The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[abaddon]

Finnair labels me a 'frequent traveller'.

Yup. Suckered by the Finnair marketing department. That whole malarkey is intentionally designed to flatter. I recall many years ago when I got my "Premiere" card back in 97. It came with a glossy brochure listing the various executive lounges in the various airports around the world where I could avoid the hoi-polloi and enjoy waiting for my flight in a slightly more boring location. I knew it for what it was, a vain attempt to invoke self regarding ego preening in the hope of generating more business.

Bottom line is, once per decade does not make you a frequent flier. Once per year does not make you a frequent flier. Once per month doesn't really quite make it either, although it gets close.

Whichever airline terms you to be a frequent flier is flat out lying in the service of their marketing department.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Stop ninja-ing me, and stop pretending to correct me, instead of admitting you erred.

Were someone to use Mez' phone to contact Abbey from Italy, it would have been just one click on her contacts list. Nobody would be doing any 'dialing' per se.

One of her phones was on an English Vodafone plan, the other on an Italian one.

 

[abaddon]

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.

Wrong again. That is not how it works at all.

 

[acbytesla]

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.......?

In the US, you need to add the prefix 011 before the country code. In Italy it's 00 before the country code, in Japan it is 010. Does it work calling in the UK to enter 0044 prefix for internal UK calls? Because in Italy without the 00 preceding the country code, the call is not going to be connected.

 

[Vixen]

Yup. Suckered by the Finnair marketing department. That whole malarkey is intentionally designed to flatter. I recall many years ago when I got my "Premiere" card back in 97. It came with a glossy brochure listing the various executive lounges in the various airports around the world where I could avoid the hoi-polloi and enjoy waiting for my flight in a slightly more boring location. I knew it for what it was, a vain attempt to invoke self regarding ego preening in the hope of generating more business.

Bottom line is, once per decade does not make you a frequent flier. Once per year does not make you a frequent flier. Once per month doesn't really quite make it either, although it gets close.

Whichever airline terms you to be a frequent flier is flat out lying in the service of their marketing department.

You cannot possibly know how many times I travel.

 

[Vixen]

In the US, you need to add the prefix 011 before the country code. In Italy it's 00 before the country code, in Japan it is 010. Does it work calling in the UK to enter 0044 prefix for internal UK calls? Because in Italy without the 00 preceding the country code, the call is not going to be connected.

Yes, you can dial +44 (or 0044) inland.

These days, your provider will automatically save it to your contacts as +44, unless one specifies another country code.

 

[LondonJohn]

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 two auto-aborted calls - to 901 (UK voicemail access) and the 0845 number (Abbey Bank) - actually took place at 9.58pm and 10.00pm. As you yourself stated so very eloquently in the opening paragraph of this very post: do read the Massei Report for further details........

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.

Do you even know how mobile phone menus work?? In order for the known evidence to have taken place, a significant number of discrete steps must have taken place, over a period of at least two minutes (and this is the minimum number of steps that has to have taken place):

1) Button is pushed to access stored contacts
2) Button is pushed to select Voicemail 901
3) Button is pushed to dial Voicemail 901
Call auto-aborts
Over 1 minute elapses
4) Button is pushed to access stored contacts
5) Button is pushed to scroll from Voicemail 901 to Abbey
6) Button is pushed to select Abbey
7) Button is pushed to dial Abbey
Call auto-aborts

So a minimum of seven different button pushes, in a specific order, had to have taken place over a period of at least two minutes.

The evidence therefore suggests very strongly that this was NOT the product of any kind of scuffle/fight/struggle (both in terms of the necessary number of organised button pushes and the necessary elapsed time over which those button pushes took place), but was rather the product of someone interrogating Kercher's UK phone - probably with the aim of either turning it off or placing it onto a mute setting.

But hey..... why let the truth/evidence get in the way of a load of old cobblers and scientific illiteracy....?

 

[abaddon]

Stop ninja-ing me, and stop pretending to correct me, instead of admitting you erred.

Nope. Your claims are flat out wrong.

Were someone to use Mez' phone to contact Abbey from Italy, it would have been just one click on her contacts list.

How do you know it was in her contact list? How do you know she didn't simply dial from memory? Why are you avoiding the fact that people remember numbers they commonly use for years? My parents are long dead, their numbers are not in my phone. I can still rattle them off without any effort.

Nobody would be doing any 'dialing' per se.

One could choose that, or one could choose not to do so. People have this facility called "memory". Some of us use it.

One of her phones was on an English Vodafone plan, the other on an Italian one.

So what? What is it that you think that signifies?

 

[abaddon]

Yes, you can dial +44 (or 0044) inland.

These days, your provider will automatically save it to your contacts as +44, unless one specifies another country code.

Wrong again. Your phone stores your contacts, not your provider.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, you can dial +44 (or 0044) inland.

These days, your provider will automatically save it to your contacts as +44, unless one specifies another country code.

But your missing the point. Since there is no reason for you to store the international dialing code which is different in many countries why the hell would you add it? If I dialed 0044 from the US it's not going to connect to the UK, the same is true in Japan. The IDD code is not universal.

 

[abaddon]

You cannot possibly know how many times I travel.

Yes I can. You claimed that you last travelled abroad in 2007.

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.

Are you going to backpedal again?

 

[LondonJohn]

In the US, you need to add the prefix 011 before the country code. In Italy it's 00 before the country code, in Japan it is 010. Does it work calling in the UK to enter 0044 prefix for internal UK calls? Because in Italy without the 00 preceding the country code, the call is not going to be connected.

The "011" from the US, "00" from Italy, etc, is known as the international dialling code. It's the code used by each country to enable access to international calls. And, as you point out, each country has its own international access code (though many have "00"). And then on top of that, each country has its own unique international access code ("1" for the USA, "44" for the UK, and so on).

If one is situated in Country A, and one wants to dial a phone in Country B, then one has to prefix the number with Country A's international dialling code, then Country B's international access code. So if you, in the US, wanted to call me in the UK, you'd have to prefix my number with "01144".

Mobile operators solved the problem of not knowing international dialling codes by introducing the universal prefix "+". So I can, for example, store a UK friend's number in my UK phone with the prefix "+44". Then, wherever I travel in the world with my phone, when I dial my friend's number, the network knows which country I am in and simply substitutes in that country's international dialling code for the "+" (so if I were in the US, it would substitute the "+" with "011", but if I were in Italy, it would substitute the "+" with "00", and so on).

But, contrary to Vixen's incorrect claims, if a contact is stored on my phone as, say, 0207289444 (a (mythical) London phone number), then I guarantee that if I travel anywhere outside the UK and dial that number, I will never reach my contact. I would have to have stored the number as +44207289444 for it to connect when my phone was outside the UK.

 

[Vixen]

The two auto-aborted calls - to 901 (UK voicemail access) and the 0845 number (Abbey Bank) - actually took place at 9.58pm and 10.00pm. As you yourself stated so very eloquently in the opening paragraph of this very post: do read the Massei Report for further details........






Do you even know how mobile phone menus work?? In order for the known evidence to have taken place, a significant number of discrete steps must have taken place, over a period of at least two minutes (and this is the minimum number of steps that has to have taken place):

1) Button is pushed to access stored contacts
2) Button is pushed to select Voicemail 901
3) Button is pushed to dial Voicemail 901
Call auto-aborts
Over 1 minute elapses
4) Button is pushed to access stored contacts
5) Button is pushed to scroll from Voicemail 901 to Abbey
6) Button is pushed to select Abbey
7) Button is pushed to dial Abbey
Call auto-aborts

So a minimum of seven different button pushes, in a specific order, had to have taken place over a period of at least two minutes.

The evidence therefore suggests very strongly that this was NOT the product of any kind of scuffle/fight/struggle (both in terms of the necessary number of organised button pushes and the necessary elapsed time over which those button pushes took place), but was rather the product of someone interrogating Kercher's UK phone - probably with the aim of either turning it off or placing it onto a mute setting.

But hey..... why let the truth/evidence get in the way of a load of old cobblers and scientific illiteracy....?

Here is the itinery. The last one was circa 10:10, as I said, but thanks for once again trying to erroneously correct me.

At 20:56, 21:58 and 22:00 on November 1st, dialing attempts were made on Ms. Kercher’s “English” phone. It is not clear whether these were intentional or accidental.
At 22:13 a cell phone internet connection was made on Ms. Kercher’s “English” cell phone for 8-9 seconds. It is not clear whether this was intended or not. (Latella 2009)
At 00:10 on November 2nd, Ms. Kercher's “English” cell phone received a call through a coverage route incompatible with the cottage, a coverage route which instead covered the garden of the villa 950 meters away from the cottage. (Latella 2009)

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List#Cellular_phones

 

[LondonJohn]

Wrong again. Your phone stores your contacts, not your provider.

There are SO MANY levels of wrong in Vixen's posts about international dialling, stored numbers and phone networks over the past few hours - coupled with flat out "economical with the actualite" nonsense claims from personal experience. We're right back in ballistics trajectory theory territory again.....................

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is the itinery. The last one was circa 10:10, as I said, but thanks for once again trying to erroneously correct me.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List#Cellular_phones

Oh deary me.

You don't even know what that 22.13 event was???

I'll tell you: it wasn't in any way connected with the (auto-aborted) calls to 901 and the Abbey Bank (as you had falsely and incorrectly claimed....). It was actually the reception by Kercher's UK phone of an incoming multimedia message (MMS) - evidence shows that whoever had the phone in their possession at 22.13 (Guede) pressed to start the message download, then quickly aborted the download.

But, just for the record, let's remind ourselves of what you originally said about timings:

"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..."

So you're stating that the call to Abbey "took place at the cottage, circa 10.10pm". And, as I correctly pointed out, you're wrong. The Abbey call actually took place at 10.00pm (preceded by the 901 call at 9.58pm). The 10.13pm event was something different altogether.

But congratulations on your "attack is the best form of defence" attempts to claim that it was I who made the embarrassing mistake, and not that - as was actually the case - it was YOU who made the embarrassing mistake! We've seen that so many times before on these pages, after all.....

(And "itinerary")

 

[LondonJohn]

Nope. Your claims are flat out wrong.

How do you know it was in her contact list? How do you know she didn't simply dial from memory? Why are you avoiding the fact that people remember numbers they commonly use for years? My parents are long dead, their numbers are not in my phone. I can still rattle them off without any effort.

One could choose that, or one could choose not to do so. People have this facility called "memory". Some of us use it.

So what? What is it that you think that signifies?

The levels of lying, ignorance, attempts to place the blame for mistakes onto others, and extraordinary chutzpah on display in this individual's "arguments" are genuinely astonishing. Disgusting and laughable in roughly equal amounts, an utter abomination of the notion of sincere, honest debate, and a pollution to the debate.

 

[Vixen]

Latella testifies as follows:

At this point we analyzed the printout of the afternoon of 1 November of the English audience of Meredith Kercher who in fact was on board to a mobile phone that since in fact, as we said before, a Roming contract between the English manager and Wind, this phone traffic PROCEEDED precisely buckling to Wind cells. We see the phone call at 14:31 attaches to the cell Wind 3,302,055,620 that we see to be the cell that is attached to the back of the house, that is, from the window where he lived Meredith. Even the next call, to 15:01 locks into a Wind cell that is the one that is always at the height of the Meredith room window, and so on until at 15.55 we other communications of the English telephone and engages inside the cell, ends at 22:13 which in this case is not a phone, but it is a GPRS connection, a connection to ... it is not a voice call is a data connection, the cell serves this communication is 3,302,030,064 which as we see is still always detected by measurements made by us to the height of the Meredith's room window. So we can, we can say that from the hours 14.31 to 22.13 hours on the phone with 00447841131571 load will still was in Via della Pergola.

About Raff's phone: the expert confirms it was turned off between 8:42 and 6:02 next morning.

Yes, we have done this, we took a month of traffic which is a period that we consider adequate to back in principle to the habits of a person, and we noticed that the phone is normally used during the night is rarely turned off, but putting along the logoff time with the logon hours, and we note and the only time in a month when the phone is turned off at 20:42 pm ..., that does not generate traffic from 20:42 pm to 6:02 hours in the morning. See for example the day before it resumes at 9 am and is turned off at midnight, the day before is still activated at noon and is switched off around midnight. The day before at 8:20 in the morning and turned off after midnight and so on. Instead the only day that is turned on at a time, at 6 in the morning is this, there are other times when the phone is switched on in a month at 6am.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Letterio_Latella's_Testimony

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

Oh dear lord, lying and misleading is becoming a habit with you.

Meredith did not snub Amanda, she replied back and said she already had dinner plans. She WAS allowed to make plans without inviting Amanda.

Amanda was completely infatuated with Raffaele. Giacomo wasn't a factor.

Lumumba told Amanda not to bother coming in because there was no business that night.

No indication of envy or resentment. No motive. Even the prosecution came up with better lame ideas than that.

 

[Vixen]

The levels of lying, ignorance, attempts to place the blame for mistakes onto others, and extraordinary chutzpah on display in this individual's "arguments" are genuinely astonishing. Disgusting and laughable in roughly equal amounts, an utter abomination of the notion of sincere, honest debate, and a pollution to the debate.

You are the 'pollution' to this debate - claiming that Rudy is to blame for everything.

So the aborted connection to Abbey National becomes, 'That was Rudy trying out the bank but forgot the country code'.

There is zero evidence it was anything of the sort.

We do know as a SCIENTIFIC FACT that both Amanda and Raff turned off their phones for the duration of the murder.

 

[Numbers]

There are SO MANY levels of wrong in Vixen's posts about international dialling, stored numbers and phone networks over the past few hours - coupled with flat out "economical with the actualite" nonsense claims from personal experience. We're right back in ballistics trajectory theory territory again.....................

Yes! Long live the PGP New Physics! It's almost as good as SNL!