Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
Can you declare Roger Lesveque's interest in admitting he was the mustached soccer player?

Truly Vixen, before attacking the poster you should at least get facts straight. How do you explain the Seattle Sounder scarf?

What's your vested interest in misrepresenting basic facts?
Click to expand...

Well side-stepped.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
I'm covering for the perps? That's a laugh.

You said the police pinpointed exact times when the phones were turned off. Then when it was definitively shown that there were no phone records available showing when the phones were turned off you changed the word to inactive.

From somewhere, most likely a PG site, you came up with two exact/circa times of 8:42 and 8:50 but the only mention of either time by one of your beloved courts that heard the evidence is that is when Papa called.

But you are correct that I don't think that their phones lack of activity means anything. The idea that if a call went unanswered it would be evidence against them is ridiculous. Not answering would make their alibi even more solid and if the location could be determined even better.
Click to expand...


Actually I supplied you with the excerpt transcript of Marco C's police testimony wherein he swore under oath to the court, and as an objective professional detective for the police, Raff made inactive his phone at 8:50pm.

Evening, all!
 
Bill Williams said:
What is completely tiresome is the use of the word "vested". My own "vested" interest in this case is as you say.

There are some who wish to make strawman arguments about assumptions they make - assumptions built on assumptions - about PR-frims, and people in the employ of middle-level firms like Gogerty-Marriott, implying that anyone, anywhere who posts facts related to innocence....

..... well they must somehow have their faculties eroded, or at least compromised.

My view? People go down this "vested" interest them because they've run out of arguments. Indeed, this last time there's a poster here who wants to vilify a recently released, wrongfully imprisoned person for attending.... what was it?

Oh yes, a Hallowe'en party.

The claim was that she dressed as a cat burglar.... the claim being she was thumbing her nose at the victim by dressing that way on the anniversary of the victim's death.

What the "vested interest" in posting out, as Grinder did, that it was as a soccer player, Roger Levesque, and that Hallowe'en really is not an anniversary of anything in relation to any of this?

Oh, but, "I am sure Amanda will be very grateful your explaining away her cat burglar gear. Definitely cat whiskers. How ingenious of you to convert it into = beard." That's quite the ad hominem, Vixen, too bad none of it is true. It's what qualifies it also as a strawman.

Which is what happens when the arguer has nothing else. Impugn a motive to the other side.

Let me impugn a motive to you: what is your vested interest in being this way?
Click to expand...


"Bill", that halloween outfit was years ago. No-one cares a darn about it. Who cares? Not me, squire.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, but not convicted felon, Amanda, jailed for a very serious crime, all appeals dismissed.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you write that. There are plenty of cases worldwide where all appeals have been dismissed, yet the prisoner is categorically innocent. These are some of the people Amanda is planning to work for, though it is hard work. Have you any knowledge of these cases she might be looking at? I would be surprised if Amanda Knox is unaware of the prisoner Chris Tapp.
 
Vixen said:
Actually I supplied you with the excerpt transcript of Marco C's police testimony wherein he swore under oath to the court, and as an objective professional detective for the police, Raff made inactive his phone at 8:50pm.

Evening, all!
Click to expand...

Well not exactly. His testimony is mostly gibberish at least by the translation.

MaCh:
It emerged that normally Sollecito kept his cellphones, and also Amanda Knox, they kept their cellphones on until a late hour, evening, [sic] there is no telephone traffic from 20:40 hours. A thing of this …
MC:
But did this emerge from the declarations or did it emerge from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days?
MaCh:
It emerged from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days.
GCM:
Excuse me. Let me understand. In other words you say: the cellphone was switched off and there was no telephone traffic, these are two different things.
MaCh:
I’m saying, Mr President. Two things. The first, normally Sollecito’s telephone and the telephone of Amanda, were switched on until the late hours. The fatal evening, they were switched off from 20:42 hours until … one [of the phones] from 20:42 onwards and the other from about 20:50 onwards. One. Two, the traffic …
GCM:
Before going on to “Two”, excuse me: “normally” – what does that mean? You had …
MaCh:
We had done a comparative analysis of the telephone traffic of that evening with the telephone traffic of the preceding evenings. Shall we say the habits ...
GCM:
And so the “normally” emerges from this?
MC:
How many evenings? If you recall, or not?
MaCh:
Months, no … honestly, I don’t remember how many [evenings], but months.
MC:​

He clearly doesn't have the information of when the phones were turned off only an analysis of traffic (use).

If he had the information it wouldn't be reported as about 8:50. Then he goes on to say how they analyzed their usage previously NOT when the phones were turned on or off. He also says that he analyzed their use for MONTHS but of course this was just a mistake.

Now for those that haven't paid a hoot CHECK THIS OUT from the same transcript:

GB:
Attorney Giulia Bongiorno. You pointed out that among the particularly significant elements, especially at the beginning, against Sollecito, there was that analysis of the [phone] records from which emerged, you said, an anomaly, because you had made comparisons, a new fact came out; that is to say this turning on and switching off in an anomalous manner with respect to the preceding [phone] records. Excuse me, but how does one establish, on the basis of [phone] records, when a cellphone is switched on an switched off?MaCh:
Is this a technical question, or else ...?
GB:
No, it is a question that is based on the fact that you defined as anomalous a thing that, as you know, is not revealed by the cellphones, is not revealed by the [phone] records.MaCh:
Why not?
GB:
Because from the [phone] records it does not appear when someone switches on and switches off a cellphone, but, if anything, the incoming and outgoing calls are shown.MaCh:
Absolutely, yes. However, from the telephone records, as will be explained by anyone who is more technically knowledgeable than me, but I believe I can state this thing anyway, even if I am not a technician in this subject: that one may absolutely reconstruct the telephone habits of a person. And we saw that that evening, unlike what had not happened [sic], as I stated earlier, Sollecito’s cellphone did not show/have the activity it normally had. And furthermore, there is another passage [sic], that the phone call of 23:00 hours, which Sollecito affirmed he had received, was not there.
GB:
So, try and follow my question. You referred, in the course of the [witness] examination, to an anomaly linked to the switching on and off: we will see this in the transcription, and you said that this was an anomaly. So forget, for now, how many phone calls I receive and how many I don’t receive, if the telephone is switched off or on, you said you can tell this from the [phone] records.MaCh:
We can tell/deduce this when …
GB:
Excuse me. Let me finish the question. And you managed to say that this is an extremely serious, anomalous, element, against Raffaele Sollecito.
MaCh:
I said only that there was an anomaly.​

Oopsie - He only said there was an anomaly. He doesn't refer to records of the phones being turned off or on. He deduced from past use that the phones had been turned off but he has only deductive reasoning.

From the great Massei:

Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-
321
electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.​

If you can't admit you were and are wrong about the phones being known to have been turned off at any time with the exception of Amanda's which is known BECAUSE SHE TOLD THEM she turned off her phone at some time after Patrick had texted, then you are further back than the back of the room.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
"Bill", that halloween outfit was years ago. No-one cares a darn about it. Who cares? Not me, squire.
Click to expand...

"Vixen." "Then" "why" "did" "you" "cite" "it" "as" "buttressing" "your" "vested" "interest" "in" "defaming" "an" "innocent" "person"?
 
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post:

Can you declare Roger Lesveque's interest in admitting he was the mustached soccer player?

Truly Vixen, before attacking the poster you should at least get facts straight. How do you explain the Seattle Sounder scarf?

What's your vested interest in misrepresenting basic facts?


Vixen said:
Well side-stepped.
Click to expand...


'Side-stepped'? You lie about the cat burglar bit; your lie is revealed; and then you call the truth side-stepping . . .

What is with you Vixen?
 
Grinder said:
Well not exactly. His testimony is mostly gibberish at least by the translation.

MaCh:
It emerged that normally Sollecito kept his cellphones, and also Amanda Knox, they kept their cellphones on until a late hour, evening, [sic] there is no telephone traffic from 20:40 hours. A thing of this …
MC:
But did this emerge from the declarations or did it emerge from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days?
MaCh:
It emerged from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days.
GCM:
Excuse me. Let me understand. In other words you say: the cellphone was switched off and there was no telephone traffic, these are two different things.
MaCh:
I’m saying, Mr President. Two things. The first, normally Sollecito’s telephone and the telephone of Amanda, were switched on until the late hours. The fatal evening, they were switched off from 20:42 hours until … one [of the phones] from 20:42 onwards and the other from about 20:50 onwards. One. Two, the traffic …
GCM:
Before going on to “Two”, excuse me: “normally” – what does that mean? You had …
MaCh:
We had done a comparative analysis of the telephone traffic of that evening with the telephone traffic of the preceding evenings. Shall we say the habits ...
GCM:
And so the “normally” emerges from this?
MC:
How many evenings? If you recall, or not?
MaCh:
Months, no … honestly, I don’t remember how many [evenings], but months.
MC:​

He clearly doesn't have the information of when the phones were turned off only an analysis of traffic (use).

If he had the information it wouldn't be reported as about 8:50. Then he goes on to say how they analyzed their usage previously NOT when the phones were turned on or off. He also says that he analyzed their use for MONTHS but of course this was just a mistake.

Now for those that haven't paid a hoot CHECK THIS OUT from the same transcript:

GB:
Attorney Giulia Bongiorno. You pointed out that among the particularly significant elements, especially at the beginning, against Sollecito, there was that analysis of the [phone] records from which emerged, you said, an anomaly, because you had made comparisons, a new fact came out; that is to say this turning on and switching off in an anomalous manner with respect to the preceding [phone] records. Excuse me, but how does one establish, on the basis of [phone] records, when a cellphone is switched on an switched off?MaCh:
Is this a technical question, or else ...?
GB:
No, it is a question that is based on the fact that you defined as anomalous a thing that, as you know, is not revealed by the cellphones, is not revealed by the [phone] records.MaCh:
Why not?
GB:
Because from the [phone] records it does not appear when someone switches on and switches off a cellphone, but, if anything, the incoming and outgoing calls are shown.MaCh:
Absolutely, yes. However, from the telephone records, as will be explained by anyone who is more technically knowledgeable than me, but I believe I can state this thing anyway, even if I am not a technician in this subject: that one may absolutely reconstruct the telephone habits of a person. And we saw that that evening, unlike what had not happened [sic], as I stated earlier, Sollecito’s cellphone did not show/have the activity it normally had. And furthermore, there is another passage [sic], that the phone call of 23:00 hours, which Sollecito affirmed he had received, was not there.
GB:
So, try and follow my question. You referred, in the course of the [witness] examination, to an anomaly linked to the switching on and off: we will see this in the transcription, and you said that this was an anomaly. So forget, for now, how many phone calls I receive and how many I don’t receive, if the telephone is switched off or on, you said you can tell this from the [phone] records.MaCh:
We can tell/deduce this when …
GB:
Excuse me. Let me finish the question. And you managed to say that this is an extremely serious, anomalous, element, against Raffaele Sollecito.
MaCh:
I said only that there was an anomaly.​

Oopsie - He only said there was an anomaly. He doesn't refer to records of the phones being turned off or on. He deduced from past use that the phones had been turned off but he has only deductive reasoning.

From the great Massei:

Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-
321
electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.​

If you can't admit you were and are wrong about the phones being known to have been turned off at any time with the exception of Amanda's which is known BECAUSE SHE TOLD THEM she turned off her phone at some time after Patrick had texted, then you are further back than the back of the room.
Click to expand...

So Giulia Bongiorno plays clever dick. That's her job. Police - like Marco - are trained to give testimony straightforwardly and objectively.

GB coaches her clients in evasion and deception. Note, she had to GAG Raff completely, as everything he says is an embarrassment, even to a hard-nosed bloodsucking vulture like herself.

It's no accident members of her profession are considered shifty and shady.

At least cops are generally considered to be honest and reliable.

If the telecommunication experts told PC Marco C the phones were switched off, then I believe them.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Not sure why you write that. There are plenty of cases worldwide where all appeals have been dismissed, yet the prisoner is categorically innocent. These are some of the people Amanda is planning to work for, though it is hard work. Have you any knowledge of these cases she might be looking at? I would be surprised if Amanda Knox is unaware of the prisoner Chris Tapp.
Click to expand...

Really? You're falsely convicted and OJ Simpson representing the Innocence Project pops up offering to speak up for you on your behalf...?

Only a real crook would want an exonerated crook blagging an acquittal.

Amanda is not even exonerated.

The best thing she could have done was to drop out of the public eye. But no, she has to court scandal.
 
sept79 said:
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post:

Can you declare Roger Lesveque's interest in admitting he was the mustached soccer player?

Truly Vixen, before attacking the poster you should at least get facts straight. How do you explain the Seattle Sounder scarf?

What's your vested interest in misrepresenting basic facts?


'Side-stepped'? You lie about the cat burglar bit; your lie is revealed; and then you call the truth side-stepping . . .

What is with you Vixen?
Click to expand...


"Bill" brought up the cat burglar. Take it up with him.

"Bill" did indeed side step a reasonable request to declare whether he has a conflict of interest issue.
 
Vixen said:
Really? You're falsely convicted and OJ Simpson representing the Innocence Project pops up offering to speak up for you on your behalf...?

Only a real crook would want an exonerated crook blagging an acquittal.

Amanda is not even exonerated.

The best thing she could have done was to drop out of the public eye. But no, she has to court scandal.
Click to expand...
delete duplicate.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
"Bill" brought up the cat burglar. Take it up with him.

"Bill" did indeed side step a reasonable request to declare whether he has a conflict of interest issue.
Click to expand...

"Strawman" "is" "apparently" "all" "you" "have."
 
Vixen said:
Really? You're falsely convicted and OJ Simpson representing the Innocence Project pops up offering to speak up for you on your behalf...?

Only a real crook would want an exonerated crook blagging an acquittal.

Amanda is not even exonerated.

The best thing she could have done was to drop out of the public eye. But no, she has to court scandal.
Click to expand...
I suggest you study the break in analysis by Ron Hendry to understand the wrongful conviction on this matter alone. It is important to prove him wrong to get to the next step, because Mignini says it is a sine qua non for his prosecution. That is where I started, and pretty well finished. In many cases of wrongful conviction it is necessary to remove only one foundation block and the edifice crumbles. Time and time and time ....................again. I always think you are too smart to forego this type of analysis, but you seem hitherto immune.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom