Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

AFAIAA Italy did respond by the deadline.

Do you think Machiavelli just plucked the information out of thin air?

There's no way to tell......

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, so there was clumsy wording in my sentence. However, we all know Raff REFUSED TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND. It's hardly a hidden piece of information.

You can see the status of the ECHR on the webpage. I believe it still says awaiting the Italy response due Sept 2016. However, ear to the ground news says Amanda has had a fresh interrogatory to respond to. We also know Italy did respond by the set date.

<shrug>

Will we ever know why when you make a "clumsy wording" we're supposed to give you room but when someone else does it they're a liar? Something is missing here......

 

[LondonJohn]

He is indeed bragging he got away with it. Why else would he set himself up as 'master', giving pervs advice on how to dispose of their girlfriends bodies, and endorsing obscene pictures of Amanda

Edited by Agatha: 

removed breach of rule 9

.

Why are we not surprised to see you condone this behaviour.

No, Sollecito is NOT bragging he got away with it. That's your (jaded and biassed) misinterpretation. He's making (very poor, very immature, very poor taste and very ill-judged) "joke" replies to "joke" questions - that's perfectly obvious to anyone looking at those exchanges with a rational, objective eye.

Oh, and nice work with the straw man. How disgusting and (predictably) illogical to see you categorise my position as "condoning" Sollecito's behaviour and words. Shame. Huge shame. On you.

 

[bagels]

You live in Cloud Cuckooland as you ought to know by now Amanda went to the questura of her own volition. The police even advised her to 'go home'.

She confessed to being at the murder scene within apx 90". Having insisted in finishing the meal they were enjoying when Raff was summoned to the questura, there is no way she was starved and deprived of water.

Let me give you some free legal advice. Don't walk into a police station and confess to a crime if you don't wish to be arrested.

And let me give some free advice to the Italian police, don't switch off the tape recorder if you want to prove the above. Italy is about to learn a very expensive lesson (although perhaps it's cheaper than if the tape was running and documented what they actually did).

 

[Vixen]

No, Sollecito is NOT bragging he got away with it. That's your (jaded and biassed) misinterpretation. He's making (very poor, very immature, very poor taste and very ill-judged) "joke" replies to "joke" questions - that's perfectly obvious to anyone looking at those exchanges with a rational, objective eye.

Oh, and nice work with the straw man. How disgusting and (predictably) illogical to see you categorise my position as "condoning" Sollecito's behaviour and words. Shame. Huge shame. On you.

Joke? You think leading a group advocating rape & murder and concealment of crime on a hate FB page, specifically targeted at perverts and misogynists,where #hard d*** is the norm, is A JOKE???


Shame on you. Huge shame. On you.

 

[abaddon]

Did you take the trouble to look at the phone log? I'll wager, not.

You wager wrong. This is yet another thing you claim expertise about which is absolute bunk. You obviously know nothing about it. The cell network is simply not capable of the kind of locational granularity you claim. It is the kind of nonsense presented in fictional TV programs which simply does not exist in reality. As usual, when the idiocy of your claims is pointed out, you try to double down and pretend you know better. Tough luck. I know that the cell network is not capable of the precision you claim and I know why it isn't. The cell network cannot place Amanda "by the basketball courts" as you claim because it physically is not built for or remotely capable of doing so. That you would make such a claim tells me that either you saw it on TV, you are blindly regurgitating someone else's claims or made it up out of whole cloth. It doesn't really matter which. It is horribly wrong whichever it is.

 

[Vixen]

You wager wrong. This is yet another thing you claim expertise about which is absolute bunk. You obviously know nothing about it. The cell network is simply not capable of the kind of locational granularity you claim. It is the kind of nonsense presented in fictional TV programs which simply does not exist in reality. As usual, when the idiocy of your claims is pointed out, you try to double down and pretend you know better. Tough luck. I know that the cell network is not capable of the precision you claim and I know why it isn't. The cell network cannot place Amanda "by the basketball courts" as you claim because it physically is not built for or remotely capable of doing so. That you would make such a claim tells me that either you saw it on TV, you are blindly regurgitating someone else's claims or made it up out of whole cloth. It doesn't really matter which. It is horribly wrong whichever it is.

There is a powerful telephone mast near the cottage and that will override the one that serves Raff's apartment, if in the vicinity.

 

[Bill Williams]

I ask this in all sincerity - has any Italian journalist done any investigative reports concerning any coverup with regards to the Hellmann acquittals? Are there any media inquiring about any fraud with the case? Do not Italian journalists care about and investigate corruption in their courts and country?

On another subject how are the people doing in the present as far as their careers and reputations, i.e. Mignini, Stefanoni, Comodi, etc.?

As per Ampulla of Vater, I too would like to read Machiavelli's opinion on this.

 

[Briars]

No doubt you excuse the murder and rape on the same grounds of, 'immature, inappropriate and idiotic'.

Bored with his BeOnMemories €66K business start up, Raff spends his immature inappropriate and idiotic days leading secret Facebook pages promulgating murder and rape of women, using photogrpahs filched from genuine women and used in slut-shaming as whores perfectly decent respectable persons.

Whatever gets you through the night...

From the independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-mudered-meredith-kercher-italy-a7537971.html

Charming advert for a funeral director, I'm sure.

Italy has picked up and run with the latest on Sollecito . 9 years ago selfie with a meat cleaver fast forward almost 10 years jokes about the carved meat on his plate. All the same ingredients knives , murder, blame the black guy. What is poor papa Sollecito to do ? This is a thirty something man who headed to Florence last week to present his poor me you owe me to the Italian courts. Who will listen to his whining about his damaged reputation now? The poor guy cannot help his rage and his hobbies .I checked in here to see the reactions with the incredible timing of woman protesting everywhere. Funny you get attacked Vixen for bringing it up. The only reason I actually stopped by was to confirm what I knew I would find.

 

[LondonJohn]

Italy has picked up and run with the latest on Sollecito . 9 years ago selfie with a meat cleaver fast forward almost 10 years jokes about the carved meat on his plate. All the same ingredients knives , murder, blame the black guy. What is poor papa Sollecito to do ? This is a thirty something man who headed to Florence last week to present his poor me you owe me to the Italian courts. Who will listen to his whining about his damaged reputation now? The poor guy cannot help his rage and his hobbies .I checked in here to see the reactions with the incredible timing of woman protesting everywhere. Funny you get attacked Vixen for bringing it up. The only reason I actually stopped by was to confirm what I knew I would find.

No, Vixen's "arguments" on this issue got attacked because she chose to hyperbolise and exaggerate what Sollecito actually wrote to falsely claim that he was bragging that he'd got away with the murder and that he was using Kercher's name to give suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up.

Note, incidentally but crucially, that no pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentator here (including me) is endorsing or condoning what Sollecito actually wrote, nor his participation in the "banter" on this private FB group. Quite clearly, Sollecito exercised extremely bad judgement, poor taste, emotional immaturity and a definite level of unpleasantness in his participation and words on that site. He was a stupid idiot, and certainly some of the views he espoused and/or implicitly condoned are crude and unpleasant. But it's not at all surprising to see certain pro-guilt commentators a) ignoring the fact that Vixen wrote blatant falsehoods in her (mis)representation of what Sollecito had written, and b) misinterpreting attacks on Vixen's misrepresentations as some sort of endorsement/acceptance of the words Sollecito actually DID write (or, in your case, misrepresenting the situation as an attack on Vixen "for simply bringing it (the Italian media article on Sollecito's participation in this FB group) up").

 

[abaddon]

There is a powerful telephone mast near the cottage and that will override the one that serves Raff's apartment, if in the vicinity.

Nope. You are simply wrong. There are at least four cells and two repeaters available from that location that I know of and possibly more. I could list them, but I am sure you can figure at least that much out for yourself.

In any event, even if what you claim were true (even thought you made it up out of whole cloth) cell connections are not solely made on the basis of proximity. Since you are such an expert, I should certainly not need to explain the other obvious criteria to you. You know that obvious stuff already, correct?

 

[abaddon]

There is a powerful telephone mast near the cottage and that will override the one that serves Raff's apartment, if in the vicinity.

Oh yes, almost forgot. It matters not a whit how powerful that mast might be, or any other mast for that matter. Still cannot geolocate Amanda to "by the basketball courts". That is imaginary.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is a powerful telephone mast near the cottage and that will override the one that serves Raff's apartment, if in the vicinity.

Nope. Sollecito's apartment frequently used Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (and sectors 6 and 9, both of which pointed in the same direction as sector 3). Sollecito's apartment was in a thick-stone-walled building among many other closely-packed thick-stone-walled buildings. Cellular reception in Sollecito's apartment was relatively poor, for this reason. And tests carried out by the defence showed conclusively that a phone within Sollecito's apartment using the Vodafone network would frequently handshake onto this Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (or s6 or s9) base station transceiver. The Massei report (and the prosecution "expert", on whom the Massei court relied) was simply wrong on this matter.

 

[abaddon]

Nope. Sollecito's apartment frequently used Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (and sectors 6 and 9, both of which pointed in the same direction as sector 3). Sollecito's apartment was in a thick-stone-walled building among many other closely-packed thick-stone-walled buildings. Cellular reception in Sollecito's apartment was relatively poor, for this reason. And tests carried out by the defence showed conclusively that a phone within Sollecito's apartment using the Vodafone network would frequently handshake onto this Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (or s6 or s9) base station transceiver. The Massei report (and the prosecution "expert", on whom the Massei court relied) was simply wrong on this matter.

In reality, one could stand directly under a given mast and get connected via another remote one despite having one directly over ones head. There are reasons why this happens sometimes. Good technical reasons.

vixen seems to be entirely innocent of any understanding of how the system works.

 

[bagels]

Nope. Sollecito's apartment frequently used Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (and sectors 6 and 9, both of which pointed in the same direction as sector 3). Sollecito's apartment was in a thick-stone-walled building among many other closely-packed thick-stone-walled buildings. Cellular reception in Sollecito's apartment was relatively poor, for this reason. And tests carried out by the defence showed conclusively that a phone within Sollecito's apartment using the Vodafone network would frequently handshake onto this Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (or s6 or s9) base station transceiver. The Massei report (and the prosecution "expert", on whom the Massei court relied) was simply wrong on this matter.

It depends on which part of the Massei report, since it was slapped together haphazardly. In one section he correctly writes that tower served Raffaele's apartment and "we can be certain" of it.

 

[Briars]

No, Vixen's "arguments" on this issue got attacked because she chose to hyperbolise and exaggerate what Sollecito actually wrote to falsely claim that he was bragging that he'd got away with the murder and that he was using Kercher's name to give suggestions on how to hide a body or cut it up.

Note, incidentally but crucially, that no pro-innocence/pro-acquittal commentator here (including me) is endorsing or condoning what Sollecito actually wrote, nor his participation in the "banter" on this private FB group. Quite clearly, Sollecito exercised extremely bad judgement, poor taste, emotional immaturity and a definite level of unpleasantness in his participation and words on that site. He was a stupid idiot, and certainly some of the views he espoused and/or implicitly condoned are crude and unpleasant. But it's not at all surprising to see certain pro-guilt commentators a) ignoring the fact that Vixen wrote blatant falsehoods in her (mis)representation of what Sollecito had written, and b) misinterpreting attacks on Vixen's misrepresentations as some sort of endorsement/acceptance of the words Sollecito actually DID write (or, in your case, misrepresenting the situation as an attack on Vixen "for simply bringing it (the Italian media article on Sollecito's participation in this FB group) up").

Would anyone have brought it up if Vixen hadn't? Like it or not he was joking about getting rid of evidence , cutting up black meat and the pallour of a dead victim. Not directly talking about his involvement of course, now that would be foolish. There should be some interest here in what drives and fascinates Sollecito since he is such an important figure in the case. I highly doubt Vixen could have brought it up at all without a degree of annoyance or defensiveness . The man if you can call him that still has serious compulsions which are self destructive . He may never succeed or be able to function independently of his father and in my opinion shows a personality that could have very well been capable of the crime.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope. You are simply wrong. There are at least four cells and two repeaters available from that location that I know of and possibly more. I could list them, but I am sure you can figure at least that much out for yourself.

In any event, even if what you claim were true (even thought you made it up out of whole cloth) cell connections are not solely made on the basis of proximity. Since you are such an expert, I should certainly not need to explain the other obvious criteria to you. You know that obvious stuff already, correct?

We will leave aside for now the nonsense written by Vixen that there was a "powerful telephone mast" near the cottage - which implies that this "telephone mast" (they're called cellular base stations, Vixen) was more powerful than others in the vicinity. This is total twaddle: all of the base stations in that geography would have had the same power levels - the only time (generally) that some base stations are more powerful than others is where either a) there is a local "micro-cell" which is designed to serve only a very small localised area (which will be of lower power than average), or b) there is a base station in a highly ruralised area (which will be of higher power than average, since it makes more sense to cover a larger radius in that situation, rather than to build more base stations - although there is a constant constraint in terms of the signal transmission power of the cellphones themselves).

More relevantly, as you point out, sheer proximity is very far from the only factor involved in the selection of a base station sector with which the cellphone connects. Capacity constraints very often play a significant role, especially in urban areas - a cellphone could be right underneath Base Station A, but if all of that base station's channels are currently in use by other subscribers, then the cellphone will connect to Base Station B, even though that base station might be significantly further away.

And the other very significant factor in highly-built-out urban environments - and a factor which without doubt was hugely significant in respect of Sollecito's apartment - is reflection and absorption of radio waves by buildings, especially if those buildings have thick stone walls (as pretty much all of the buildings around Sollecito's apartment, including his building itself, did). When atmospheric changes are added in, the net result is that base station handshaking in (or even near to/outside) such buildings can be hugely variable.

 

[LondonJohn]

Would anyone have brought it up if Vixen hadn't? Like it or not he was joking about getting rid of evidence , cutting up black meat and the pallour of a dead victim. Not directly talking about his involvement of course, now that would be foolish. There should be some interest here in what drives and fascinates Sollecito since he is such an important figure in the case. I highly doubt Vixen could have brought it up at all without a degree of annoyance or defensiveness . The man if you can call him that still has serious compulsions which are self destructive . He may never succeed or be able to function independently of his father and in my opinion shows a personality that could have very well been capable of the crime.

Well that's a different matter (and what you're doing here is called "moving the goalposts"). Regardless, I strongly suspect that it WOULD have been brought up here, and that pro-acquittal/pro-innocence commentators would have condemned Sollecito's words and participation (just as we/they have done over the past 24 hours or so here).

But Vixen made extremely specific claims, which - if true - would have been of enormous importance to any analysis of the case. Vixen claimed that Sollecito had been "bragging about having got away with the murder", and that he had referenced Kercher in respect of "how to hide a body or cut it up". Both of those claims were lies. Sollecito wrote no such things.

He most certainly wrote unpleasant, bad-taste, immature, idiotic things. But any reasonable (IMO) reading of what he actually wrote indicates that he was providing what he thought were "humorous" replies to provocative questions. Any reasonable (IMO) reading of the situation gives an analyst/commentator no serious reason to believe that Sollecito was actually writing with any sort of serious/truthful undertones. Again, that's not to say that Sollecito did not exercise shockingly poor judgement, nor that he did not write things that were in extremely poor taste and unpleasant.

Lastly, I reject your thesis (borne of bias, IMO) that this matter indicates that Sollecito "shows a personality that could have very well been capable of the crime", nor that it indicates that Sollecito "still has serious compulsions which are self destructive".

 

[abaddon]

We will leave aside for now the nonsense written by Vixen that there was a "powerful telephone mast" near the cottage - which implies that this "telephone mast" (they're called cellular base stations, Vixen) was more powerful than others in the vicinity. This is total twaddle: all of the base stations in that geography would have had the same power levels - the only time (generally) that some base stations are more powerful than others is where either a) there is a local "micro-cell" which is designed to serve only a very small localised area (which will be of lower power than average), or b) there is a base station in a highly ruralised area (which will be of higher power than average, since it makes more sense to cover a larger radius in that situation, rather than to build more base stations - although there is a constant constraint in terms of the signal transmission power of the cellphones themselves).

More relevantly, as you point out, sheer proximity is very far from the only factor involved in the selection of a base station sector with which the cellphone connects. Capacity constraints very often play a significant role, especially in urban areas - a cellphone could be right underneath Base Station A, but if all of that base station's channels are currently in use by other subscribers, then the cellphone will connect to Base Station B, even though that base station might be significantly further away.

And the other very significant factor in highly-built-out urban environments - and a factor which without doubt was hugely significant in respect of Sollecito's apartment - is reflection and absorption of radio waves by buildings, especially if those buildings have thick stone walls (as pretty much all of the buildings around Sollecito's apartment, including his building itself, did). When atmospheric changes are added in, the net result is that base station handshaking in (or even near to/outside) such buildings can be hugely variable.

Add in to that the fact that in populous areas, individual network cells overlap by design. People get the notion that cells are distinct. They are not.

Then you have topology/architecture getting in the way. I know of two blackspots within five minutes of my home. Both are proximate to base stations. They remain blackspots due to a confluence of physical circumstances.

 

[LondonJohn]

Joke? You think leading a group advocating rape & murder and concealment of crime on a hate FB page, specifically targeted at perverts and misogynists,where #hard d*** is the norm, is A JOKE???


Shame on you. Huge shame. On you.

No. Please can you stop creating straw men to misrepresent my position?

This is what I wrote:

"He's making (very poor, very immature, very poor taste and very ill-judged) "joke" replies to "joke" questions"

Note firstly the use of quotation marks around the words "joke". These clearly imply that my own opinion is that these were not jokes, but that (IMO) Sollecito and his respondents were considering them as jokes.

Next, note the words in parentheses which precede the first mention of the word "joke". The qualifiers within those parentheses indicate clearly my personal opinion on the words Sollecito wrote.

And lastly, note that I was referring specifically to the words Sollecito wrote (which were usually in reply to knowingly-provocative questions posed to him by other members of the group). I made no mention - nor any value judgement - on any other opinions that might have been posted by other members of this group.

So, once again, it's you who has twisted my position into a disgusting assertion that I might consider "a group advocating rape and murder....specifically targeted at perverts and misogynists" (whether this particular FB group actually meets this description or not...) as a joke. That's a really nasty, defamatory misrepresentation to be making, Vixen. I don't expect you to misrepresent me in this sort of way again. OK?


(And I'd be interested, incidentally, to see the evidence upon which you base your assertion that this FB group "advocates rape and murder" (in anything other than a (bad taste) joking manner) or that it is "specifically targeted at perverts and misogynists".....)