Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

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

The prosecution implied that shutting off a telephone showed criminal intent. The only reason someone would do that is to hide their tracks. It's something only a criminal would do. That is clearly false, people turn off phones for all sorts of reasons.

The two suspects in this case had only met about a week earlier and had clearly fallen for each other. When Amanda's boss called, they find they have a free night to spend together. Amanda didn't want her boss to change his mind and call her into work. Raffaele didn't want dear old Dad to interrupt a romantic evening.

 

[shuttlt]

The prosecution implied that shutting off a telephone showed criminal intent.

Were they arguing that the simple fact that they shut off their phones was the kind of thing that only criminals intending to commit crimes did? Surely the argument is that IF you believe they were involved then the fact that they turned off their phones contrary to their normal practice is suggestive of prior intent.

The only reason someone would do that is to hide their tracks.

Do you mean that the only reason someone would turn off their phone intending to commit a crime is to hide their tracks? I think there are other reasons, like not wanting to be bothered by calls during the crime, or accidentally make a call in your pocket, but hiding tracks seems like a strong enough one to merit it on its own.

It's something only a criminal would do. That is clearly false, people turn off phones for all sorts of reasons.

Turning off the phones clearly only suggests criminal intent if one believes they were involved in the murder. Please quote where the prosecution claim that turning off their phones suggests criminal intent irrespective of believing they went on to be involved in the murder.

The two suspects in this case had only met about a week earlier and had clearly fallen for each other. When Amanda's boss called, they find they have a free night to spend together. Amanda didn't want her boss to change his mind and call her into work. Raffaele didn't want dear old Dad to interrupt a romantic evening.

Which is fine. It may possibly be true. However, if we believe they were involved in the murder then the fact that they turned off their phones is suggestive of criminal intent.

 

[Fiona]

The prosecution implied that shutting off a telephone showed criminal intent. The only reason someone would do that is to hide their tracks. It's something only a criminal would do.

Well if they did they would not be taken seriously and it would serve to undermine their case. So I doubt it. Once again you omit all context.

The two suspects in this case had only met about a week earlier and had clearly fallen for each other. When Amanda's boss called, they find they have a free night to spend together. Amanda didn't want her boss to change his mind and call her into work. Raffaele didn't want dear old Dad to interrupt a romantic evening.

It is possible. But since they did not do that any other night they were together there is no reason to presume it is true. Pure speculation

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Okay. Probably need a techie to help with the fine details. It could also just stop the phone from trying to regain a signal. The system wouldn't be able to distinguish between that and the unit simply leaving a cell's coverage without acquiring another.

I don't know if there is some sort of handshake for powering off or not, or how the systems handle extended periods of time out of range and if that is dealt with differently. I know that when I power on my phone there is a definite handshaking protocol (more like a boot-up routine) which I don't see when I go out of my apartment after being inside for awhile.

 

[quadraginta]

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.


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).

<snip>

A phone which is in an area of problematic reception can behave the same way. I have encountered this on a number of jobsites where there is poor cell coverage, or reception is compromised by going in and out of buildings frequently. (Similar personality disorders are not uncommon in the construction industry, so the subject has come up with surprising regularity in the past. )

Although I'm not certain I suspect that there is some difference to the network between a unit simply loosing signal (not checking in) and intentionally powering down.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

A phone which is in an area of problematic reception can behave the same way. I have encountered this on a number of jobsites where there is poor cell coverage, or reception is compromised by going in and out of buildings frequently. (Similar personality disorders are not uncommon in the construction industry, so the subject has come up with surprising regularity in the past. )

Although I'm not certain I suspect that there is some difference to the network between a unit simply loosing signal (not checking in) and intentionally powering down.

As far as the cell tower/service is concerned, it's really simple. When a call is routed to your cell, what's happening is a switchboard is pinging all the towers, the towers are replying that they have or have not seen your cell lately. The ones that have seen it lately then ping your phone. If your phone responds, then the call is forwarded to the phone. If your phone doesn't respond, the system reverts to other towers near the one where you were last "spotted". If it doesn't find your cell within a certain time frame (mere seconds), it routes the call to voicemail. (This is, in fact, part of the problem with cellular usage on aircraft. The towers have trouble handing off to each other fast enough, as well as trouble finding your cell based on it's last ping.) ETA: So, when you power down the phone, switch off the antenna, or leave the coverage area - it all looks the same to the system that simply cannot find your cell.

Imagine how complex a cell tower would have to be to continually send pings looking for any phones in it's area? Much more simple to have the phone ping the tower, the tower files that ping away in case a call comes in.

This is why sitting in the fab with spotty reception drains my battery 3x as fast as turning off the phone's antenna. If I leave my phone antenna on all night while I'm at work, my battery will be half discharged by the end of a single shift. However, if I turn the antenna off, I wind up charging my phone maybe 1-2x a week (no pun intended...and I don't spend much time talking on my phone...). This is because while I'm in spotty reception, the phone is pinging frantically (again, no pun intended) trying to find some tower, for god's sake, any tower. My kingdom for a tower.


[/derail]

 

[quadraginta]

As far as the cell tower/service is concerned, it's really simple. When a call is routed to your cell, what's happening is a switchboard is pinging all the towers, the towers are replying that they have or have not seen your cell lately. The ones that have seen it lately then ping your phone. If your phone responds, then the call is forwarded to the phone. If your phone doesn't respond, the system reverts to other towers near the one where you were last "spotted". If it doesn't find your cell within a certain time frame (mere seconds), it routes the call to voicemail. (This is, in fact, part of the problem with cellular usage on aircraft. The towers have trouble handing off to each other fast enough, as well as trouble finding your cell based on it's last ping.) ETA: So, when you power down the phone, switch off the antenna, or leave the coverage area - it all looks the same to the system that simply cannot find your cell.

Imagine how complex a cell tower would have to be to continually send pings looking for any phones in it's area? Much more simple to have the phone ping the tower, the tower files that ping away in case a call comes in.

This is why sitting in the fab with spotty reception drains my battery 3x as fast as turning off the phone's antenna. If I leave my phone antenna on all night while I'm at work, my battery will be half discharged by the end of a single shift. However, if I turn the antenna off, I wind up charging my phone maybe 1-2x a week (no pun intended...and I don't spend much time talking on my phone...). This is because while I'm in spotty reception, the phone is pinging frantically (again, no pun intended) trying to find some tower, for god's sake, any tower. My kingdom for a tower.


[/derail]

Yeah. I knew all of this, (except for your "airplane" mode, which I'm still trying to find on my phone ). I just don't know for certain that an intentional power down while in signal range looks exactly the same to the network as a loss of contact. I'm not saying that it doesn't, or even that it shouldn't, but it would not surprise me if there is a difference.

ETA: Okay. I found your "airplane" mode. It was buried about three menu layers down in a subset of "advanced" and labeled "transmitters". But it is there.

Thanks again. Although I may not get to use it much, since it's nearly as much of a PITA to get to as just a power down/up. Not quite, and once I get used to it probably enough less, but still a PITA. I wonder if I can hotkey it somehow?

Oh, well. Enough OT.

 

[Dan O.]

The airplane mode turns off the transmitter so it will absolutely not emit a signal but allows you to use the other features of the phone.

Cell phones do ping the towers when you move but only when you move to a different cell area and not for each cell. The network tracks which area the phone is in so it only needs to broadcast a limited probe when you get a call.

To conserve battery power, the cell phone turns it's receiver off for most of the time, only waking up briefly at regular intervals to see if someone is calling. When the phone registers with the cell it gets assigned a time slot where it should listen for it's messages. When the phone is in a spotty reception area, it looses synchronization with the tower so leaves the receiver on full time listening for it's messages and running down the battery.

There could be a final handshake with the cell network when you turn off your phone. I've been searching through technical docs but haven't been able to find it. A simple way to test would be to see if there is any difference in cell phone behavior between turning off the phone and loosing signal. To simulate the signal loss, put the phone in a sealed metal tin and perhaps put that in the microwave (but don't turn the microwave on). With no signal, the network will try to reach the phone for a period of time before redirecting to voice mail. If the network knows that the phone is turned off, it should redirect to voice mail immediately. This may also depend on the phone and the network so it would be interesting to compare our results.

 

[quadraginta]

The airplane mode turns off the transmitter so it will absolutely not emit a signal but allows you to use the other features of the phone.

Cell phones do ping the towers when you move but only when you move to a different cell area and not for each cell. The network tracks which area the phone is in so it only needs to broadcast a limited probe when you get a call.

To conserve battery power, the cell phone turns it's receiver off for most of the time, only waking up briefly at regular intervals to see if someone is calling. When the phone registers with the cell it gets assigned a time slot where it should listen for it's messages. When the phone is in a spotty reception area, it looses synchronization with the tower so leaves the receiver on full time listening for it's messages and running down the battery.

There could be a final handshake with the cell network when you turn off your phone. I've been searching through technical docs but haven't been able to find it. A simple way to test would be to see if there is any difference in cell phone behavior between turning off the phone and loosing signal. To simulate the signal loss, put the phone in a sealed metal tin and perhaps put that in the microwave (but don't turn the microwave on). With no signal, the network will try to reach the phone for a period of time before redirecting to voice mail. If the network knows that the phone is turned off, it should redirect to voice mail immediately. This may also depend on the phone and the network so it would be interesting to compare our results.

Yeah. I'm with you on all this. I don't really use my cellphone for much other than making calls, so I don't know how much I'd miss other features.

Motorola has the "transmitter" ("airplane"?) function buried so deeply in sub-menus that it takes twenty keystrokes to turn off, and twenty more to turn back on. (Yes, I counted. ) If I was using my phone regularly as a PDA or iPOD I might put up with that, and if time between recharge availability was a regular concern I might, but neither really pertains to me. Mostly I just leave the darn thing on, and turn off the ringer when it's inconvenient. I can do that with a few presses of the volume buttons, and I don't have to open the phone or even take it out of its holster.

It just occurred to me that my experiences are atypical to many cell users. Nextel equipped phones, the i880 more than most, have a number of features aimed particularly towards use while the phone is closed; including speaker volume, speaker/handset toggle, and a button that dumps an incoming call straight to voicemail, (among quite a few others), not to mention the Nextel PTT button itself. About the only time I bother to open my phone is when I'm using the contacts list or checking received calls. Many of my regular contacts are on voice recall, and I can do that with one keystroke with the phone closed.

Re: highlighted. I haven't bothered to do a controlled test, but this is what has caused me to suspect a difference. Jobsites with intermittent signal because of buildings in various states of completion and being in and out of doors while using the cellphone a lot have brought me to believe that that is the case, specifically because of noticing that search delay or its absence when I also could find out the status of the phone I was calling.

It would be interesting to check more formally. I'll get Mrs. qg to help, and report back.

 

[Kestrel]

Well if they did they would not be taken seriously and it would serve to undermine their case. So I doubt it. Once again you omit all context.

It is possible. But since they did not do that any other night they were together there is no reason to presume it is true. Pure speculation

The couple had only been together for a week. They didn't stay home on Halloween night. On some of the other nights, Amanda worked. How many nights does that leave for them to be alone together and decide they don't want to be interrupted?

 

[Fiona]

if it is true they met on 24th October then 4 I would think. And of course there would be periods during the day as well

 

[shuttlt]

The couple had only been together for a week. They didn't stay home on Halloween night. On some of the other nights, Amanda worked. How many nights does that leave for them to be alone together and decide they don't want to be interrupted?

If we don't believe they were involved then I agree with you that there are perfectly sensible and reasonable reasons why they might have turned off their phone. It can be shrugged off as an unfortunate coincidence that they turned off their phones shortly before the murder.

Is anybody really claiming that in and of itself them turning their phones off implies intent to commit a crime? I'm not aware of anybody defending this line. What statement are you referring to? As I said before, surely the claim is that assuming they were involved in the murder the phone record is suggestive of malign intent.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It ain't just about when they were turned off, but also about when they were turned back 'on'

 

[shuttlt]

It ain't just about when they were turned off, but also about when they were turned back 'on'

Surely only if we suspect them for other reasons? I'm thinking of conditional probabilities here. I don't see that this fact in isolation is that significant.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Surely only if we suspect them for other reasons? I'm thinking of conditional probabilities here. I don't see that this fact in isolation is that significant.

Well, going by times of when they were turned back on, we certainly can suspect them, or at least one of them, of telling lies.

 

[Alt+F4]

Were they ever asked why they turned their phones off that night?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Were they ever asked why they turned their phones off that night?

Amanda said she turned off her phone because she was happy Patrick had told her not to come into work and didn't want him channging his mind and calling her back (however, it must be remembered Amanda did not provide this explanation until she gave her testimony on the stand, so one can consider she had two years to think of it). Raffaele never gave any explanation. That's because after the initial questioning the prosecutor never got the opportunity to question Raffaele again and ask him about it. After the night of the 5th, Raffaele fell on his right to silence and never deviated from that. Raffaele has never denied or admitted turning off his phone, or turning it on on the morning of the 2nd, much less offered any explanation as to why.

 

[stilicho]

Were they ever asked why they turned their phones off that night?

AK changed her story several times about that. (Remember when Dan O told us that it was a lie to say that she changed her story on several points? Well here it is again in her court testimony which he hasn't read yet):

AK: I turned mine off, because I didn't want to get another message from Patrick,
because actually I didn't really want to go to work. For example, he
had told me that I didn't have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed
up, well honestly, he had told me I didn't have to go to work and I wanted
to stay with Raffaele.

PM: Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with
Raffaele.

AK: Yes.

PM: On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation
of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my phone to
save my battery." Do you remember that?

AK: Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.

PM: Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice
intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I'll read it.
"But why did you turn off your phone?" Interrogation of Dec 17. "To save
my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at night?" [Voices arguing, a bit
annoyed, they can't find it in the text?] Well, bottom of page 39, but these
were the words. Knox's answer: "To save my battery." "Do you usually keep
it on at night?" "If I have something to do the next morning." "But the
next morning was the day on which everyone skipped school." "But we were
supposed to go to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele." The next day was the
2nd?

So, in her own words, it was variously to avoid being called into work, to save her battery, or so she could be with Raffaele.

 

[Kestrel]

Were they ever asked why they turned their phones off that night?

According to this Time article, Amanda turned off her cell phone because she didn't want to get called back to work that night.

I haven't come across exactly what Raffaele said in court. If you do, post it here an include a link.

 

[Kestrel]

AK changed her story several times about that. (Remember when Dan O told us that it was a lie to say that she changed her story on several points? Well here it is again in her court testimony which he hasn't read yet):



So, in her own words, it was variously to avoid being called into work, to save her battery, or so she could be with Raffaele.

Or both reasons. Her charger was probably at home.