The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[abaddon]

AIUI Most countries have a mechanism by which they can strip 'naturalised citizens' of their status and deport them, usually because of imprsionment, or in the case of the US, former Nazi's.

ECHR would consider it a breach of family law if Rudy is deported, as he has been in Italy since age five, and was educated and culturalised there. He would be a stranger in Cote D'Ivoire.

Having said that, when we look at his crime and note he has shown zero remorse, hard to shed any tears for him.

He'll be cashing in as soon as he steps out. Just like Raff and Amanda.

Imagine that: commit a heinous crime, and you need never have to do any honest day's work: you do book tours and Innocence talks at US$5K a time.

Spot the Godwin.

 

[Vixen]

I can't imagine for one second that Rudy will be cashing in. Are YOU going to buy his book? Are YOU interested in hearing him discuss this crime? Rudy is going to have a very hard time.

I'm also not sure the ECHR would consider it unlawful to deportation Rudy. What evidence do you have of that? Do you have a citation or are you talking out your ass?

He has >3.4K likes for his FB page. I can see him becoming a 'freak show' novelty, like Amanda and Raff, doing a round of TV interviews, just for the prurience angle. Sociologists and law students will be interested.

It depends on what he discloses. Once he's done the time, he's free to spill the beans, although I doubt he ever will, as few murderers confess.

Citation: look up 'ECHR and Hamza' on Google. Gives you the ECHR headers. Or look up ECHR 'Right to Family Life' under wiki.

 

[abaddon]

There is no requirement. However, if you travel or ring abroad frequently you would do the same.

Mez rang her parents frequently.

Believe me, you do not. I was abroad in 2007 and my phone automatically connected me to English numbers without my having to do anything.

Do you think that being "abroad" once in the last decade qualifies you to even be considered a "frequent traveller"?

ETA: Tell me, why would that not work in the US? And how can you avoid that issue?

ETA2: What is odd about calling Italy from outside Italy?

 

[Vixen]

Wrong again. There is a difference between the logs stored in your phone and the logs retained by your service provider. Do you know what that is?

Er, you do know expert forensic electronic bods analysed the calls and reported to the court? Do read Massei or Micheli Report for finer details.

Fact is, Abbey National was dialed on Mez' phone, but the connection aborted, as it was believed the country code was not entered - others that it needed further interface to connect. In any case, it took place at the cottage, circa 10:10pm, and that was the last known signal at the cottage, a signal being picked up some distance away in someone's garden circa 00:30.

The fact Abbey was almost certainly the first name on Mez' phone contacts, suggests it was activated by simple movement, possibly a struggle that occurred.

The idea that 'Rudy was hoping to get money out of Mez' bank is a daft one.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no requirement. However, if you travel or ring abroad frequently you would do the same.

Mez rang her parents frequently.

Read the following very carefully:

I've told you explicitly already: the Massei report proves beyond doubt that those two numbers stored on Kercher's phones which were dialled (then auto-aborted) at around 10pm - the 901 number for voicemail and the 0845 number for Abbey - did NOT feature either the international dialling code from Italy (or "+" for a universal int'l code) or the UK international access code "44".

And that's because both those numbers had originally been stored by Kercher while she was living in the UK (or, in the case of the 901 voicemail number, placed there by the network operator prior to purchase). When both of those numbers were dialled from Perugia that night, they were not recognised by the Italian network onto which Kercher's UK phone was roaming (Wind). When Wind saw "901" and a number starting "0845", it knew immediately that the format was incompatible with any Italian numbers (and that the numbers contained no international dialling/access codes), so it automatically aborted/terminated the calls. If you or I took a mobile phone to Italy and tried dialling a number such as 901 or one starting "0845", we would find the call auto-terminated immediately as well. It would only be if we prefixed the number with the int'l dialling code and the UK access code (e.g. "+440845....") that the call would complete.

It is indeed arguably somewhat likely that for those numbers which Kercher called regularly from Italy (e.g. her parents and friends), she might have re-stored them in her UK mobile to include "+44" before the number. But the evidence provided in the Massei Report from the analysis of the phones proves conclusively that this was not the case for either of the voicemail access number or the 0845 number for Abbey that were dialled at around 10pm that night.

Once again, I suggest that you a) read the relevant evidence from the Massei Report, which is unequivocal and conclusive on this matter, and b) try to become more conversant with the evidence in this case (and with matters of science and technology in general).

 

[Vixen]

Do you think that being "abroad" once in the last decade qualifies you to even be considered a "frequent traveller"?

ETA: Tell me, why would that not work in the US? And how can you avoid that issue?

ETA2: What is odd about calling Italy from outside Italy?

I am classed as a frequent traveller.

 

[acbytesla]

They do not have the jursidiction to rule it 'unlawful'. However, they can rule it a breach of Human Rights ( = Right to Family Life) and award compensation against the member state.

The UK had this problem with various criminals, including the notorious Hamza (now serving time in the USA).

So, Rudy cannot overturn the law, but can get compensation if it is ruled there is a breach of Human Rights.

That's not a citation.

 

[abaddon]

Er, you do know expert forensic electronic bods analysed the calls and reported to the court? Do read Massei or Micheli Report for finer details.

Fact is, Abbey National was dialed on Mez' phone, but the connection aborted, as it was believed the country code was not entered - others that it needed further interface to connect. In any case, it took place at the cottage, circa 10:10pm, and that was the last known signal at the cottage, a signal being picked up some distance away in someone's garden circa 00:30.

The fact Abbey was almost certainly the first name on Mez' phone contacts, suggests it was activated by simple movement, possibly a struggle that occurred.

The idea that 'Rudy was hoping to get money out of Mez' bank is a daft one.

Answer the question asked, not the question you fervently wish was asked.

There is a difference between the logs stored in your phone and the logs retained by your service provider. Do you know what that is?

 

[LondonJohn]

Believe me, you do not. I was abroad in 2007 and my phone automatically connected me to English numbers without my having to do anything.

No. No it didn't. And nor would it in 2017. I guarantee you that if you have, say, the number "02074331000" stored in your mobile phone under the name "Alan", then you travel to France or the US or India with your phone, and you bring up the entry "Alan" from your stored contacts and try to dial, that number will not connect.

You, once again, a) do not know what you're talking about, and b) are making up any old crap to try to defend an indefensible position. Do you have no shame whatsoever.......?

 

[Vixen]

Answer the question asked, not the question you fervently wish was asked.

There is a difference between the logs stored in your phone and the logs retained by your service provider. Do you know what that is?

What is this, abaddon, an exam?

 

[abaddon]

I am classed as a frequent traveller.

Once a decade? No. You are not. Likely, you got suckered by those schemes whereby you get a pass to the executive lounge that are given as freebies if you buy the right product.

 

[acbytesla]

Read the following very carefully:

I've told you explicitly already: the Massei report proves beyond doubt that those two numbers stored on Kercher's phones which were dialled (then auto-aborted) at around 10pm - the 901 number for voicemail and the 0845 number for Abbey - did NOT feature either the international dialling code from Italy (or "+" for a universal int'l code) or the UK international access code "44".

And that's because both those numbers had originally been stored by Kercher while she was living in the UK (or, in the case of the 901 voicemail number, placed there by the network operator prior to purchase). When both of those numbers were dialled from Perugia that night, they were not recognised by the Italian network onto which Kercher's UK phone was roaming (Wind). When Wind saw "901" and a number starting "0845", it knew immediately that the format was incompatible with any Italian numbers (and that the numbers contained no international dialling/access codes), so it automatically aborted/terminated the calls. If you or I took a mobile phone to Italy and tried dialling a number such as 901 or one starting "0845", we would find the call auto-terminated immediately as well. It would only be if we prefixed the number with the int'l dialling code and the UK access code (e.g. "+440845....") that the call would complete.

It is indeed arguably somewhat likely that for those numbers which Kercher called regularly from Italy (e.g. her parents and friends), she might have re-stored them in her UK mobile to include "+44" before the number. But the evidence provided in the Massei Report from the analysis of the phones proves conclusively that this was not the case for either of the voicemail access number or the 0845 number for Abbey that were dialled at around 10pm that night.

Once again, I suggest that you a) read the relevant evidence from the Massei Report, which is unequivocal and conclusive on this matter, and b) try to become more conversant with the evidence in this case (and with matters of science and technology in general).

Some people are slow.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please don't quote me out of context. This was in the context of religion and your claim to be superior, as an atheist.

The evidence shows, Mez snubbed Amanda over Halloween, she got off with handsome ski-aficionado Giacomo (and noted to a friend that Amanda irritated her by saying, 'You can have him', as though she had first choice), and immediately before the murder, Patrick told her not to come in.

Remembering how Mez had shaken a mean mojito and Patrick had demoted Amanda to handing out flyers, and how Mez had gone out yet again that afternoon with friends with barely a backward glance or inviting Amanada, we can see how Amanda's envy and resentment got the better of her.

No motive? I don't think so.

You know, you may have a point here. I know that I, knowing a roommate for a whole month, would become murderously enraged because she told me she couldn't meet me for Halloween because she already had plans with people I really didn't know or cared to know. At the same time, finding out that she made a "mean mojito" would further enrage me. I mean, a "mean margarita" I could handle, but a mojito? I couldn't let her get away with that! She'd deserve what she got, the biatch! And then dating a man I wasn't interested in would further make it impossible for me to let her live, never mind that I was involved in my own new relationship. No, if I didn't want him, she certainly can...er...I mean can't.


Amanda was not demoted to handing out flyers. She had always handed out flyers during the day and served drinks at night. Apparently it has slipped your mind that she was supposed to go to le Chic the night of the murder to serve drinks, not to hand out flyers. Or do you think she was told not to come in to work because business was slow and there wouldn't be enough people to hand flyers to?

 

[abaddon]

What is this, abaddon, an exam?

Yup. We are examining your claims. F- is your score so far.

 

[Vixen]

No. No it didn't. And nor would it in 2017. I guarantee you that if you have, say, the number "02074331000" stored in your mobile phone under the name "Alan", then you travel to France or the US or India with your phone, and you bring up the entry "Alan" from your stored contacts and try to dial, that number will not connect.

You, once again, a) do not know what you're talking about, and b) are making up any old crap to try to defend an indefensible position. Do you have no shame whatsoever.......?

My phone plan being +44 means it connects to my English numbers on my contacts. Likewise people can ring me despite my being out of the country, as it retains the +44, even if they have not dialed it.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am classed as a frequent traveller.

Well, GOOD FOR YOU! ("I am classed as......" hahahahaha)

Personally, "I am classed as" a frequent visitor to the International Space Station. The really funny thing is, I took my mobile phone up there with me, dialled my local London Indian takeaway using the number 02072893333, and IT CONNECTED RIGHT THROUGH TO THE RESTAURANT WITH NO NEED FOR ANY INTERNATIONAL DIAL/ACCESS CODES!!!!! Modern technology is quite amazing! (I ordered a murgh makhani, pilao rice, plain roti and mango lassi - and they delivered to the ISS!)

 

[Vixen]

Once a decade? No. You are not. Likely, you got suckered by those schemes whereby you get a pass to the executive lounge that are given as freebies if you buy the right product.

Finnair labels me a 'frequent traveller'.

 

[Stacyhs]

Er, you do know expert forensic electronic bods analysed the calls and reported to the court? Do read Massei or Micheli Report for finer details.

Fact is, Abbey National was dialed on Mez' phone, but the connection aborted, as it was believed the country code was not entered - others that it needed further interface to connect. In any case, it took place at the cottage, circa 10:10pm, and that was the last known signal at the cottage, a signal being picked up some distance away in someone's garden circa 00:30.

The fact Abbey was almost certainly the first name on Mez' phone contacts, suggests it was activated by simple movement, possibly a struggle that occurred.

The idea that 'Rudy was hoping to get money out of Mez' bank is a daft one.[/QUOTE]

You'd be right if anyone had suggested that, which no one has. But that fact doesn't stop you from thinking it so anyway.

 

[Vixen]

Er, you do know expert forensic electronic bods analysed the calls and reported to the court? Do read Massei or Micheli Report for finer details.

Fact is, Abbey National was dialed on Mez' phone, but the connection aborted, as it was believed the country code was not entered - others that it needed further interface to connect. In any case, it took place at the cottage, circa 10:10pm, and that was the last known signal at the cottage, a signal being picked up some distance away in someone's garden circa 00:30.

The fact Abbey was almost certainly the first name on Mez' phone contacts, suggests it was activated by simple movement, possibly a struggle that occurred.

The idea that 'Rudy was hoping to get money out of Mez' bank is a daft one.[/QUOTE]

You'd be right if anyone had suggested that, which no one has. But that fact doesn't stop you from thinking it so anyway.

The OP did indeed suggest this. Take it up with the OP.

I am glad you agree with me, Stacyhs, that it is an ignorant idea.

 

[LondonJohn]

My phone plan being +44 means it connects to my English numbers on my contacts. Likewise people can ring me despite my being out of the country, as it retains the +44, even if they have not dialed it.

What?

"My phone plan being +44"?

What the hell are you making up now? That makes......zero sense. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, and you don't even know that if a UK mobile customer travels outside the UK, then anyone in the UK calling that person's mobile will always get through to the customer. If I, a UK mobile customer with the mythical UK mobile number 07431800900, travelled to (say) Thailand with my phone, then anyone within the UK could always reach me by dialling 07431800900. That's because when I roamed onto a local network in Thailand, that network would communicate with my home UK network and effectively tell my home network that I was now reachable via that Thailand network - which would mean in turn that anyone calling 07431800900 would reach my UK network management centre, which would know that I was now on the Thailand network and would route the call accordingly. And all of that is a TOTALLY SEPARATE issue from the issue of a person using a non-UK network dialling a UK number (such as 02072894242) without using the +44 prefix.

Furthermore, your notion that "people can ring me despite my being out of the country, as it retains the +44, even if they have not dialed it" is perhaps most laughable of all (and most indicative of your total illiteracy on this matter): someone situated within the UK calling a UK mobile number (e.g. 07431800900) would NEVER need to use the +44 prefix. They would only need to use that prefix if they themselves were situated outside the UK - and if they didn't use it, their call would not connect to that UK mobile.

You're soooooooooooooooooo ignorant on this whole subject, it's verging on the ridiculous. And please stop simply making things up, eh?