Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

On the matter of the phones, here is PMF reporter stewarthome2000's report on the phone testimony. stewarthome2000 attended a number of the trial hearings on behalf of PMF and TJMK:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=6744#p6744

More on the phones:

"Sollecito has always maintained that he was home in his apartment the night of the murder and initially told police his father had called him at home around 11 p.m.

Phone records later showed that he received no such call.

Sollecito also said that he was on the computer all evening, but computer experts testified last week that although his computer was on all night, no had used it from 9:10 p.m. until 5:32 a.m. the next day.

According to investigators, cell phone records for Knox and Sollecito, who claim to have spent the night of Nov. 1 together at his apartment, reveal something unusual. Police investigator Letterio Latella testified today that Knox and Sollecito's cell phones were inactive most of the night, and activity on the cell phones stopped almost simultaneously. Sollecito's phone was inactive from 8:42 p.m. until 6:52 a.m. the next day, while Knox's phone was quiet from 8:35 p.m. on Nov. 1 and didn't show any activity until 12:07 p.m. the next day, when she tried to call Kercher."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7131195&page=1

Also see this post here:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=6724#p6724

Catnip's Digest on Italian sources:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=6773#p6773

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is there a way to determine this from the phone record we've been looking at?

I think if he and his father spoke for several minutes, Raffaele's phone would have been active past 8:42 wouldn't it?

 

[shuttlt]

I think if he and his father spoke for several minutes, Raffaele's phone would have been active past 8:42 wouldn't it?

So he turned his phone off when his father called?

The stewarthome2000 post seems to leave some doubt.

Basically they proved that his phone was, beyond reasonable doubt, turned off from sometime after 8:42pm and turned on at 6:02am.

Other sources say at 8:42pm. I haven't seen anything that explains the reasoning behind the assertion. The phone record posted here seems to indicate that the last time the phone was on was 8:46:37pm, unless the 221 second call went to voicemail.

I have no idea why any of this is important though. Could we all agree that the phone was turned off before 9pm and move on?

 

[shuttlt]

What would a call diverted to voicemail look like on the phone record?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The stewarthome2000 post seems to leave some doubt.

Only in the region of seconds. Not minutes.

I have no idea why any of this is important though. Could we all agree that the phone was turned off before 9pm and move on?

I agree. I don't see any importance in it other then the fact there was no activity past 8:42. Some may find this suspicious (the police certainly did), others may not.

 

[Dan O.]

What would a call diverted to voicemail look like on the phone record?

The forwarding to voice mail happens at the central switch and not in the cell system. After a preset number of rings or if the phone doesn't respond to a ping, the central switch redirects the call to an alternate number. The voice mail system doesn't even have to be part of the same company that provides the phone service.

I should point out that what we are seeing in the PDF that was posted is only an extract of information from the complete CDR. The actual CDR would show the call attempt and an indication that it was transfered. But it would not be able to show the duration of a call redirected to voice mail without referencing the CDR data for the voice mail service.

I would expect that if a voice mail call was presented at all it would have a different type code. Notice that only types 1, 2, 6 and 7 are present in the records we have. There would also be a record of the retrieval of voice mail unless the user is smart and used their land line to avoid the cell charges. Retrieval would be indistinguishable from a regular call to the voice mail service.

 

[Dan O.]

There has been no evidence presented that the phones were turned off. It is possible that the cell tower logs recorded the phone logging out of the network. It's also possible that there was simply no activity with the phones over night or the phones were tossed into a corner where they didn't have reception.

Without the cell tower logs, we can't conclude that the story of the phones being turned off is anything more than spin by the prosecutor that the suspects were bullied into accepting.

And even if the phones were turned off, the suspects had a very good reason for doing so that didn't involve the Murder of Meredith.

 

[shuttlt]

The forwarding to voice mail happens at the central switch and not in the cell system. After a preset number of rings or if the phone doesn't respond to a ping, the central switch redirects the call to an alternate number. The voice mail system doesn't even have to be part of the same company that provides the phone service.

Certainly.

I should point out that what we are seeing in the PDF that was posted is only an extract of information from the complete CDR. The actual CDR would show the call attempt and an indication that it was transfered. But it would not be able to show the duration of a call redirected to voice mail without referencing the CDR data for the voice mail service.

I would expect that if a voice mail call was presented at all it would have a different type code. Notice that only types 1, 2, 6 and 7 are present in the records we have. There would also be a record of the retrieval of voice mail unless the user is smart and used their land line to avoid the cell charges. Retrieval would be indistinguishable from a regular call to the voice mail service.

This may be the case. Still, it only moves the time the phone was turned off back to some time just after 8:42:56pm. Can anybody suggest a reason why this matters? AK and RS, contrary to their normal practice, both turned off their phones before 9pm and consequently one means of establishing their location is unavailable to us.

 

[Fiona]

I agree. It is perfectly possible that *no activity after 8:42* means that is when the last incoming call started. In that case it should be taken as *no activity after *8:46*. I am happy to accept that. It is the same kind of problem as AK's statement in court that she was questioned again at 5;45. I took that to mean when the questionng started but in fact it was when it ended. Easy mistake to make in both cases, and neither makes any substantive difference at all: it does not change the important facts; it does not demonstrate malice or lies on anybody's part; it does not indicate incompetence.

As to whether the phones were switched off: we do not have any records which will tell us that. That does not mean that evidence was not presented in court. It seems that those here who understand these things agree that it is possible to tell if phones are switched off because it shows if they log out of the network. So we cannot say

There has been no evidence presented that the phones were turned off.

It is interesting that Dan cuts no one else any slack for imprecise language yet he is as sloppy as all the rest us.

What we can say is that it was testified in court that the phones were switched off. That there is, by Dan's own admission, a means to establish that, through the cell towers; that the cell tower has been used to assess other aspects (such as locations of phones by which tower they accessed: though I have no idea how that works, nor whether it is accurate), which shows those records were examined; that we do not have access to all the evidence which was presented to the jury ( a point which some here seem to forget on a regular basis); that it follows there is reason to believe the phones were switched off and not just ignored; that that conclusion is supported by the fact that RS's dad sent a text in the course of the evening which was not received until the phone went back on at 6am (on exactly the same reasoning which led Dan_O to bring this up in the first place).

So what we can legitimately say is that there was no phone activity on RS's phone after 8:46 and there was evidence presented that the phone was switched off after that phone call. That for some reason RS did not mention that phone call though he did mention one at 11 pm, which the very same phone record shows did not take place (and which of course is a much more significant time in terms of this murder).

We can also make up stories about why the phones were switched off: but those are pure speculation. For example they could have done this because they wanted a romantic evening: but they did not do that on the other days they were together per the testimony. Or they could have done it because they were going to take some hard drug unusual for them: but there is no evidence at all that they did so

"Might have been's" are not evidence. We should all hold ourselves to the same standards, surely?

 

[shuttlt]

As to whether the phones were switched off: we do not have any records which will tell us that. That does not mean that evidence was not presented in court. It seems that those here who understand these things agree that it is possible to tell if phones are switched off because it shows if they log out of the network. So we cannot say

I am by no means an expert, but my understanding is only possible to tell that the phone is not contactable by the network. This could mean that the phone is in a blackspot, or it could mean that it's switched off. The distinction is pedantic, but so are many points in this thread.

What we can say is that it was testified in court that the phones were switched off. That there is, by Dan's own admission, a means to establish that, through the cell towers; that the cell tower has been used to assess other aspects (such as locations of phones by which tower they accessed: though I have no idea how that works, nor whether it is accurate), which shows those records were examined; that we do not have access to all the evidence which was presented to the jury ( a point which some here seem to forget on a regular basis); that it follows there is reason to believe the phones were switched off and not just ignored; that that conclusion is supported by the fact that RS's dad sent a text in the course of the evening which was not received until the phone went back on at 6am (on exactly the same reasoning which led Dan_O to bring this up in the first place).

Absolutely. If the phones were logged in to a cell tower we would have heard about it since, depending on the tower, it would either have helped the prosecution, or the defence. The same discussions that have gone on about Meredith's phone and whether the last transmissions from her phone were to the normal cell tower would have taken place here too. They haven't. The only alternative position that I can think of is that we must believe both the prosecution and the defence are keeping quiet about this evidence. I find that quite hard to believe.

So what we can legitimately say is that there was no phone activity on RS's phone after 8:46 and there was evidence presented that the phone was switched off after that phone call. That for some reason RS did not mention that phone call though he did mention one at 11 pm, which the very same phone record shows did not take place (and which of course is a much more significant time in terms of this murder).

I was interpreting it as the 11pm call being the 8:46pm call and him employing a bit of wishful thinking/being confused on the time.

 

[Fiona]

I was interpreting it as the 11pm call being the 8:46pm call and him employing a bit of wishful thinking/being confused on the time.

It is tempting, Shuttit. A call from his father at 11pm gives him some semblance of an alibi (though of course it does not estalish where he is, necessarily) while one at 8:42 does not. And of course his father would confirm a phone call if asked. But I am not going there because it depends on RS not knowing the time would be recorded, and just because I did not know that does not mean he did not. Perhaps it was confusion: his dad seems to have phoned him a lot. We don't know: simple as that

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

We can also make up stories about why the phones were switched off: but those are pure speculation. For example they could have done this because they wanted a romantic evening: but they did not do that on the other days they were together per the testimony. Or they could have done it because they were going to take some hard drug unusual for them: but there is no evidence at all that they did so

"Might have been's" are not evidence. We should all hold ourselves to the same standards, surely?

Speaking only for myself, I would not turn off my cellphone to keep from being disturbed by it ringing. I'd turn off the ring function, something which I'm sure many people do for many reasons, including but not limited to romantic interludes.

When I want to use the phone the power-on and signal acquisition/handshake process, while not particularly long is still a PITA. Generally someone wouldn't say to themselves "I need to turn my phone back on in case I want to make a call." They end up saying, "Damn, I forgot I turned this POS off. Hurry up and power on. I need to make this call." Repeated a few times, this common scenario tends to discourage powering the phone down, as do the collection of missed calls picked up when one finally remembers to power back up.

Why bother? You don't even have to turn the ringer back on to start using the phone again. Reasons that would cause me to turn off the phone other than some sort of service related issue would be limited to battery conservation, or forcing the phone off of the system. I can only think of a few reasons to force the phone off of the system. If I were to want to keep my phone with me but not have my movements traceable by cell tower pings then turning it off would be the only solution.

Most of the cell phone users I know would behave the same way. If they didn't want to be disturbed they'd turn off the ringer. The younger they are, the less likely it would be that they would go to the trouble to turn their phone off.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Speaking only for myself, I would not turn off my cellphone to keep from being disturbed by it ringing. I'd turn off the ring function, something which I'm sure many people do for many reasons, including but not limited to romantic interludes.

When I want to use the phone the power-on and signal acquisition/handshake process, while not particularly long is still a PITA. Generally someone wouldn't say to themselves "I need to turn my phone back on in case I want to make a call." They end up saying, "Damn, I forgot I turned this POS off. Hurry up and power on. I need to make this call." Repeated a few times, this common scenario tends to discourage powering the phone down, as do the collection of missed calls picked up when one finally remembers to power back up.

Why bother? You don't even have to turn the ringer back on to start using the phone again. Reasons that would cause me to turn off the phone other than some sort of service related issue would be limited to battery conservation, or forcing the phone off of the system. I can only think of a few reasons to force the phone off of the system. If I were to want to keep my phone with me but not have my movements traceable by cell tower pings then turning it off would be the only solution.

Most of the cell phone users I know would behave the same way. If they didn't want to be disturbed they'd turn off the ringer. The younger they are, the less likely it would be that they would go to the trouble to turn their phone off.

Two points (one specific to Quad, one to Fiona):

1) Turning phones off/on: I work in a Semiconductor Fab. I receive spotty reception inside the fab, so I generally use "Airplane Mode" to specifically turn off any attempts to connect to a cell tower (wastes battery) without requiring the phone to power on/off. I'm not sure how common this feature is on every phone out there (my phone is a WM6.5 phone), but I do know that it was an included feature in every phone I've had for the past 4-5 years (BB Pearl, GloFiish, Voyager, Omnia, Omnia II, and my gf's Dare).


2) A (plausible) response to the claim that Lumumba was in the area of Meredith's cottage: When we see evidence that someone was in a general area, what that means is that the tower that services that area got the strongest ping from the cellphone in question. It is possible to triangulate a pretty specific location, but that requires, to have a reasonable location, at least 3 towers. We don't know how many towers are in the area, or if multiple towers showed pings from Lumumba's phone.

Example: When I turn on Google Maps on my phone, before I've locked into multiple (3) GPS', my phone will give me a general location from a couple hundred feet to >3Kft depending on where the closest tower(s) is(are).

Using that range as a locator, I could easily ping "in the area of" a location a mile away at the more extreme end and within 500ft (a football field) at the low end.

Perhaps the PMF/TJ sites have maps or more data showing specifically where Lumumba was (via cell tower triangulation). Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe this was a strategic claim - while originally part of the Police investigation (trust me, the investigators realize the limits of Cell Tower triangulation), it has been widely propogated by FoA in an attempt to point the finger away from Amanda.

 

[quadraginta]

Two points (one specific to Quad, one to Fiona):

1) Turning phones off/on: I work in a Semiconductor Fab. I receive spotty reception inside the fab, so I generally use "Airplane Mode" to specifically turn off any attempts to connect to a cell tower (wastes battery) without requiring the phone to power on/off. I'm not sure how common this feature is on every phone out there (my phone is a WM6.5 phone), but I do know that it was an included feature in every phone I've had for the past 4-5 years (BB Pearl, GloFiish, Voyager, Omnia, Omnia II, and my gf's Dare).

<snip>

That is way cool. I am going to have to ransack my phone's specs. If it has that feature, I've managed to overlook it, and I could surely use it. No/spotty cell reception in the apt., so the phone is constantly flogging the airwaves trying to get a signal whenever I'm at home. Same issue on a few jobsites in the past. The phone is old tech, a Motorola i880 with Sprint and Nextel. I don't recall that option. They're pretty neat pieces, though. They'll even operate the Nextel function as a true peer-to-peer two-way radio if no cell towers are available. Range is limited, and sometimes you can actually feel the battery discharging (they get distinctly warmer if you key down for sustained periods ), but they work without any tower at all.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure that a power-down/power-up event looks different to the cell network than a unit that simply isn't checking in. It'd be nice to see more detailed records than a call log.

I may be reading more into the terminology than is deserved, but when it was said that the phones were "turned off" and "turned on" I didn't take that to mean merely out of signal range or contact for a while. Those usages are fairly specific.

 

[shuttlt]

I may be reading more into the terminology than is deserved, but when it was said that the phones were "turned off" and "turned on" I didn't take that to mean merely out of signal range or contact for a while. Those usages are fairly specific.

There's also the possibility that the phones crashed, or turned themselves off to conserve power to be considered. Both of them are rather unlikely to have happened to both phones in such a narrow interval.

In any case, I take it they don't dispute that they turned their phones off, or do they? If they do dispute it, how do they account for not being connected to a cell tower? If they don't dispute it, what are we discussing it for.

Incidentally, I do sometimes turn my phone off (or put it into flight mode). There are three reasons for this:

1. So that people will know that I am uncontactable and not get the impression I will be phoning them back any time soon, or phoning me back over and over in the hope that I'll respond.

2. So that people won't get the impression that I'm ignoring them specifically (some of my 'friends' can be weird about that).

3. If I get a message I can't help myself from checking it. On occasion Mrs Shuttlt has asked me to turn the blackberry off and engage in old fashioned communication, eye contact etc...

 

[quadraginta]

There's also the possibility that the phones crashed, or turned themselves off to conserve power to be considered. Both of them are rather unlikely to have happened to both phones in such a narrow interval.

In any case, I take it they don't dispute that they turned their phones off, or do they? If they do dispute it, how do they account for not being connected to a cell tower? If they don't dispute it, what are we discussing it for.

Incidentally, I do sometimes turn my phone off (or put it into flight mode). There are three reasons for this:

1. So that people will know that I am uncontactable and not get the impression I will be phoning them back any time soon, or phoning me back over and over in the hope that I'll respond.

2. So that people won't get the impression that I'm ignoring them specifically (some of my 'friends' can be weird about that).

3. If I get a message I can't help myself from checking it. On occasion Mrs Shuttlt has asked me to turn the blackberry off and engage in old fashioned communication, eye contact etc...

Off topic, but I'm a bit confused.

Does this "flight" or "airplane" mode provide a different message to the incoming caller? Other than the amount of time between getting a ring signal and getting shunted to voicemail there isn't any way for someone calling me to tell if I'm out of range, offline, or taking another call. I can tell the service to shunt all my calls to voicemail, or send any individual incoming call there, and play games with different answer messages, but basically either I answer or it goes to voicemail, with no clear explanation to the caller as to why unless I play with the answer message.. This wouldn't help any with your problems 1. and 2.

3. isn't a problem for me. It drives Mrs. qg (among others) crazy, but I can listen to a ringing telephone without the slightest urge to answer if I'm not so inclined. This includes activities as sacrosanct as finishing the page of the book I'm on, petting the cat, or not feeling like getting up right then.

 

[Alt+F4]

Most of the cell phone users I know would behave the same way. If they didn't want to be disturbed they'd turn off the ringer. The younger they are, the less likely it would be that they would go to the trouble to turn their phone off.

How hard would it be for investigators to find out what type of phone habits AK and RS had before the murder? Were they the type to turn off their phones at night, or like most people, keep them on all the time except for flying?

It's a fair assumption that both have had cell phones for several years. Just questioning friends AK had in high school could help answer the question.

 

[Fiona]

The phone people who testified said that the pair did not switch their phones off in the weeks before that night: so that was considered

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That is way cool. I am going to have to ransack my phone's specs. If it has that feature, I've managed to overlook it, and I could surely use it. No/spotty cell reception in the apt., so the phone is constantly flogging the airwaves trying to get a signal whenever I'm at home. Same issue on a few jobsites in the past. The phone is old tech, a Motorola i880 with Sprint and Nextel. I don't recall that option. They're pretty neat pieces, though. They'll even operate the Nextel function as a true peer-to-peer two-way radio if no cell towers are available. Range is limited, and sometimes you can actually feel the battery discharging (they get distinctly warmer if you key down for sustained periods ), but they work without any tower at all.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure that a power-down/power-up event looks different to the cell network than a unit that simply isn't checking in. It'd be nice to see more detailed records than a call log.

I may be reading more into the terminology than is deserved, but when it was said that the phones were "turned off" and "turned on" I didn't take that to mean merely out of signal range or contact for a while. Those usages are fairly specific.

My understanding of the function is that it simply turns off the networking services of the phone. As far as the cell tower is concerned, the phone is powering off (no connection available). Anyone calling is treated as if the phone were turned off. In effect, what this feature does is turn off the "phone" part while allowing other functions such as calendar, etc and faster reconnection to the network than turning the cell on/off.

 

[shuttlt]

Off topic, but I'm a bit confused.

Does this "flight" or "airplane" mode provide a different message to the incoming caller? Other than the amount of time between getting a ring signal and getting shunted to voicemail there isn't any way for someone calling me to tell if I'm out of range, offline, or taking another call.

BobTheDonkey is quite right. Flight mode is a feature of the phone that turns of the antenna. As far as anybody who rings you is concerned your phone is off.

I can tell the service to shunt all my calls to voicemail, or send any individual incoming call there, and play games with different answer messages, but basically either I answer or it goes to voicemail, with no clear explanation to the caller as to why unless I play with the answer message.. This wouldn't help any with your problems 1. and 2.

My assumption when a phone goes straight to voicemail is that the phone is off, or has no reception. If I phone back a while later and the situation is the same I would not expect the person to have gotten the message or be aware that I've called. If however I ring a bunch of times and the phone rings out before going to voicemail I might wonder if I'm being ignored deliberately (I've known a few people with personality disorders who take offence at this kind of thing real easy).

3. isn't a problem for me. It drives Mrs. qg (among others) crazy, but I can listen to a ringing telephone without the slightest urge to answer if I'm not so inclined.

Ah! but if Grandmother Shuttlt phones and gets no response she immediately phones Mrs Shuttlt's phone where, if she gets no response, she leaves a message. This makes Mrs Shuttlt feel harassed which makes Mr Shuttlt feel harassed.