Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

As I said before, Massei bent over backwards to help the kids. If you carry a knife - for no matter what reason - the reason becomes a moot point if you use it take someone's life in a sadistic manner.

The prosecution identified the knife as the murder weapon, so the onus was on them to show how and why. That's all. That particular knife, they discovered later, was specifically itemised on Raff's rental agreement inventory.

There was no burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate the murder was premeditated as it was not a disputed issue by the defence. The defence position was that the pair were completely innocent of any involvement. In any case, even if there was an issue about premeditation, the fact at least two potentially lethal weapons were used on a totally defenseless innocent young woman, is never going to be seen in a favourable light.

So far I am displaying more patience than LondonJohn in replying.

This response of yours is pure nonsense, as-in it makes no sense in relation to this - Judge Massei, like it or not, wrote that as for as the alleged involvement of AK and RS in this murder was concerned, their involvement was unpremeditated.

His narrative of the crime is this: it was Rudy and Rudy alone who initiated the attack on the victim. The motive was his. Literally at the last minute, acc. to Massei, AK and RS made a completely uncharacteristic, "choice for evil". Their motive was a last second choice - for evil.

Judge Massei, then, at least has the sense to try to fit Raffaele's kitchen knife into this narrative. To do that, the knife needs to leave Raffaele's cottage for innocent reason, some reason completely unconnected to the crime.

Do you understand this so far? Probably not.

If AK and RS had left the cottage that night with that knife - for innocent reason - then the issue of the phones becomes superfluous. Turning them off, too, has nothing to do with the crime because (acc. to Massei) neither AK nor RS thought about murdering the victim until that last second, "choice for evil," about an hour in the future.

In fact, everything non-thinking-guilters say is suspicious prior to that "choice for evil", has nothing to do with the crime - acc. to Judge Massei, one of the convicting judges.

Yet you've gone on and on about the phones, using phony (pun intended) "evidence" to suggest there was something suspicious about them being turned off. You've even speculated that turning them off, doesn't really turn them off (!!!!!).

Why say dumb things like that when all the judicial guilter-narratives make it superfluous anyway? For Nenicni - who believes Rudy Guede's account of the murder (no one else does) - the idea of murder did not arise until Amanda and the victim started scrapping over rent-money.

Aside from the fact that the only person to ever have claimed that is Rudy - this also renders Nencini having to invent an innocent reason for the knife making the trip to the cottage - which Nencini did - compounding idiocy upon idiocy. And he's a judge! And he disagrees with your idiocy.

And here is you posting that now motive doesn't matter, because the real issue is that a life was taken. "(T)he reason becomes a moot point if you use it take someone's life in a sadistic manner."

You are the only person who think that. Good for you. Both Massei and Nencini thought different. At least you spare yourself compounding idiocy with another idiocy.

Why do YOU think the kitchen knife left the apartment. Note, I'm not asking you who, I'm asking why.

My feeling is that none of this makes the remotest sense to you.

 

[Vixen]

Total nonsense. It's easy to turn off any mobile device completely. And "completely" really does mean completely.

Take the iPhone as an example (since it's the most common mobile device in circulation - but the same principle applies to every single mobile device in the World). If you press and hold the button on the top of the iPhone, a slider appears on the screen, saying "slide to power off". If you use your finger to swipe that slider to the right, the device turns itself off. Completely. Totally. Utterly. Once the power off procedure has completed, there's nothing going in or out. Nothing happening within the phone. No communication with cellular networks, GPS networks or Wifi networks. Nothing. Nada. Until you press and hold the top button again to turn the phone back on.

Of course, some ignoramuses might be so stupid as to think that turning off the screen of a phone (on the iPhone, for example, this is done by briefly pressing the top button - as opposed to pressing and holding it) equates in some way to "turning it off". Obviously, the phone itself is not turned off in this instance: the screen is disabled, but the phone remains in the same level of contact with cellular, Wifi and GPS systems.






Utter nonsense. Whoever came up with this rubbish (complete with BS jargon such as "IT Pathway tracking" and "data-mining") and wrote a suitably scaremongering article about it is either a charlatan or a moron. For a start, all mobile phones are only GPS receivers. They do not transmit GPS data, and nor do they transmit in any way to the GPS system. Rather, they use the received GPS signals in order to calculate the phone's location. That location information may then be transmitted by the phone via the cellular network or a Wifi network - but only with the active permission of the user. In order for a supermarket to "track you round the store" (*chuckle*) they would need some way of obtaining the GPS location data from your phone. Which would require the user either to a) be signed up to (and logged into) the supermarket's app - the user also having actively given permission for the app to use location data from the user's phone, or b) via the user actively logging on to the supermarket's Wifi network.

I guess there's a cottage industry selling these sorts of ludicrous "big brother" stories to the credulous masses. Oh dear.





If a user turns his/her phone off (i.e. not just turning the screen off), then nothing comes in or out of the phone while it remains off. So, for example, if a user turns off his/her phone at, say, 10am, no information/data/traffic/communication can occur between that phone and any network whatsoever from that time onwards. Thus, if someone phones that user at 10.15am, the call cannot connect to the user's mobile. Likewise, if someone texts the user at 10.20am, the text canot be delivered to the user's mobile. However, suppose the user turns his/her mobile back on at 10.30am. Once the phone reconnects to the network, the network will deliver the text that was sent at 10.20am, and it will also notify the user of a missed voice call at 10.15am. But all of this communication is only taking place after the phone has been turned on again at 10.30am.

Likewise, putting a phone into flight mode will disable all of that phone's transmitters/receivers, while enabling the phone to continue operating as a stand-alone device (e.g. for playing games, or for writing texts/emails to be sent at a later time when the phone is reconnected to the network). Obviously if one doesn't want to receive texts or calls, one has two options: 1) turn the phone off and leave it off, or 2) place the phone into flight mode.

Scare stories? Are you sure?

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/16/322597862/how-retailers-use-smartphones-to-track-shoppers-in-the-store

http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/store-cell-phone-tracking-pits-consumers-stores/292628/

Datamining:

http://www.thearling.com/text/dmtechniques/dmtechniques.htm

 

[bagels]

Here's one news reference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...V-footage-night-British-student-murdered.html

I'll let you find the Italian tabloid story for yourself.

Amanda was also superfit. Played football and went rock climbing. So what. You'd expect a youth of 20, as Rudy was, to be reasonably fit. It proves nothing he played basketball.

BTW the nine foot wall at the cottage is no way 'identical to the second floor window of the lawyers'. The lawyers' office had a basement (floor 1 in Europe) and steps led up to the front door on Floor 2, with a balcony style ledge for intruders to cling on to. The said lawyers believed that had to be at least two people and they believed it was an inside job of someone looking for confidential data.

That article doesn't say anything about a male figure walking with Meredith.

And I already posted a picture of the balcony at the law office. Rudy had to climb up the metal bars below it and climb over the balcony. It's definitely comparable to the climb at the cottage, even if some might argue it's slightly easier. Here's the testimony (again) from the victim describing the climb:

"LM: However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.

PB: More or less

LM: Did you find a ladder close by?

PB: No

LM: Did you find other tools?

PB: No. I remember that we inspected with the Squadra Mobile crew. I should say that the property below us has a door, an armored mesh and a particularly able person could have climbed up. Could have, I don’t know, this is just an assumption.

LM: Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.

PB: Absolutely not. "

His theory about the motive of the burglary was just speculation, which we've seen from the Italian police is not always productive. The items stolen were a laptop and a small portable printer, both could fit in the same backpack Rudy was holding when he was caught trespassing in the nursery in Milan with a stolen knife and the lawyer's laptop. Also in the law office break-in a drink was taken from the fridge and a cell phone was stolen. At the cottage a drink was taken from the fridge and cell phones were also stolen.

 

[Vixen]

So far I am displaying more patience than LondonJohn in replying.

This response of yours is pure nonsense, as-in it makes no sense in relation to this - Judge Massei, like it or not, wrote that as for as the alleged involvement of AK and RS in this murder was concerned, their involvement was unpremeditated.

His narrative of the crime is this: it was Rudy and Rudy alone who initiated the attack on the victim. The motive was his. Literally at the last minute, acc. to Massei, AK and RS made a completely uncharacteristic, "choice for evil". Their motive was a last second choice - for evil.

Judge Massei, then, at least has the sense to try to fit Raffaele's kitchen knife into this narrative. To do that, the knife needs to leave Raffaele's cottage for innocent reason, some reason completely unconnected to the crime.

Do you understand this so far? Probably not.

If AK and RS had left the cottage that night with that knife - for innocent reason - then the issue of the phones becomes superfluous. Turning them off, too, has nothing to do with the crime because (acc. to Massei) neither AK nor RS thought about murdering the victim until that last second, "choice for evil," about an hour in the future.

In fact, everything non-thinking-guilters say is suspicious prior to that "choice for evil", has nothing to do with the crime - acc. to Judge Massei, one of the convicting judges.

Yet you've gone on and on about the phones, using phony (pun intended) "evidence" to suggest there was something suspicious about them being turned off. You've even speculated that turning them off, doesn't really turn them off (!!!!!).

Why say dumb things like that when all the judicial guilter-narratives make it superfluous anyway? For Nenicni - who believes Rudy Guede's account of the murder (no one else does) - the idea of murder did not arise until Amanda and the victim started scrapping over rent-money.

Aside from the fact that the only person to ever have claimed that is Rudy - this also renders Nencini having to invent an innocent reason for the knife making the trip to the cottage - which Nencini did - compounding idiocy upon idiocy. And he's a judge! And he disagrees with your idiocy.

And here is you posting that now motive doesn't matter, because the real issue is that a life was taken. "(T)he reason becomes a moot point if you use it take someone's life in a sadistic manner."

You are the only person who think that. Good for you. Both Massei and Nencini thought different. At least you spare yourself compounding idiocy with another idiocy.

Why do YOU think the kitchen knife left the apartment. Note, I'm not asking you who, I'm asking why.

My feeling is that none of this makes the remotest sense to you.

That's right, Massei had Rudy as the instigator of the violence. Micheli had him as an accessory. I do agree it was a choice for evil.

It really doesn't matter if the murder was planned weeks in advance, twenty minutes in advance or seconds. Just having a lethal sharp knife which is plunged into the victim's neck will never not be seen as premeditation, unless it was a scenario of self-defense, a crime passionel, or a successfully argued diminished responsibility.

 

[Vixen]

That article doesn't say anything about a male figure walking with Meredith.

And I already posted a picture of the balcony at the law office. Rudy had to climb up the metal bars below it and climb over the balcony. It's definitely comparable to the climb at the cottage, even if some might argue it's slightly easier. Here's the testimony (again) from the victim describing the climb:

"LM: However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.

PB: More or less

LM: Did you find a ladder close by?

PB: No

LM: Did you find other tools?

PB: No. I remember that we inspected with the Squadra Mobile crew. I should say that the property below us has a door, an armored mesh and a particularly able person could have climbed up. Could have, I don’t know, this is just an assumption.

LM: Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.

PB: Absolutely not. "

His theory about the motive of the burglary was just speculation, which we've seen from the Italian police is not always productive. The items stolen were a laptop and a small portable printer, both could fit in the same backpack Rudy was holding when he was caught trespassing in the nursery in Milan with a stolen knife and the lawyer's laptop. Also in the law office break-in a drink was taken from the fridge and a cell phone was stolen. At the cottage a drink was taken from the fridge and cell phones were also stolen.

If you search previous threads, I did cite the Italian newspaper article.

It's false logic, above. You might just as well argue Amanda staged a burglary once, therefore she must had done it again.

A court of law expects its barristers to understand causal relationships. In the UK a jury is barred from knowing defendants' previous criminal convictions, because it does not follow that just because a defendant might have committed a similar crime before, they must ipso facto guilty of the current crime.

ON EST AVEC VOUS, PARIS.

 

[LondonJohn]

Scare stories? Are you sure?

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/16/322597862/how-retailers-use-smartphones-to-track-shoppers-in-the-store

http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/store-cell-phone-tracking-pits-consumers-stores/292628/

Datamining:

http://www.thearling.com/text/dmtechniques/dmtechniques.htm

Holy moly!

You've completely got the wrong end of those articles! (I'm not especially surprised though).

The very most that instore Wifi can do without the user's consent is know that a certain anonymous individual has entered its store and moved around in a certain way. It has no means (or power) to identify that individual, far less does it have any means (or power) to communicate with that individual, or use that individual's personal information, or access that individual's mobile device.

Jeez, you might as well get equally stupidly paranoid about security cameras in stores, or security guards in stores. Both of those things have exactly the same ability to watch and record the movements of anonymous individuals around the store. It's just that Wifi pinging can do it more cheaply and in a more automated fashion. But I will reiterate that nobody is at any risk whatsoever of being identified under such a technique, far less having any personal details accessed. A store has no conceivable legal way to find out your identity from your MAC address. And 24 hours a day you're broadcasting your MAC address if you have your phone's Wifi switched on.

The second link summarises the position accurately (my bolding):

New technologies now allow retailers to use cell phone signals to track shoppers as they move around the store -- including the aisles where they spend the most time, if they make a purchase, and how often they return to the store. Some technologies, such as iBeacon, require that a customer download a mobile app, turn on Bluetooth, accept location services and opt in so they can be tracked and receive in-store notifications.

Other approaches, pioneered by analytics startups such as Nomi and Euclid, use sensors to pick up signals emitted from any wifi-enabled cell phone. This means that any consumer who walks into a store (or even walks by a store) with their cell phone turned on may be automatically tracked -- without knowledge or explicit consent. (Nomi and Euclid both say that they collect non-identifiable data and offer opt-out agreements).


In other words, the only time a user risks having his/her identity divulged to the store and to receive communications from the store is if that user actively chooses to download and activate an app, actively allows that app to use location services, and actively opts in to tracking. The other type of "dumb" MAC tracking is of no identity/danger whatsoever to a user - and is tantamount to the CCTV guys watching you walk around the store and writing down which isles you visit (which they'd be totally allowed to do in any case).

This is all stupid scaremongering. Simply put: mobile users cannot put their identities, data or communications at risk unless either a) they actively choose to do so, via a variety of opt-ins, or b) they are tricked into allowing other systems to access their device (e.g. phishing). And, interestingly, the people who get most scared and sucked in by this sort of paranoid nonsense are often - paradoxically - the very people who happily respond to unsolicited emails/texts from their "bank", asking them to respond with all their banking details to "confirm their identities"


And to bring this back to the matter of Knox and Sollecito, the only thing that's actually in evidence is that Knox stated that she turned off her phone after being given the night off by Lumumba, and that Sollecito's phone was not connected to the network from some time in the mid-evening of the 1st until around 6am on the 2nd (since his father's text was only delivered to the handset at 6am on the 2nd).


ETA: BTW, I am extremely knowledgeable about data mining: what it is, how/where it's done, and how/why it's used. My point was that the buzz term "data mining" was a bogus insertion into the discussion, since dumb MAC tracking via Wifi pings is not "data mining" under any recognised definition (at least, it's not "data mining" any more than the store placing a person with a clipboard at the entrance counting the number of people who enter the store )

ETA2: Damn! I forgot to include a bogus, mawkish and irrelevant reference to events in Paris this evening! Tant pis!

 

[bagels]

If you search previous threads, I did cite the Italian newspaper article.

It's false logic, above. You might just as well argue Amanda staged a burglary once, therefore she must had done it again.

A court of law expects its barristers to understand causal relationships. In the UK a jury is barred from knowing defendants' previous criminal convictions, because it does not follow that just because a defendant might have committed a similar crime before, they must ipso facto guilty of the current crime.

ON EST AVEC VOUS, PARIS.

But we're not holding a legal trial. We're searching for historical truth, and therefore we can consider all the information. It was repeatedly suggested by the PGP that the break-in and its associated climb at the cottage were incredibly unlikely. IMO the fact that on the night the apparent unlikely break-in happened, the cottage was visited by a man connected to unlikely high climbing break-ins, strikes me, and I think any reasonable person, as notable.

If Amanda previously stabbed a female friend certainly that would be a relevant piece of information.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's right, Massei had Rudy as the instigator of the violence. Micheli had him as an accessory. I do agree it was a choice for evil.

It really doesn't matter if the murder was planned weeks in advance, twenty minutes in advance or seconds. Just having a lethal sharp knife which is plunged into the victim's neck will never not be seen as premeditation, unless it was a scenario of self-defense, a crime passionel, or a successfully argued diminished responsibility.

You are missing the point.

*WHY** did AK and RS leave the apartment with that knife? If you accept Massei's narrative, they left with it for reasons unrelated to any crime.

Therefore, whenever it is you assign premeditation, it was not when they left.

Therefore, why bother at all trying to make a big deal about the phones and when they were turned off?

Do you get any of this?

 

[LondonJohn]

You are missing the point.

*WHY** did AK and RS leave the apartment with that knife? If you accept Massei's narrative, they left with it for reasons unrelated to any crime.

Therefore, whenever it is you assign premeditation, it was not when they left.

Therefore, why bother at all trying to make a big deal about the phones and when they were turned off?

Do you get any of this?

I think psychologists call it "selective blindness" and "confirmation bias": when one looks for - and accept - the evidence which can be used to support one's a priori beliefs, while overlooking, disregarding or minimising any evidence which tends to contradict those beliefs.

It's a classic mistake of poor thinking.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think psychologists call it "selective blindness" and "confirmation bias": when one looks for - and accept - the evidence which can be used to support one's a priori beliefs, while overlooking, disregarding or minimising any evidence which tends to contradict those beliefs.

It's a classic mistake of poor thinking.

Two things:

1) It's completely baffling. Yet it's characteristic of guilter thinking.

2) How did you get 1,300 posts ahead of me!​

My favourite is when guilters argue that Amanda displayed obvious gulty-behaviour from the start, as per her hip-swivel, crying at the wrong times and eating a pizza. Also buying underwear and doing yoga in the police station - classic murderer behaviour.

Yet when it comes to the interrogation, they drop all those suspicions saying that Amanda caught them all by surprise by naming Lumumba, and that at the time she was not a suspect.

Indeed, that the thesis of Follain's book. She'd displayed all sorts of suspicious behaviour which the police noted - until they had to forget it so as to be taken by surprise by someone only informed of the facts.

Hoots!

 

[Grinder]

What do you mean, 'oops'? They refer to 'inactive' phones. Say you rang me and a curt voice said this person has her phone switched off. That can mean any number of things as I pointed out already. However, police were able to pinpoint Amanda switched off her phone circa 8:42 and Raff's at 8:50 (=or rather, became 'inactive'). Precise timing, eh?

You said they switched off their phones and that there were phone records which isn't true. You were wrong. The PGP are wrong.

Some of your claims: Whatever. So how do explain how police knew the phones were switched off, if in 2007, as you claim, there was no GPS unless you were very very very rich?

I am now poised in listening mode for anyone to explain to me why would-be criminals systemically turn off their phone ahead of the crime?

My phone has been inactive since my last package arrived and the doorman rang me up, so what?

Please explain how their phones' inactivity was narrowed to the precise timing if THERE WERE NO RECORDS OF THE PHONES BEING SWITCHED OFF?

They only know the approximate times because of what the kids told them.

 

[sept79]

.
.
I am now poised in listening mode for anyone to explain to me why would-be criminals systemically turn off their phone ahead of the crime?
.
.

Especially since these two 'criminals' were so adept and well rehearsed such that their remarkable cleanup distinguished between their DNA and/or blood and Guede's.

 

[Vixen]

You are missing the point.

*WHY** did AK and RS leave the apartment with that knife? If you accept Massei's narrative, they left with it for reasons unrelated to any crime.

Therefore, whenever it is you assign premeditation, it was not when they left.

Therefore, why bother at all trying to make a big deal about the phones and when they were turned off?

Do you get any of this?

It has always been my view the crime was premeditated. There is no edict to say I have to agree with Massei or Nencini.

Massei gave them the maximum sentence (30 years) less five years in mitigation for the perps' youth. Amanda got more for maliciously blaming someone else.

You can't ask me to second guess somebody else's theory. However, from his sentencing, Massei clearly didn't think how the knife got to the scene was relevant, other than to explain its presence.

Jodi Arias, like Amanda and Raff, turned off her phone prior to killing her victim, in a calculated act IMV. Bagels claims Amanda is not capable of premeditation, even if she did it. In fact, she is a master plotter. She plotted to lay as many guys as possible whilst in Italy, plotted to frame her boss, plotted to blame the entire crime on Rudy, her book is one big plot to pervert the course of justice, as is Raff's. Two calculating, plotting, sociopathic killers IMV both with pronounced anti-social behaviour disorders that leads them into scandal and infamy.

 

[Vixen]

But we're not holding a legal trial. We're searching for historical truth, and therefore we can consider all the information. It was repeatedly suggested by the PGP that the break-in and its associated climb at the cottage were incredibly unlikely. IMO the fact that on the night the apparent unlikely break-in happened, the cottage was visited by a man connected to unlikely high climbing break-ins, strikes me, and I think any reasonable person, as notable.

If Amanda previously stabbed a female friend certainly that would be a relevant piece of information.

It escapes you Rudy was never convicted of anything other than handling stolen goods, yet you keep falsely insisting it is an established fact Rudy was Spiderman. Presumably you got that from Burleigh, as not even buffoons Bruno & Marasca put forward your jaundiced view.

ETA If Rudy has an MO of nicking laptops and gold jewellery, how come he left Filomena's and Amanda's laptops alone, together with Filomena's gold jewellery and €300- of Amanda's rent money?

 

[Vixen]

Especially since these two 'criminals' were so adept and well rehearsed such that their remarkable cleanup distinguished between their DNA and/or blood and Guede's.

Quite. It's no accident Amanda carefully preserved Rudy's crap.

 

[Vixen]

Holy moly!

You've completely got the wrong end of those articles! (I'm not especially surprised though).

The very most that instore Wifi can do without the user's consent is know that a certain anonymous individual has entered its store and moved around in a certain way. It has no means (or power) to identify that individual, far less does it have any means (or power) to communicate with that individual, or use that individual's personal information, or access that individual's mobile device.

Jeez, you might as well get equally stupidly paranoid about security cameras in stores, or security guards in stores. Both of those things have exactly the same ability to watch and record the movements of anonymous individuals around the store. It's just that Wifi pinging can do it more cheaply and in a more automated fashion. But I will reiterate that nobody is at any risk whatsoever of being identified under such a technique, far less having any personal details accessed. A store has no conceivable legal way to find out your identity from your MAC address. And 24 hours a day you're broadcasting your MAC address if you have your phone's Wifi switched on.

The second link summarises the position accurately (my bolding):

New technologies now allow retailers to use cell phone signals to track shoppers as they move around the store -- including the aisles where they spend the most time, if they make a purchase, and how often they return to the store. Some technologies, such as iBeacon, require that a customer download a mobile app, turn on Bluetooth, accept location services and opt in so they can be tracked and receive in-store notifications.

Other approaches, pioneered by analytics startups such as Nomi and Euclid, use sensors to pick up signals emitted from any wifi-enabled cell phone. This means that any consumer who walks into a store (or even walks by a store) with their cell phone turned on may be automatically tracked -- without knowledge or explicit consent. (Nomi and Euclid both say that they collect non-identifiable data and offer opt-out agreements).


In other words, the only time a user risks having his/her identity divulged to the store and to receive communications from the store is if that user actively chooses to download and activate an app, actively allows that app to use location services, and actively opts in to tracking. The other type of "dumb" MAC tracking is of no identity/danger whatsoever to a user - and is tantamount to the CCTV guys watching you walk around the store and writing down which isles you visit (which they'd be totally allowed to do in any case).

This is all stupid scaremongering. Simply put: mobile users cannot put their identities, data or communications at risk unless either a) they actively choose to do so, via a variety of opt-ins, or b) they are tricked into allowing other systems to access their device (e.g. phishing). And, interestingly, the people who get most scared and sucked in by this sort of paranoid nonsense are often - paradoxically - the very people who happily respond to unsolicited emails/texts from their "bank", asking them to respond with all their banking details to "confirm their identities"


And to bring this back to the matter of Knox and Sollecito, the only thing that's actually in evidence is that Knox stated that she turned off her phone after being given the night off by Lumumba, and that Sollecito's phone was not connected to the network from some time in the mid-evening of the 1st until around 6am on the 2nd (since his father's text was only delivered to the handset at 6am on the 2nd).


ETA: BTW, I am extremely knowledgeable about data mining: what it is, how/where it's done, and how/why it's used. My point was that the buzz term "data mining" was a bogus insertion into the discussion, since dumb MAC tracking via Wifi pings is not "data mining" under any recognised definition (at least, it's not "data mining" any more than the store placing a person with a clipboard at the entrance counting the number of people who enter the store )

ETA2: Damn! I forgot to include a bogus, mawkish and irrelevant reference to events in Paris this evening! Tant pis!

Your "last word" goes on a long time.

 

[Vixen]

You said they switched off their phones and that there were phone records which isn't true. You were wrong. The PGP are wrong.

Some of your claims: Whatever. So how do explain how police knew the phones were switched off, if in 2007, as you claim, there was no GPS unless you were very very very rich?

I am now poised in listening mode for anyone to explain to me why would-be criminals systemically turn off their phone ahead of the crime?

My phone has been inactive since my last package arrived and the doorman rang me up, so what?

Please explain how their phones' inactivity was narrowed to the precise timing if THERE WERE NO RECORDS OF THE PHONES BEING SWITCHED OFF?

They only know the approximate times because of what the kids told them.

Senior police officer Marco Chiacerelli (sp???!) testified under oath the two phones became inactive at the said times.

The kids did not admit to anything. Both of them lied through their teeth about it, as you saw from Raff's signed police statement. Amanda gave three different tales.

 

[Grinder]

Senior police officer Marco Chiacerelli (sp???!) testified under oath the two phones became inactive at the said times.

The kids did not admit to anything. Both of them lied through their teeth about it, as you saw from Raff's signed police statement. Amanda gave three different tales.

You have maintained that they had records of the phones being turned off and on. I pointed out that your proof of this false assertion (MC) didn't say that in the testimony you posted. Now you use the word inactive. No one called Amanda during the time period AFAIK so what does inactive prove? Nothing even about the phones much less about the murder.

Amanda told them she had turned her phone off not to be disturbed and by so doing save battery.

As you've been told multiple times the phones would have been left on and at Raf's if they premeditated the attack. If they had done so and the text from dad showed the phone at Raf's you'd point to that as proof since in the middle of sex he should have read the text or taken a call.

Do you have evidence that any knife has been found in the world with no blood but the DNA of the victim? Since the knife is actually important, why not show it could be valid instead of this silly the phones were turned off inactive meme.

 

[Vixen]

You have maintained that they had records of the phones being turned off and on. I pointed out that your proof of this false assertion (MC) didn't say that in the testimony you posted. Now you use the word inactive. No one called Amanda during the time period AFAIK so what does inactive prove? Nothing even about the phones much less about the murder.

Amanda told them she had turned her phone off not to be disturbed and by so doing save battery.

As you've been told multiple times the phones would have been left on and at Raf's if they premeditated the attack. If they had done so and the text from dad showed the phone at Raf's you'd point to that as proof since in the middle of sex he should have read the text or taken a call.

Do you have evidence that any knife has been found in the world with no blood but the DNA of the victim? Since the knife is actually important, why not show it could be valid instead of this silly the phones were turned off inactive meme.

After telling detectives his initial statement that Amanda was with him all evening was "a bucket of ****" he told because Amanda, "asked me to lie for her", Raff affirmed - *and has never since retracted (since 2007)* - he was not willing to vouch for Amanda being there between 8:45pm and 1:00am.

Both of them switching their phone off at 8:45-ish, as soon as Popovic had gone, and Amanda and Raf lying about the evening meal, one minute, it's before 8:42pm, after which Amanda writes, she was massaging Raff's back whilst he washed up, when suddenly his pipe burst, the next, the meal was instead 11:00pm when she claimed to see blood on his hand.

It points to premeditation, the act of simultaneously switching off their phones, and suspicious their lying about it later.

 

[Vixen]

Why Bruno-Marasca Luminol Analysis is Defective

From lawyer, James Raper on TMJK, analysing the report:

So here are other reasons to support Nencini‘s contextualising.

1. If the luminol fluorescence was due to non-haematic substances such as bleach, fruit juice etc ( due to the fact that the cottage was lived in) then it is remarkable indeed, since the investigators could not see what they were looking for, and therefore where to spray, and therefore sprayed everywhere in the corridor and elsewhere (but not in Meredith’s room, it seems), that fluorescent patches did not appear in smears all over the place but instead were limited to and grouped in specific places, and in a specific way, that is, in the shape of footprints.

2. There were 4 obvious bare footprints located by the luminol and 3 of these were of a shape and size attributable to a woman - compatible with Knox in fact. One was in Knox’s bedroom, the other two in the corridor, that is, between Knox‘s room and Meredith‘s room. The two in the corridor contained Meredith’s DNA. It is not possible to obtain DNA from bleach or fruit juice etc.

3. The 4th was compatible with Sollecito and the bloody print on the bathmat in the small bathroom.

4. The luminol hits took place on the 18th December whereas the murder occurred on the 1st Nov. The hypochlorite in bleach responsible for luminol emitting light evaporates naturally after just a few days and therefore bleach as a source for the fluorescence can be excluded.

5. If the fluorescence was due to the peradoxise in fruit juice or other vegetable matter then there should at least be some rational explanation as to why Knox had such substances on the sole of her foot, and why does the peradoxise not show up where she had not stepped in it? What would be the source for these substances and how would they have got there? No explanation has ever been advanced.

6. As already mentioned the TMB tests on the luminol hits do not categorically exclude blood. Indeed TMB applied after luminol is less likely to bring up a positive result because the chemical reaction for both applications is the same, and luminol is far more sensitive than TMB. That was made clear by, amongst others, Dr Gino who was in fact an expert witness for the defence.

All in all, given the considerable quantity of blood in Meredith’s room, and the fact that it had certainly been tracked outside of her room, visually obvious in the small bathroom, Nencini’s “contextualizing” is not at all illogical. It is plain common sense.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Brilliant summing up.