The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Rubbish. Mez rang home very regularly. It is a reasonable assumption the numbers would be stored on speed dial prefixed by +44.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. You really ought to be more familiar with the known evidence in this case.

From the Massei Report:

2. at 21.58 hours there was an attempted call to the mobile phone’s answering service "voicemail 901"

3. at 22.00 hours the number "08459724724" which, according to the phonebook of both mobile phones, corresponds to the user "ABBEY", is dialled.

(p328, Massei Report, UK trans)


As is clearly shown from the above evidence, both of these stored numbers that were dialled - 901 and 08459724724 - were in UK-only format. In other words, they would only work if they were dialled from within the UK. And of course that's precisely because Kercher stored those numbers in her phone long before she went to Italy.

Neither of these dialled numbers would work when the phone was in Italy. And that's exactly why both calls automatically dropped: they were not in a format that was recognisable to the Italian network (Wind) upon which Kercher's UK phone was roaming.


Care to retract your "rubbish" response and think more carefully (and look for evidence) before proclaiming in such definitive terms next time......?
 
Vixen said:
There is an old Yorkshire saying: 'Shut t'gob, pin back lug'oles, and put t'brain in gear'.

The person ringing the two phones to firstly check it was still ringing and then a perfunctionary quick three second job to register the call, is the person who knows the phones were disposed of.

Amanda did not switch on her phone until 12:08 - to ring Mez' phone for 16 seconds.

She claims she was worried whilst at the cottage circa 10:30. Why not ring Mez then? A phone thief with the intent of gain, would at first opportunity remove the SIM card.
Click to expand...

Why ring Meredith at that time? She wasn't worried about Meredith then. She wasn't sure if anything was really wrong as she hadn't discovered the broken window then.

A phone thief would initially think of monetary gain, but then quickly realize that he can't sell them without possibly connecting himself to a murder when the news broke. After all, the police would know what kind of phones were missing and it would be in the papers. Removing the sim cards would not solve that problem.

There's another old American saying:

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt."

I suggest you stop speaking.
 
Vixen said:
It is not. All my numbers have the country code.
Click to expand...


You're.......... SERIOUSLY trying to make the argument that just because your stored numbers all have the country code, therefore it's certain/highly likely/even fairly likely that Kercher stored all her own number with the country code....?

My word. (I've already shown you that you're factually wrong on this matter, but regardless of that, your logical fallacy here is an absolute zinger of poor reasoning.)
 
Vixen said:
She had already spoken to her mother earlier. Dad, John, explains in his book, Mez walked along dark streets with the phone to her ear to deter would be attackers - made her feel safer, to be perceived to be connected to someone.

Another walk up the garden path.
Click to expand...

OMG. If one is trying to deter attacks while walking along dark streets by pretending to be talking on the phone, one does NOT have to actually DIAL a number. There was an actual call placed at 8:56. Sheesh
 
Stacyhs said:
OMG. If one is trying to deter attacks while walking along dark streets by pretending to be talking on the phone, one does NOT have to actually DIAL a number. There was an actual call placed at 8:56. Sheesh
Click to expand...

Also, I don't see how having a phone to one's ear would deter an attack. If anything I think the opposite would be true. It shouts that you're 'occupied' That instead of having your head on a swivel, being aware of the people and surroundings, your focusing on your conversation.
 
Vixen said:
This is not reasonable.

Micheli's MR is exceedingly sharp and well thought out.

Massei also is exceptionally bright - runs rings around Amanda's shenanigans.

Even Marasca couldn't resist taking pot shots at her blatant lies.
Click to expand...



If Massei was so exceptionally bright, his verdict and motivation report would have held up to the appeal. Hint: they didn't.

This is the guy who declared the luminol footprints were Amanda's bloody footprints when a) TMB tests were negative for blood and b) the footprints were never proved beyond being "compatible" with her feet. Were they also compatible with Meredith's, Filomena's or Laura's? Who knows as they were never compared to them.
 
acbytesla said:
Also, I don't see how having a phone to one's ear would deter an attack. If anything I think the opposite would be true. It shouts that you're 'occupied' That instead of having your head on a swivel, being aware of the people and surroundings, your focusing on your conversation.
Click to expand...

Then the obvious explanation isn't that 'Mez must have been murdered as soon as she turned the corner' (she didn't get home until circa 9:05).

If she was apprehended, it would have been Amanda and Rudy lying in wait for her.
 
Vixen said:
Then the obvious explanation isn't that 'Mez must have been murdered as soon as she turned the corner' (she didn't get home until circa 9:05).

If she was apprehended, it would have been Amanda and Rudy lying in wait for her.
Click to expand...


You do know that there's zero actual (credible, reliable) evidence that Knox participated in any way whatsoever in Mez's Kercher's murder, don't you? And that in fact all the (credible, reliable) evidence is entirely compatible with Guede acting alone? And that all the (credible, reliable) evidence strongly supports the claims of Knox and Sollecito to have been alone together in Sollecito's apartment throughout the evening/night of the 1st/2nd November 2007?

I am genuinely baffled by your seeming inability/unwillingness to comprehend all this, and by your consequent repeated references to Knox being a core participant in the Kercher murder. Is it ignorance or bias that is leading to your false/incorrect conclusions? I'd love to know.
 
Stacyhs said:
If Massei was so exceptionally bright, his verdict and motivation report would have held up to the appeal. Hint: they didn't.

This is the guy who declared the luminol footprints were Amanda's bloody footprints when a) TMB tests were negative for blood and b) the footprints were never proved beyond being "compatible" with her feet. Were they also compatible with Meredith's, Filomena's or Laura's? Who knows as they were never compared to them.
Click to expand...


Time, I think, for my regular scheduled reproduction of a particular favourite piece of "reasoning" by the genius that is Massei (my highlighting for emphasis):

"Several times in the course of her own deposition Mrs. Capezzali spoke of a special scream, heart-rending to the point that after she heard it she could not get back to sleep; a scream the likes of which she had never heard before. If there had not been such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it."

(p96, Massei Report, English trans)


Yep, it's clear to see that Massei was "exceptionally bright".........:D:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
Then the obvious explanation isn't that 'Mez must have been murdered as soon as she turned the corner' (she didn't get home until circa 9:05).

If she was apprehended, it would have been Amanda and Rudy lying in wait for her.
Click to expand...

LMAO. NO it isn't obvious at all. If a call stops in the middle there can be multiple of other explanations. Just because one thing may not be true doesn't mean you can presume something else.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Sollecito's lawyer asks for Guede's expulsion from Italy.

http://www.newspuglia.it/cronaca/3091-avvocato-di-sollecito-chiede-espulsione-di-guede-dall-italia.html
Click to expand...

An excerpt from a Google translation of the article:

The attorney Maori said that "once purged his sentence, Rudy Guede must be expelled from Italy." Because? "Many foreigners are expelled from our country for far less serious offenses to murder for which he was convicted of the Ivorian. I will ask the police headquarters in Perugia of action to undertake the removal procedures of Guede, who is not Italian citizen, just finished serving his sentence. "
_____
Posters and lurkers here may remember the discussion on ISF some time ago about whether or not Guede was an Italian citizen. He is not a citizen of Italy, according to this statement.
 
Numbers said:
An excerpt from a Google translation of the article:

The attorney Maori said that "once purged his sentence, Rudy Guede must be expelled from Italy." Because? "Many foreigners are expelled from our country for far less serious offenses to murder for which he was convicted of the Ivorian. I will ask the police headquarters in Perugia of action to undertake the removal procedures of Guede, who is not Italian citizen, just finished serving his sentence. "
_____
Posters and lurkers here may remember the discussion on ISF some time ago about whether or not Guede was an Italian citizen. He is not a citizen of Italy, according to this statement.
Click to expand...

I really wonder how this works. Rudy may not be an Italian citizen, but I was under the impression that he had lived most of his life in Italy and was adopted by Italian citizens. Countries sometimes refuse repatriation. I've read that this is a problem for the US. Here we must release someone back into the US within 180 days of a final deportation order if they won't be accepted.
 
acbytesla said:
I really wonder how this works. Rudy may not be an Italian citizen, but I was under the impression that he had lived most of his life in Italy and was adopted by Italian citizens. Countries sometimes refuse repatriation. I've read that this is a problem for the US. Here we must release someone back into the US within 180 days of a final deportation order if they won't be accepted.
Click to expand...

acbytesla, you raise interesting questions. In the US, certainly undocumented ("illegal") immigrants are subject to deportation after serving a sentence after a criminal conviction ("irregular" first-time entry itself being actionable as a civil, not criminal, matter) and the federal government pursues this without prompting. It's interesting that in Italy, an acquitted co-accused can raise the issue of deporting the convicted accused who is not an Italian citizen through a notice to the police.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom