The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
I can't say I've dealt with high frequency communications. I knew what it wasn't. I just remember the image. I've sold cellular and microwave equipment, but never HF. I don't have a degree in communications, I've only sat through countless training seminars so I could sell the equipment to engineers.
Click to expand...
LOL. We had a lecturer who inspired all of us to design our own antennae as a hobby.
 
Vixen said:
When my father was demobbed from the RAF after the war he worked at GPO Faraday House (of course the technology has moved on tremendously since then). He had a degree in physics and had a long career as a telecommunications engineer, until starting his own business. Earned enough to put his three sons (second marriage) through good public schools. Two of those sons did electronic/communications-type degrees before joining Sandhurst Military Academy for captaincy careers in the British Army, where they were in demand for their telecommunications expertise.

http://alondoninheritance.com/london-streets/the-faraday-building-of-queen-victoria-street/

So I have expert help at hand should I need it.

In the court case of Raff and Amanda, we have the forensic experts reports, so no degree in telecommunications needed.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue. That your father may know something is yet to be determined. But the knowledge is not hereditary. It's not passed down through your genes. Oh, I forget, you don't believe in evolution either.
 
acbytesla said:
I like the new fractal antennas.
Click to expand...

Sadly, when one has an unpleasant divorce ones gear goes out in a skip. I will never forget the day when the majority of gear was hauled away in a skip. Various antennae, oscilloscopes, frequency meters, etc, all chucked in a skip and hauled away never to be seen again. That was a crapton of expensive gear, all lost.

Shrug.

The unkindest cut of all was that she did not do so out of malevolence in any way, it just looked like junk to her so she chucked it.
 
Vixen said:
When my father was demobbed from the RAF after the war he worked at GPO Faraday House (of course the technology has moved on tremendously since then). He had a degree in physics and had a long career as a telecommunications engineer, until starting his own business. Earned enough to put his three sons (second marriage) through good public schools. Two of those sons did electronic/communications-type degrees before joining Sandhurst Military Academy for captaincy careers in the British Army, where they were in demand for their telecommunications expertise.

http://alondoninheritance.com/london-streets/the-faraday-building-of-queen-victoria-street/

So I have expert help at hand should I need it.

In the court case of Raff and Amanda, we have the forensic experts reports, so no degree in telecommunications needed.
Click to expand...

And those "forensic experts reports" are based on what? The phones or the service providers records? Which and why?
 
LondonJohn said:
....

.... my position on the aborted connection to Abbey (and the 901 voicemail number - or are you ignorant of that event too....?) is that whoever was operating Kercher's phone at that point made a number of sequenced, deliberate button pushes over at least a 2-minute period, resulting in the known evidence of those two auto-aborted calls. My position is actually that whoever was holding the phone was in fact trying (unsuccessfully) to turn off the handset or place into mute mode. ....
....
Click to expand...

LJ, I wonder about this. Wouldn't the "off" button be pretty clearly marked* and positioned so as to suggest its function?

*By a symbol or in English. I don't dispute that Guede's knowledge of English may have been highly limited, and I don't know the key layout on Kercher's English phone (nor on the Italian one, but that may be less relevant).

My speculation is that Guede may have been curious about to whom those numbers belonged and tried them, then realized that his efforts, and use of the phone, and possession of both, could draw unwelcome attention. Neither phone was turned off when found, IIRC. I find it hard to believe that the "off" button would be that hard to identify, as long as one had previously used a cell phone for any length of time (days or weeks).
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Sadly, when one has an unpleasant divorce ones gear goes out in a skip. I will never forget the day when the majority of gear was hauled away in a skip. Various antennae, oscilloscopes, frequency meters, etc, all chucked in a skip and hauled away never to be seen again. That was a crapton of expensive gear, all lost.

Shrug.

The unkindest cut of all was that she did not do so out of malevolence in any way, it just looked like junk to her so she chucked it.
Click to expand...

Ouch. Tools for someone who doesn't use them I'm sure looks, like junk.

There's a famous or infamous story of a woman near here being asked by her soon to be or already divorced husband who lived elsewhere if she would sell his expensive Porsche for him. She sold it for $100. A fraction of its value.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
LJ, I wonder about this. Wouldn't the "off" button be pretty clearly marked* and positioned so as to suggest its function?

*By a symbol or in English. I don't dispute that Guede's knowledge of English may have been highly limited, and I don't know the key layout on Kercher's English phone (nor on the Italian one, but that may be less relevant).

My speculation is that Guede may have been curious about to whom those numbers belonged and tried them, then realized that his efforts, and use of the phone, and possession of both, could draw unwelcome attention. Neither phone was turned off when found, IIRC. I find it hard to believe that the "off" button would be that hard to identify, as long as one had previously used a cell phone for any length of time (days or weeks).
Click to expand...
Why? I can identify six buttons on my phone right now. None of them are marked in any way. Nor my last phone. Nor the one before that.
 
Numbers said:
LJ, I wonder about this. Wouldn't the "off" button be pretty clearly marked* and positioned so as to suggest its function?

*By a symbol or in English. I don't dispute that Guede's knowledge of English may have been highly limited, and I don't know the key layout on Kercher's English phone (nor on the Italian one, but that may be less relevant).

My speculation is that Guede may have been curious about to whom those numbers belonged and tried them, then realized that his efforts, and use of the phone, and possession of both, could draw unwelcome attention. Neither phone was turned off when found, IIRC. I find it hard to believe that the "off" button would be that hard to identify, as long as one had previously used a cell phone for any length of time (days or weeks).
Click to expand...

I don't think all phones had the off button clearly labeled. Sometimes it would be a different shape or it have been color coded. Hell, I remember only bits of this. Guess I cleared out the cache.
 
acbytesla said:
Ouch. Tools for someone who doesn't use them I'm sure looks, like junk.

There's a famous or infamous story of a woman near here being asked by her soon to be or already divorced husband who lived elsewhere if she would sell his expensive Porsche for him. She sold it for $100. A fraction of its value.
Click to expand...
Well, I got to retain some of the more expensive items. While removing the most expensive bitch item.
 

Attachments

  • 20170321_015123 (Small).jpg
    20170321_015123 (Small).jpg
    93.2 KB · Views: 3
bagels said:
Evidence isn't about statistics and pattern matching. If it was everyone that breathed oxygen would be guilty of murder (since all murderers breathe oxygen).

AK and RS turning off their phones at a time that appears to roughly correspond to the alleged timespan of the crime isn't a relevant piece of evidence by itself in the void. Anglolawyer used to give a good example of interpreting evidence. He reasoned that evidence is like radiation left over by the actual process of actually committing the crime.

It's easier to just quote him:



The cell phones being switched off means nothing in and of itself. It has to be part of a broader scope of the crime. It would have to connect with a theory of pre-meditation. Otherwise they are retroactively turning off their cell phone after a spontaneous decision to commit a crime, violating the laws of causality.



Constructing a premeditation theory of the crime doesn't work, because AK and RS had existing plans that were only cancelled at the last moment, and had no means of coordinating with Rudy whom they did not know nor know if he would even be available that night or when. This is why the prosecution and courts never described a premeditated event. Working the phones into the surrounding circumstantial evidence takes you on a jumbled path that leads nowhere. Of course, the police originally conceived of a premeditated crime due to their suspect Patrick and his communication and agreed meeting with Amanda, but Patrick being removed from the picture killed that theory and really should have killed AKs involvement along with Patrick's... (but I digress).

I used to think the PGP were just bad at understanding how evidence works and relying on simple pattern matching (the flawed reasoning that if other cases have X, and this case has X, then this case is like other cases). But I came to realize it's not necessarily the case. They already know Amanda is guilty as a starting axiom. The evidence is simply splattered at random post-hoc.
Click to expand...

Even turning off the phones (or any one of them) does not really fit with a realistic theory of premeditation, since with the phones off, there are no possible pings with any cell towers near Sollecito's apartment. The more sensible scheme for premeditation would be to keep the phones on and keep them, possibly out doors to maximize signal reception, near the apartment or some other place far from the crime scene. All the allegedly incriminating evidence from the phones is just BS - meaningless "reasoning" - from Mignini (used in to provide the arbitrary justification for the arrests on Nov. 6) and later from the PGP.
 
Numbers said:
LJ, I wonder about this. Wouldn't the "off" button be pretty clearly marked* and positioned so as to suggest its function?

*By a symbol or in English. I don't dispute that Guede's knowledge of English may have been highly limited, and I don't know the key layout on Kercher's English phone (nor on the Italian one, but that may be less relevant).

My speculation is that Guede may have been curious about to whom those numbers belonged and tried them, then realized that his efforts, and use of the phone, and possession of both, could draw unwelcome attention. Neither phone was turned off when found, IIRC. I find it hard to believe that the "off" button would be that hard to identify, as long as one had previously used a cell phone for any length of time (days or weeks).
Click to expand...


The handset in question was a Sony Ericsson k700i. It has a monochrome appearance, making it immediately difficult to identify and differentiate buttons. It looks like this:



There is an on/off button on the top edge of the phone, but again it's monochrome in appearance. In addition, it needs to be pressed and held down for several seconds before the handset goes into power-down mode.

I think it's entirely feasible that someone who was fumbling to switch off or mute this handset (especially someone who was juiced up on adrenaline, fear and guilt after just having committed a vicious sex murder, and who might well have been unable to understand the English words on the screen.....) might have had problems. Perhaps the person did try to hold down the on/off button on the top of the handset, but just didn't hold it down for long enough. And then that person started pressing other buttons on the main face of the handset.....

(By the way, Kercher's Italian phone was switched off when it was found the following day in Lana's garden - and it had been switched off when Knox had been trying to call it around midday. Furthermore, that Italian phone registered no network connectivity or activity at any point after the murder. So it's reasonable to suppose that the person in control of the phones after the murder did indeed manage to switch off that Italian handset.)
 
LondonJohn said:
The handset in question was a Sony Ericsson k700i. It has a monochrome appearance, making it immediately difficult to identify and differentiate buttons. It looks like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/4023758d08d2f9c051.jpg[/qimg]

There is an on/off button on the top edge of the phone, but again it's monochrome in appearance. In addition, it needs to be pressed and held down for several seconds before the handset goes into power-down mode.

I think it's entirely feasible that someone who was fumbling to switch off or mute this handset (especially someone who was juiced up on adrenaline, fear and guilt after just having committed a vicious sex murder, and who might well have been unable to understand the English words on the screen.....) might have had problems. Perhaps the person did try to hold down the on/off button on the top of the handset, but just didn't hold it down for long enough. And then that person started pressing other buttons on the main face of the handset.....

(By the way, Kercher's Italian phone was switched off when it was found the following day in Lana's garden - and it had been switched off when Knox had been trying to call it around midday. Furthermore, that Italian phone registered no network connectivity or activity at any point after the murder. So it's reasonable to suppose that the person in control of the phones after the murder did indeed manage to switch off that Italian handset.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information. (I would have guessed the off key was one of the two in the second row directly below the screen.)
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Even turning off the phones (or any one of them) does not really fit with a realistic theory of premeditation, since with the phones off, there are no possible pings with any cell towers near Sollecito's apartment. The more sensible scheme for premeditation would be to keep the phones on and keep them, possibly out doors to maximize signal reception, near the apartment or some other place far from the crime scene. All the allegedly incriminating evidence from the phones is just BS - meaningless "reasoning" - from Mignini (used in to provide the arbitrary justification for the arrests on Nov. 6) and later from the PGP.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You leave them on, but at home.

But the premeditation just doesn't mesh in any way with the facts. Never mind that Amanda and Raffaele had plans up to minutes before Meredith was arriving home and at the same time Rudy was caught by the CCTV camera at the garage ALONE. Imagine trying to convince your new acquaintances that you barely can communicate with to come and help murder your roommate. Excuse me? And then covering for each other? It's ridiculous.
 
Numbers said:
Even turning off the phones (or any one of them) does not really fit with a realistic theory of premeditation, since with the phones off, there are no possible pings with any cell towers near Sollecito's apartment. The more sensible scheme for premeditation would be to keep the phones on and keep them, possibly out doors to maximize signal reception, near the apartment or some other place far from the crime scene. All the allegedly incriminating evidence from the phones is just BS - meaningless "reasoning" - from Mignini (used in to provide the arbitrary justification for the arrests on Nov. 6) and later from the PGP.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And this is (yet) another point that most pro-guilt commentators seem unable or unwilling to grasp. Sollecito certainly knew more than enough about technology to know that by far his best bet - had he and Knox really planned to go over to the cottage to do something very unpleasant to Kercher - was to leave his and Knox's mobile phones inside his apartment, switched on and in network coverage. That way, they could subsequently point to the phone records as at least some sort of evidence that they had been within Sollecito's apartment all along......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom