Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

No need to ask about calls at 8:40? How come?

When RS was interviewed he was asked to given an account of the whole day. I may be misremembering but I think he said he spoke to his father at about 11pm.

Exactly. As the call log clearly shows, there was no communication between RS' cell and the Cell towers between 8:40(ish)PM and 6(ish)AM.

At no point, anywhere, is there a record of an 11PM phone call.

In fact, we find that we have no way of pinpointing where RS was between the time he shut off his phone (after 8:42PM) and 6AM - we can't even triangulate via Cell Tower because the phone was shut off.

I'm really not certain what Dan was attempting to prove with these logs...unless he just wanted to dig the hole a little deeper?

 

[Dan O.]

I think you're wrong. The table is confusingly set out. There's the "called" and "calling" columns on the left, but then column 8 indicates "from" and "to" so Amanda's number (3484673590) for example, jumps back and forth.

After a careful review there was only a couple of minor errors so I won't post the list again until more of the unknown numbers are filled in and it's needed in the discussion.

I added the last 3 columns to the original data to make it slightly easier to read and had originally left off the first 2 columns because they do tend to be confusing but then put them back for completeness. some of the numbers include a 1 or 2 digit country code (USA is #1) for SMS or international calls only.

 

[stilicho]

After a careful review there was only a couple of minor errors so I won't post the list again until more of the unknown numbers are filled in and it's needed in the discussion.

I added the last 3 columns to the original data to make it slightly easier to read and had originally left off the first 2 columns because they do tend to be confusing but then put them back for completeness. some of the numbers include a 1 or 2 digit country code (USA is #1) for SMS or international calls only.

It might be a good idea to explain what you're trying to establish with the cell phone records. The originals were used in the investigation to establish that they were switched off and on around the same time, as evidence that RS only called the Carabinieri after the Polizia had already arrived at the cottage, and that they were switched on hours before AK and RS said they had awoken.

Do you have a new claim that depends on the full cell phone records?

 

[shuttlt]

Wasn't Dan O just addressing the trivial issue of whether or not RS answered any calls from his father that day? I'm not sure that it matters one way or the other.

 

[Dan O.]

It might be a good idea to explain what you're trying to establish with the cell phone records. The originals were used in the investigation to establish that they were switched off and on around the same time, as evidence that RS only called the Carabinieri after the Polizia had already arrived at the cottage, and that they were switched on hours before AK and RS said they had awoken.

For the benefit of Mr. Stilicho who doesn't seem to follow thread conversations very well, here is another thread summary.

Back in post 2056, I had asked for an explanation of the timing of events related to the times that the phones had supposedly been turned off. The prosecution and apparently you are claiming that turning a cell phone off is an indication of a plan to commit a crime where they don't want their movements tracked by the police.

Fiona responded that she thought the subsequent call from Raffaele's dad just went to voice mail so I answered Fiona and also posted the call records which I had just finished transcribing to support the times from my initial post, help answer Fiona and generally make the data available to the group.

Do you have a new claim that depends on the full cell phone records?

Now that you ask, How does the Call Detail record "establish" that the phones were turned off?
(If you've been reading the thread, you would have seen the answer.)

 

[Fiona]

What stat of mind are you in to interpret that as anything other than Amanda didn't know if her lamp was in her room that day or if Meredith had a similar lamp? Did Amanda have reason to use her lamp when she returned to the cottage?

Just to return to this lamp for a moment. Knox says in her e-mail

i then went into the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room for things missing, which there werent.

Knox was actively looking over her room , according to this perfectly unforced account given 4/11/07. So I think she would have noticed the lamp, don't you ?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Now that you ask, How does the Call Detail record "establish" that the phones were turned off?

Maybe you should be looking at the actual trial testimony of the experts on this matter in order to come to conclusions about the phones, rather then an obscure defence document presented and thrown out in the pre-trial under judge Micheli. Just a thought.

 

[shuttlt]

For the benefit of Mr. Stilicho who doesn't seem to follow thread conversations very well, here is another thread summary.

Back in post 2056, I had asked for an explanation of the timing of events related to the times that the phones had supposedly been turned off. The prosecution and apparently you are claiming that turning a cell phone off is an indication of a plan to commit a crime where they don't want their movements tracked by the police.

I don't see it has to be to avoid being tracked by the police. They might be doing something where they don't want to be bothered by their phones ringing (that is their claim isn't it?). They might be doing something where they don't want to risk accidentally answering/dialing their phones in their pockets (it's happened to me). Perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time, but in the cold light of day it didn't serve much of a purpose at all.

Now that you ask, How does the Call Detail record "establish" that the phones were turned off?
(If you've been reading the thread, you would have seen the answer.)

I take it you're alluding to the logs from the cell phone towers as being the only source of this information?

 

[shuttlt]

Knox was actively looking over her room , according to this perfectly unforced account given 4/11/07. So I think she would have noticed the lamp, don't you ?

People do sometimes miss blindingly obvious things that, once pointed out, you couldn't fail to notice if you tried. Having said that she's certainly being more than a little evasive about whether the lamp in Kercher's room is hers or not.

 

[Fiona]

Where was the lamp flex?

 

[Dan O.]

Knox was actively looking over her room , according to this perfectly unforced account given 4/11/07. So I think she would have noticed the lamp, don't you ?

In her testimony she says that she looked to see if any important stuff was missing that a thief would have taken. Do you think a burglar is going to break into a second story window to steal a $10 lamp when there is a fancy laptop sitting there? Amanda was looking for evidence of a theft not a detailed accounting of every appliance in the house.

You probably have a personal opinion biased by your presupposition of Amanda's guilt. The proper way to answer the question of wether someone would notice a missing lamp is to look for or conduct a scientific study to actually measure the rates that this occurs. Would you accept the results of science or are you just a decider?

 

[Fiona]

I notice from the phone record there that the first call to Filomena Romanelli is at 12:08. In court Filomena gave that time as "about 12:15" so it seems she was a little off on the time.

So at 12:08 Knox was in the cottage. She had had her shower. She telephoned Romanelli and said there was something strange about the cottage and there was blood in the bathroom. She said she was going to get Sollecito.

In her e-mail to her friends and family she said she left Sollecito's house at around 10:30 to make the 5 minute walk back to the cottage. She says she "took a quick shower" and she noticed the blood: she used the hairdrier in the other bathroom and notices the **** in the toilet. She says she felt uncomfortable and she grabbed the mop and returned to RS's house. She says she called Romanelli from there.

Hmmm

 

[Fiona]

In her testimony she says that she looked to see if any important stuff was missing that a thief would have taken.

That is not what her e-mail says.

Do you think a burglar is going to break into a second story window to steal a $10 lamp when there is a fancy laptop sitting there? Amanda was looking for evidence of a theft not a detailed accounting of every appliance in the house.

As Shuttit also says: one can miss the blindingly obvious, certainly. I still think that if one was actively looking to see if anything was missing you would perhaps notice the absence of a lamp. But ok, maybe she missed it.

You probably have a personal opinion biased by your presupposition of Amanda's guilt. The proper way to answer the question of wether someone would notice a missing lamp is to look for or conduct a scientific study to actually measure the rates that this occurs. Would you accept the results of science or are you just a decider?

Oh I will be fascinated to see the study. Bring it on

ETA. I did not have a presupposition of her guilt, as you state. I concluded that on the basis of the evidence I have seen I would probably have found her guilty if I were on the jury. That is what jurors do: they are "deciders" by virtue of their role. Do you understand that?

 

[shuttlt]

You probably have a personal opinion biased by your presupposition of Amanda's guilt. The proper way to answer the question of wether someone would notice a missing lamp is to look for or conduct a scientific study to actually measure the rates that this occurs. Would you accept the results of science or are you just a decider?

I think you ask too much Dan O. If research exists it is clearly helpful, but much of the evidence comes down to what we individually find reasonable and plausible. Much of the time that is surely what the lawyers will be appealing to? Where you really need the research is if you want to claim something people might not find reasonable, or plausible.

Personally, if she really didn't notice her lamp was missing, it would raise an eyebrow. I wouldn't be stunned, or conclude she was lying off the back of this, but it's not what I'd expect.

As for her evasion in answering questions about it, about all I conclude is that she's being excessively careful about what she says and wishes to avoid committing herself to anything in case she later comes to regret this. Given that she's on trial for murder and has put her foot in it quite a few times already I'm not sure that I blame her.

 

[Dan O.]

Maybe you should be looking at the actual trial testimony of the experts on this matter in order to come to conclusions about the phones, rather then an obscure defence document presented and thrown out in the pre-trial under judge Micheli. Just a thought.

According to you, nobody should be discussing this case because the judges have already ruled.

We aren't in Italy so the rulings of the Italian courts don't apply to us. If you think there is evidence to counter my claims then present it here.

The Italian authorities are obviously a clueless bunch the way they try to use the Cell tower records to prove movements. It's like they have no clue about how radio signals travel and have never actually analyzed real world cell tower records except perhaps how to cherry pick the data.

Can you prove that it is not possible for a phone in Amanda's apartment to connect to the cell on Via Ulisse Rocchi?

If you are taking the prosecutions side and supporting the claim that Amanda left Raffaele's apartment, it is your burden to prove that claim.


And even if she did step out, what does that prove? From all the facts, she expected that she was going to be working that night. She leaves the Raffaele's apartment heading to work (or heading home to change first), receives the message from Patrick that she has the night off, runs back to Raffaele with the good news and text's a reply to Patrick. Then she turns her phone of so Patrick can't call her back if a crowd shows up in the bar later that night.

Amanda didn't remember leaving Raffaele's apartment that night. But even if she did step out, that is no indication that any criminal activity was planned. Amanda never claims to have a perfect memory. Since when is having a faulty memory a crime?

 

[shuttlt]

According to you, nobody should be discussing this case because the judges have already ruled.

We aren't in Italy so the rulings of the Italian courts don't apply to us. If you think there is evidence to counter my claims then present it here.

The Italian authorities are obviously a clueless bunch the way they try to use the Cell tower records to prove movements. It's like they have no clue about how radio signals travel and have never actually analyzed real world cell tower records except perhaps how to cherry pick the data.

Can you prove that it is not possible for a phone in Amanda's apartment to connect to the cell on Via Ulisse Rocchi?

Surely the phone was not connected to any tower during the period we are interested in?

In any case, for me personally, in the absence of evidence that is incompatible with the Italian court having reached the right conclusion, my inclination, faced with incomplete information about the case is to err on the side of assuming the court got it right.

If you are taking the prosecutions side and supporting the claim that Amanda left Raffaele's apartment, it is your burden to prove that claim.

Surely the interpretation of the forensic evidence given by the prosecution, if valid, implicitly proves they left the appartment. Hard to be involved in the murder without leaving
Raffaele's apartment.

And even if she did step out, what does that prove? From all the facts, she expected that she was going to be working that night. She leaves the Raffaele's apartment heading to work (or heading home to change first), receives the message from Patrick that she has the night off, runs back to Raffaele with the good news and text's a reply to Patrick. Then she turns her phone of so Patrick can't call her back if a crowd shows up in the bar later that night.

There are innocent reasons for turning off the phones, there are less innocent ones. The net result though is that one means of establishing where they were and when is unavailable.

Amanda didn't remember leaving Raffaele's apartment that night. But even if she did step out, that is no indication that any criminal activity was planned. Amanda never claims to have a perfect memory. Since when is having a faulty memory a crime?

I think you mean, "Amanda said she didn't remember...". In any case, all any of this seems to prove is that they don't have an alibi.

 

[lector]

There are innocent reasons for turning off the phones, there are less innocent ones. The net result though is that one means of establishing where they were and when is unavailable.

I thought I'd read somewhere that an examination of their cell records for a month prior to the murder showed that they'd never turned off either phone for hours at a time over that stretch.

When I first read the detail about turning the phones off I didn't understand what the big deal was. My cell phone is off more than it's on. I guess the kids today use theirs differently. In any event the point is that it was unusual, though we're still speculating on what it means.

Back to the lamp - my understanding is that it was a little desk lamp, not a big floor lamp, so I don't find that particular part of Amanda's story entirely incredible.

What is a lamp flex?

 

[Fiona]

The wire with the plug on it

 

[Fulcanelli]

People do sometimes miss blindingly obvious things that, once pointed out, you couldn't fail to notice if you tried.

Certainly. Dan o's living proof of that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In her testimony she says that she looked to see if any important stuff was missing that a thief would have taken. Do you think a burglar is going to break into a second story window to steal a $10 lamp when there is a fancy laptop sitting there? Amanda was looking for evidence of a theft not a detailed accounting of every appliance in the house.

So she wouldn't notice her lamp was missing? It was a tiny little bedroom with hardly anything in it, not a bloody great warehouse.