The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Matthew Best]

I just love when Vixen makes authoritive ABSOLUTE statements that she doesn't have a damn clue about.

Well, you've certainly come to the right place.

 

[Planigale]

Latella testifies as follows:



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

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Letterio_Latella's_Testimony

Thank you for this quote I had not seen it before.
"Quote:
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."

So it appears quite common for the phone to be 'turned off' overnight.

"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. "

So the three preceding nights the phone is 'turned off'.
24.00 to 09.00
24.00 to 12.00
24.00 to 08.20.

So what is unique is that it was 'switched off' earlier than usual at 20.42 and 'switched on' earlier than usual at 06.00. Though he does point out there are other days that it is 'switched on' at 06.00.

So I think we need to be clear that 'switching off' the phone overnight was not a unique event, nor was switching it on at 06.00. The only unique event was it being 'turned off' at 20.42.

What 'turning off' means is slightly moot. It seems to mean that the network 'lost' the phone, which may be because it was switched off or that it was in a dead zone.

One could argue about how representative a month was; the day was unique as the only 'holiday'. It also followed on the only halloween. It was also associated with the nearly unique event of having a girl over, so one would not expect behaviour to be the same as previous nights in October.

 

[toto]

Thank you for this quote I had not seen it before.
"Quote:
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."

So it appears quite common for the phone to be 'turned off' overnight.
"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. "

So the three preceding nights the phone is 'turned off'.
24.00 to 09.00
24.00 to 12.00
24.00 to 08.20.

So what is unique is that it was 'switched off' earlier than usual at 20.42 and 'switched on' earlier than usual at 06.00. Though he does point out there are other days that it is 'switched on' at 06.00.

So I think we need to be clear that 'switching off' the phone overnight was not a unique event, nor was switching it on at 06.00. The only unique event was it being 'turned off' at 20.42.

What 'turning off' means is slightly moot. It seems to mean that the network 'lost' the phone, which may be because it was switched off or that it was in a dead zone.

One could argue about how representative a month was; the day was unique as the only 'holiday'. It also followed on the only halloween. It was also associated with the nearly unique event of having a girl over, so one would not expect behaviour to be the same as previous nights in October.

I have to say I sometimes feel a bit bad about the pile on that happens on this thread, but that highlighted part was exactly my take.

 

[Anode]

Thank you for this quote I had not seen it before.
"Quote:
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."

So it appears quite common for the phone to be 'turned off' overnight.

"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. "

So the three preceding nights the phone is 'turned off'.
24.00 to 09.00
24.00 to 12.00
24.00 to 08.20.

So what is unique is that it was 'switched off' earlier than usual at 20.42 and 'switched on' earlier than usual at 06.00. Though he does point out there are other days that it is 'switched on' at 06.00.

So I think we need to be clear that 'switching off' the phone overnight was not a unique event, nor was switching it on at 06.00. The only unique event was it being 'turned off' at 20.42.

What 'turning off' means is slightly moot. It seems to mean that the network 'lost' the phone, which may be because it was switched off or that it was in a dead zone.

One could argue about how representative a month was; the day was unique as the only 'holiday'. It also followed on the only halloween. It was also associated with the nearly unique event of having a girl over, so one would not expect behaviour to be the same as previous nights in October.

Well then, the obvious question is,who did Raf murder on the three previous nights when he shut off his phone? Lol!

 

[Bill Williams]

Well then, the obvious question is,who did Raf murder on the three previous nights when he shut off his phone? Lol!

You miss the import of the three previous nights.

They were test runs. After having turned off his phone the three previous nights and noting that the Carabinieri had not beaten down his door, Sollecito knew it was safe to do it the fourth night - and then go out and create mayhem.

 

[acbytesla]

Well then, the obvious question is,who did Raf murder on the three previous nights when he shut off his phone? Lol!

 

[Numbers]

You miss the import of the three previous nights.

They were test runs. After having turned off his phone the three previous nights and noting that the Carabinieri had not beaten down his door, Sollecito knew it was safe to do it the fourth night - and then go out and create mayhem.

Bill, we all know that turning off one's cell phone is itself a criminal act.

There are those liberal sob-sisters who claim people turn off cell phones to recharge them faster, or so as not to lose charge, or to ensure that no calls disturb them, or that a phone in a signal dead-spot will appear off to the cell network, but we know those are all fanciful excuses to cover-up the shocking criminality of taking one's cell phone off-network.

And that is why for the Knox - Sollecito case this issue must be endlessly repeated as though it had some inculpatory significance.

 

[whoanellie]

Bill, we all know that turning off one's cell phone is itself a criminal act.

There are those liberal sob-sisters who claim people turn off cell phones to recharge them faster, or so as not to lose charge, or to ensure that no calls disturb them, or that a phone in a signal dead-spot will appear off to the cell network, but we know those are all fanciful excuses to cover-up the shocking criminality of taking one's cell phone off-network.

And that is why for the Knox - Sollecito case this issue must be endlessly repeated as though it had some inculpatory significance.

I'm pretty sure that the other nights had something to do with s*x. The height of wickedness.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Of course they cover for each other. What else can they do?

BTW Premeditation can be literally seconds. If you decide to go out to teach your friend a lesson and you grab a kitchen knife on the way there, then that becomes premeditation.

Amanda read her email from Patrick not to come in (sent by him 20:17) which she read circa 20:40 and immediately deleted her reply to him and switched off the phone.

Somewhere along the way either one of the pair grabbed Raff's kitchen knife, as hypothesised by the police, who are crime experts, after all.

It looks like premeditation from here.

 

[bagels]

Of course they cover for each other. What else can they do?

BTW Premeditation can be literally seconds. If you decide to go out to teach your friend a lesson and you grab a kitchen knife on the way there, then that becomes premeditation.

Amanda read her email from Patrick not to come in (sent by him 20:17) which she read circa 20:40 and immediately deleted her reply to him and switched off the phone.

Somewhere along the way either one of the pair grabbed Raff's kitchen knife, as hypothesised by the police, who are crime experts, after all.

It looks like premeditation from here.

The problem is Rudy. Even if A&R spontaneously decide to go slaughter Meredith because she once complained about the bathroom chores, how do you get from there to Rudy - a random town burglar - raping the victim, covering himself in her blood, and being the only one leaving the primary timestamped forensic evidence? Did they just happen to run into him on the 3 minute walk to the cottage, spontaneously decide to add this stranger to the murder plan, he spontaneously decided to agree to help slaughter his friends girlfriend for no reason, and the fact that he had been caught snooping around the cottage alone like a burglar before the students prior plans were canceled was just a strange psychic premonition of the evenings later events?

It's a problem that no one has satisfactorily answered and contributed significantly to the students acquittal(s). You wont understand or comprehend this though because of reasons, so that's why their acquittal will always be incomprehensible to you, some unexplained nefarious mafia/masonic/state department plot.

 

[Vixen]

Thank you for this quote I had not seen it before.
"Quote:
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."

So it appears quite common for the phone to be 'turned off' overnight.

"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. "

So the three preceding nights the phone is 'turned off'.
24.00 to 09.00
24.00 to 12.00
24.00 to 08.20.

So what is unique is that it was 'switched off' earlier than usual at 20.42 and 'switched on' earlier than usual at 06.00. Though he does point out there are other days that it is 'switched on' at 06.00.

So I think we need to be clear that 'switching off' the phone overnight was not a unique event, nor was switching it on at 06.00. The only unique event was it being 'turned off' at 20.42.

What 'turning off' means is slightly moot. It seems to mean that the network 'lost' the phone, which may be because it was switched off or that it was in a dead zone.

One could argue about how representative a month was; the day was unique as the only 'holiday'. It also followed on the only halloween. It was also associated with the nearly unique event of having a girl over, so one would not expect behaviour to be the same as previous nights in October.

Chronology is of key importance in solving crime and taking a case to court.

You fail to observe the chronological sequence:

-Amanda spent Halloween night mostly alone, having been snubbed by Mez, despite dropping heavy hints.

-Next day Mez got up late went out 4:00 pm to visit friends again, leaving Amanda and Raff to it.

-The pair wandered into town and were evasive about it to police. Amanda even omits it in her Prision Diary.

-Raff originally told police he came home alone about 9:00 and Amanda turned up at 01:00.

-Amanda got a text message from Patrick saying, don't come in. She already knew he was taking on Mez.

-She read his message whilst located near the cottage. She claimed to police she was with Raff when she read the message.

-She replied to Patrick and then deleted it.

-She turned off her phone. Raff's phone became inactive. As Latella says, this was due to being turned off, broken, or some other mecahnical issue with the phone. The networks signals were all strong and normal - as evidenced by other users in the same vicinity as Raff and with the same architecture and building materials as Raff's abode.


- Raff did not turn it back on until 6:00 next morning, but lied to police he slept through until after 10:30.

- Amanda did not turn hers back on until midday - to call Mez' disposed of phone.

-In Raff's original statement to police he said he spoke to his dad at 23:00pm - another lie.

- Raff and Papa Raff made statements to the police they had their evening meal by 8:42 and after washing up there was a leak at the pipes.

-Amanda told police this did not happen until 9:00, 10:00 or 11:00 depending on what version of her 'best truth' you look at.

- She claimed she slept through from after dinner at 23:00 through to 10-ish next day.

-Police discovered someone had downloaded and played grunge with aggressive lyrics (come as you are, fight club, etc) at 5:30-ish. Hellmann's claim this was light relaxing morning music is utterly bonkers.

-Raff reveals Amanda wasn't even faithful to him - being more interested in keeping up her romance with David Johnsrud and sexting him.

So don't give up the course at Police Academy just yet.

 

[Vixen]

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......

Would...could...should...

 

[Vixen]

And those experts examined what, exactly?

They examined phone and computer logs in minute intricate detail.

And I promise you, they had ZERO desire to frame anybody or make up data.

Would you make up data, if asked to help with a crime? Of course not. A professional has an obligation to be objective.

 

[Vixen]

The problem is Rudy. Even if A&R spontaneously decide to go slaughter Meredith because she once complained about the bathroom chores, how do you get from there to Rudy - a random town burglar - raping the victim, covering himself in her blood, and being the only one leaving the primary timestamped forensic evidence? Did they just happen to run into him on the 3 minute walk to the cottage, spontaneously decide to add this stranger to the murder plan, he spontaneously decided to agree to help slaughter his friends girlfriend for no reason, and the fact that he had been caught snooping around the cottage alone like a burglar before the students prior plans were canceled was just a strange psychic premonition of the evenings later events?

It's a problem that no one has satisfactorily answered and contributed significantly to the students acquittal(s). You wont understand or comprehend this though because of reasons, so that's why their acquittal will always be incomprehensible to you, some unexplained nefarious mafia/masonic/state department plot.

It's rather connected to their trip into town. You know? The errand they were so evasive about with cops?

Amanda was in Piazza Grimana when she read Patrick's text. No doubt Rudy was also there.

You are right, it's not a row about the bathroom rota. This murder has 'Vengeance' written large all over it.

The clue about what Rudy was doing there can be found in Amanda's early statements to police. She met 'Patrick' in Piazza Grimana and took him to the cottage to have sex with Mez.

What horny 20-year old is going to turn down a party which includes the beautiful Mez, or maybe Amanda - as Rudy keeps telling us it was her he was interested in. So, Rudy was there for the same reason many people go to parties.

It's a puzzle to me why it is such a big puzzle for you.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I am sure they will bear that in mind, next time.

 

[Planigale]

Chronology is of key importance in solving crime and taking a case to court.

You fail to observe the chronological sequence:

-Amanda spent Halloween night mostly alone, having been snubbed by Mez, despite dropping heavy hints.

-Next day Mez got up late went out 4:00 pm to visit friends again, leaving Amanda and Raff to it.

-The pair wandered into town and were evasive about it to police. Amanda even omits it in her Prision Diary.

-Raff originally told police he came home alone about 9:00 and Amanda turned up at 01:00.

-Amanda got a text message from Patrick saying, don't come in. She already knew he was taking on Mez.

-She read his message whilst located near the cottage. She claimed to police she was with Raff when she read the message.

-She replied to Patrick and then deleted it.

-She turned off her phone. Raff's phone became inactive. As Latella says, this was due to being turned off, broken, or some other mecahnical issue with the phone. The networks signals were all strong and normal - as evidenced by other users in the same vicinity as Raff and with the same architecture and building materials as Raff's abode.


- Raff did not turn it back on until 6:00 next morning, but lied to police he slept through until after 10:30.

- Amanda did not turn hers back on until midday - to call Mez' disposed of phone.

-In Raff's original statement to police he said he spoke to his dad at 23:00pm - another lie.

- Raff and Papa Raff made statements to the police they had their evening meal by 8:42 and after washing up there was a leak at the pipes.

-Amanda told police this did not happen until 9:00, 10:00 or 11:00 depending on what version of her 'best truth' you look at.

- She claimed she slept through from after dinner at 23:00 through to 10-ish next day.

-Police discovered someone had downloaded and played grunge with aggressive lyrics (come as you are, fight club, etc) at 5:30-ish. Hellmann's claim this was light relaxing morning music is utterly bonkers.

-Raff reveals Amanda wasn't even faithful to him - being more interested in keeping up her romance with David Johnsrud and sexting him.

So don't give up the course at Police Academy just yet.

So Knox gets a text from Patrik at about 20.40 when she is out and about, then has to get back to Sollecito's in order to open the door to Popovic at 20.40. Persuade Sollecito to participate in a murder so that he turns his phone off at 20.42. Some how get in touch with Guede without using a phone (switched off by then!). Get over to the piazza to be seen by Curatalo at 21.30 then get Kercher's phones dumped by 22.14. Presumably in amongst all this she has to make out with Sollecito, participate in a sex game, steal money, have a row, provoke Guede in to attacking Kercher...

Knox has the most amazing powers persuasion if she can do this in the few minutes available.

Remembering of course until 20.40 Knox thought she was working and Sollecito driving Popovic to pick up a parcel later that evening.

 

[bagels]

It's rather connected to their trip into town. You know? The errand they were so evasive about with cops?

Amanda was in Piazza Grimana when she read Patrick's text. No doubt Rudy was also there.

You are right, it's not a row about the bathroom rota. This murder has 'Vengeance' written large all over it.

The clue about what Rudy was doing there can be found in Amanda's early statements to police. She met 'Patrick' in Piazza Grimana and took him to the cottage to have sex with Mez.

What horny 20-year old is going to turn down a party which includes the beautiful Mez, or maybe Amanda - as Rudy keeps telling us it was her he was interested in. So, Rudy was there for the same reason many people go to parties.

It's a puzzle to me why it is such a big puzzle for you.

You don't invite some virtual stranger under the guise of a party that's really a secret murder plot, and then start butchering his friends girlfriend right in front of him and then actually expect him to join in and become the primary aggressor. It's an incoherent non sequitur sequence of events.

The Patrick theory was a police construction. It was a construction based on the phone records, assuming the staged break-in, and the contents of Amanda's text message. It was a theory that, although wrong, was actually coherent. Amanda and Patrick arranged a nefarious meetup, this arrangement was documented through phone logs and text messages, and there were no impossible time constraints since Amanda would have had no other plans in this scenario. But losing Patrick was a double problem for the police, because not only did they lose their suspect, their suspect was also the very one removing their time constraints. With him out of the picture Amanda now thinks she's going to spend the entire evening working, so can't have other plans - an inconvenience the police and prosecution never satisfactorily solved, although they at least quickly realized that premeditation was out which is why it was never part of any of the trials.

It's actually not surprising that you are puzzled by my inability to deal with Rudy's presence vis-a-vis the students involvement. Because it conforms to what I've ultimately recently concluded, which is that neither side is capable of communicating with the other side in any way. We both see ourselves as having the rational view, and the other side as not just wrong, but mentally delusional and suffering from severe cognitive biases preventing them from processing reality. We have no means to collectively agree which side is the one that's actually right, and which side is delusional.

I would tend to agree that the lack of evidence that Hellmann was bribed, and the lack of outrage from the scientific and legal community over Amanda's acquittal, tends to favor our side's sanity.

 

[acbytesla]

Of course they cover for each other. What else can they do?

BTW Premeditation can be literally seconds. If you decide to go out to teach your friend a lesson and you grab a kitchen knife on the way there, then that becomes premeditation.

Amanda read her email from Patrick not to come in (sent by him 20:17) which she read circa 20:40 and immediately deleted her reply to him and switched off the phone.

Somewhere along the way either one of the pair grabbed Raff's kitchen knife, as hypothesised by the police, who are crime experts, after all.

It looks like premeditation from here.

This is so silly.

You contradict yourself almost right away. Clearly if they turned off their phones at Raffaele's apartment to evade being tracked to the cottage and they brought weapons with them then the premeditation is not seconds.

Two, almost strangers are not going to cover for each other? Seriously? They would fold like a cheap suit.

Three, still doesn’t address Amanda trying to persuade not one but two almost strangers to kill Meredith. Imagine Amanda sitting with her new boyfriend of just a week watching the sweet romantic comedy Amélie right after Ms Popovic leaves. How does she even suggest to this boy who hardly speaks her language that he should go back to the cottage and kill her roommate. Personally, I can't see it. I can't imagine her asking or him saying yes. It would take a massive amount of trust for both of them.

Four, they don't know where Meredith is or if/when she might return.
Five, they already have plans to go to Gubbio in the morning.
Six, Raffaele doesn’t know Rudy and Amanda is not known to have said much more then hello to him. And they're not in contact with Rudy. How do they get this almost total stranger to take a very active role in the murder?

I'm sorry Vixen, I think your imagination has run away with you. I don't see it.

 

[Planigale]

It's rather connected to their trip into town. You know? The errand they were so evasive about with cops?

Amanda was in Piazza Grimana when she read Patrick's text. No doubt Rudy was also there.

You are right, it's not a row about the bathroom rota. This murder has 'Vengeance' written large all over it.

The clue about what Rudy was doing there can be found in Amanda's early statements to police. She met 'Patrick' in Piazza Grimana and took him to the cottage to have sex with Mez.

What horny 20-year old is going to turn down a party which includes the beautiful Mez, or maybe Amanda - as Rudy keeps telling us it was her he was interested in. So, Rudy was there for the same reason many people go to parties.

It's a puzzle to me why it is such a big puzzle for you.

So are you saying Curatalo recognised Knox but confused Guede and Sollecito? So Knox was with Guede at 20.40 persuaded him to participate in a murder, rushed back to see Popovic at 20.40 then persuaded Sollecito to participate in a murder so he turned off his phone at 20.42? So just a few seconds?

 

[acbytesla]

So are you saying Curatalo recognised Knox but confused Guede and Sollecito? So Knox was with Guede at 20.40 persuaded him to participate in a murder, rushed back to see Popovic at 20.40 then persuaded Sollecito to participate in a murder so he turned off his phone at 20.42? So just a few seconds?

I'm sorry. I don't care how good the sex might be, but I'm going to get the hell away from my crazy new American girlfriend when she suggests we kill her roommate.