guede says he didn't have any card anyway.
Judges had found out that he had no cell phone.
You are free to prove he had a phone and the police knew of it, if you believe so, the burden is on you.

 

[Numbers]

These taps were ordered by an Investigating Judge, not by the police. And the job was wisely done, since the phone tapping did indeed unveil elements of a conspiracy, and subsequently those family members also had criminal charges.
Sollecito in his book claims to have a "mole" in the Perugian prosecution office and claims connections to Carabinieri and Police. His sister arranged contacts with politicians, MPs from two political parties. All those seeking connections are illicit, his daughter lost her job also as a consequence of this behavior.

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Mach,
How does the Investigating Judge decide who to order tapped? Isn't it based on information supplied by the police?

 

[Machiavelli]

Both explanations could be true. We won't be able to find out precisely, and the "system is overdetermined" in an engineering sense. Once the police had the blackmail evidence, they could stop the bugging. I believe that Patrick's pub remained closed after he was released from jail for a reason, and that it was to teach him to shut up about those "false" claims he was making against the police. Just to make sure, the police blackmailed him about something else, why not - it didn't really cost them any more. But I think they continued bugging Patrick - and I don't know if or when they stopped - in order to maintain control of (that is, stop) his potential human rights claims. I don't think it mattered to the police whether or not he left Italy; the important issue was the statute of limitations for police abuse. Again, it's difficult to be sure what his motivations are/were in his suit and comments against Amanda; it could be that he genuinely came to believe she was the source of his problems with the police, or he may have been responding to the "suggestions" of the police, or both.

You may aim your projections on someone about whom there is actual evidence of lying and committing crimes, such ad Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito, rather than on an innocent citizen such ad Patrick Lumumba.

 

[Machiavelli]

{Highlighting added to quote.}
Mach,
How does the Investigating Judge decide who to order tapped? Isn't it based on information supplied by the police?

Supplied by the prosecution office.