Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

I think this is a distinct possibility, especially given the lack of detail in Micheli's analysis, and the fact he never once specifically identifies any cell: I don't think he was working with the full information available both to Massei and the defence. So taking this into account, I'm not sure it's reliable to draw conclusions on the various cells Meredith's phone may or may not have connected with, based only on Micheli's very brief and sparsely detailed discussion.

On the contary of what you say, Micheli was working with exactly the same phone records that Massei's court has seen. The only further information the court had was the experts testimony. Each of this phone records reports a list indicating the corresponant cell numbers.
And, moreover, if you read Micheli it is obvious that 1) he uses technical terms like "rimbalzo" and "cella" 2) that he specifically refers to calls engaging the cell on previous days but not on the same night. If he had only the name of the tower instead of the cell, he would have mentioned the phone calls on the same night.

The thought that 30064 cell could not be a "normal" point of traffic for Meredith's phone is an idea you seem to be clinging at by your decision despite zero evidence of it and plenty of evidence of the contrary. Why don't you place yourself in a neutral point of view, and you don't start from the assumption that Micheli had the same phone records in his hands? Maybe he was not good in reading them. But he had the very same information on the phone records and about cell numbers that the court had.

 

[loverofzion]

But where's the part about the blood?

It's called the genetic profile.

What would you think created this piece of genes on the BLADE of the kitchen knife, the same one on whcih Amanda's genetic profile was found on the handle?

Remember, Meredith had NEVER been to Raffaello's apartment where the knife was supposedly resting in the drawer throughout the period of time RS knew AK.

 

[katy_did]

On the contary of what you say, Micheli was working with exactly the same phone records that Massei's court has seen. The only iformation more that the court had was the experts testimony. Each of this phone records reports a list indicating the corresponant cell numbers.
And, moreover, if you read Micheli it is obvious that 1) he uses technical terms like "rimbalzo" and "cella" 2) that he specifically refers to calls engaging the cell on previous days but not on the same night. If he had only the name of the tower instead of the cell, he would have mentioned the phone of the same night.

But the 22:13 connection was the only one on 1 November to connect with the cell tower in Ponte Rio – Montelaguardia area, wasn't it? The other connections were all with the cell tower in Piazza Lupattelli, I believe: .25620, .25621 and .25622. The latter is the one in the garden and not receivable at the cottage, but on the same mast as the others.

Therefore, if Micheli were saying that, in addition, to the 22:13 connection, Meredith's calls on previous days had connected with the mast in Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia, then it would make sense he referred to phone records on previous days and not on that night. I don't see a contradiction there - perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?

The thought that 30064 cell could not be a "normal" point of traffic for Meredith's phone is an idea you seem to be clinging at by your decision despite zero evidence of it and plenty of evidence of the contrary. Why don't you place yourself in a neutral point of view, and you don't start from the assumption that Micheli had the same phone records in his hands? Maybe he was not good in reading them. But he had the very same information on the phone records and about cell numbers that the court had.

The problem here is that the defence are stating that based on her phone records, Meredith's phone had not connected to that cell prior to that night. There is obviously a very clear contradiction there with Micheli, who says that many of Meredith's previous calls had connected to that cell, but who only mentions the "Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia" area, and never on a single occasion refers to a specific cell. I don't think he quite understood the significance of the individual cells, or I think he would have mentioned them; he only refers to the area in which the mast was. Since there is an obvious contradiction between Micheli and the defence here, I'm putting forward a theory which might resolve the contradiction.

You say there is "plenty of evidence" the 30064 connection was a normal one for Meredith's phone, but beyond Micheli, what evidence do you actually have? None of the other calls Meredith made and that we know about connected with that cell. I think you're clinging to Micheli as a source (on this and on other issues) even though his knowledge of the evidence was far inferior to that of Massei and the defence teams...

 

[katy_did]

On the subject of the phone calls, I'd also add that if you think about it, Micheli's lack of knowledge here - i.e. the fact he had no idea of how weak or strong a particular cell was in a particular location - is actually very significant. It means he didn't realize that the signal from the .25622 cell didn't reach the cottage. As far as he was concerned, there were three cells at the same location: .25620, .25621 and .25622. He would not have been aware that the latter cell points in a different direction to the other two, and most probably lumped them all together as being cells on the Piazza Lupattelli mast. As he quite possibly did with the cells on the Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia mast. Without knowing the measurements made by the consultants, I certainly reckon that's what I'd have done.

So again, I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about connections with one specific cell based on Micheli's very basic analysis.

 

[treehorn]

Can't beat a bit of casual racism! Are you suggesting that Indian scientific/medical research is somehow inferior by definition? Oh, and you might want to check how many Indian immigrant students there are studying at MIT or med school in the USA, or how much medical and scientific analysis is currently being directly outsourced to India.......

racism?

what race do you think I belong to?

seems you are also conflating 'race' with 'nationality'

do you really think India, as a nation, is on the same level as the USA in terms of the quantity, quality and renown of its medical research?

do you really think India's universities are anywhere near those of the USA in terms of quality, prestige, funding or significance?

why is it "racist" to acknowledge/ reference these differences between NATIONS?

i did not expressly or impliedly attribute these (real or perceived) differences between nations to the racial characteristics/ DNA of the citizens of those nations

finally, do you really think I am unaware of the fact that many, many people from India/ belonging to racial groups associated with India are full participants in America's medical research community?!

look, if you want to study in India, or seek medical treatment there, that's fine by me

i'll take the Ivy League and Mass General, thank you very much

and that doesn't make me racist in the least (elitist, maybe, but not racist)

 

[treehorn]

It's hard to tell; you are taking your sweet time revealing your true purpose.

purpose?

i suppose i'm just trying evaluate the arguments being advanced here

there's some good stuff


[/QUOTE] shouldn't stay up so late. It's okay, though, my faux pas will give the kids at Brand X something to jaw about tomorrow. They don't like to go too many days without a dose of Mary H8 ridicule. [/QUOTE]

nothing wrong with having an audience

perhaps you are secretly beloved

 

[Machiavelli]

On the subject of the phone calls, I'd also add that if you think about it, Micheli's lack of knowledge here - i.e. the fact he had no idea of how weak or strong a particular cell was in a particular location - is actually very significant. It means he didn't realize that the signal from the .25622 cell didn't reach the cottage. As far as he was concerned, there were three cells at the same location: .25620, .25621 and .25622.

But it is obvious he doesn't consider what signal is weaker or stronger: he had the phone records, not the expert cross questioning.
You are still not seriously facing that Micheli had the phone records. The phone records have indicatin of cell numbers, and they are the same papers with phone records contained in the same file that was sent to Massei's court.
The court are working with Micheli's file. It is simply not reasonable to assume Micheli had a "special version" of phone records,a different doument from the court's file records, in which the cell numbers were omitted.
Simply, Micheli had the phone records.

 

[katy_did]

But it is obvious he doesn't consider what signal is weaker or stronger: he had the phone records, not the expert cross questioning.
You are still not seriously facing that Micheli had the phone records. The phone records have indicatin of cell numbers, and they are the same papers with phone records contained in the same file that was sent to Massei's court.
The court are working with Micheli's file. It is simply not reasonable to assume Micheli had a "special version" of phone records,a different doument from the court's file records, in which the cell numbers were omitted.
Simply, Micheli had the phone records.

I didn't deny Micheli had the phone records. So did Massei and the defence. They understood the significance of the individual cells, too, and referenced them; they didn't just talk about a connection in the "Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia area", as Micheli does.

I don't think you've addressed the points I made...

 

[christianahannah]

I wonder if the police ever took a reference shoe print from the shoes of Postal Police Officer Battistelli......?

From Murder In Italy, because Battistelli was said to have stepped inside the room by Luca, investigators asked for his shoe size as to rule out he made the bloody shoeprint by the bed (though I would think one would want more than size to rule out the print wasn't his). I would imagine they would also want to know the shoe he wore but I don't have that information.

You can see the postcard in Filomena's room but not the papers in Meredith's room, so I am not sure if they are under the duvet or hidden by the camera angles. The photos taken of the papers in Meredith's room show what appear to be two sets of shoes.

 

[christianahannah]

The papers for Exhibit Q were on a pliable mat. If they were stepped on where they were found, they would show creases in the paper. If they were moved since being stepped on there is no way to date when the prints were made.

I've seen no "paper-like" substance on the floor in Meredith's room. Did this somehow appear after the room was photographed?

There was a postcard for Exhibit Q which seems to be of hardier material than note paper. The image on the postcard is faint and I don't see creases from the Rinaldi photo but there could be.

I haven't seen any paper on Meredith's floor either, however, the photos from Rinaldi show notebook paper, and one drawing with the word Perugia on it. I don't know if they were under the duvet, bed, or somewhere else that doesn't show up with the camera angles.

 

[RoseMontague]

On the subject of the phone calls, I'd also add that if you think about it, Micheli's lack of knowledge here - i.e. the fact he had no idea of how weak or strong a particular cell was in a particular location - is actually very significant. It means he didn't realize that the signal from the .25622 cell didn't reach the cottage. As far as he was concerned, there were three cells at the same location: .25620, .25621 and .25622. He would not have been aware that the latter cell points in a different direction to the other two, and most probably lumped them all together as being cells on the Piazza Lupattelli mast. As he quite possibly did with the cells on the Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia mast. Without knowing the measurements made by the consultants, I certainly reckon that's what I'd have done.

So again, I'm not sure we can draw conclusions about connections with one specific cell based on Micheli's very basic analysis.

Good point katy_did. We have seen that Massei made a mistake earlier on the cell phone connections regarding Amanda and contradicted himself in the report. It is possible that Micheli makes a similar mistake. It is clear that the defense finds this connection unusual. The defense could be in error as well.

Do you have a translation of that particular section of Raffaele's appeal? Al-Fakh and thoughtful both indicated to me that they felt the defense made an error referring to an error Massei made regarding a different connection. There seems to be a lot of errors and confusion going on with the cell phone records and interpretation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Therefore, if Micheli were saying that, in addition, to the 22:13 connection, Meredith's calls on previous days had connected with the mast in Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia, then it would make sense he referred to phone records on previous days and not on that night. I don't see a contradiction there - perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?

Micheli said in the previous days (not the same night) there were connections on the same cell (not the same mast) as the 22:13 call (thus mentioning an analogy with a single call, not mentioning analogies the multiplte calls that were connected to the same tower in Luppatelli during that night).

Micheli explicitly talks about the existence of previous connections with the seme cell, responding to a precise objections of the defence. Not just about connetions on a more generic "Ponte Rio-Montelaguardia area" that might well be mentioned in anothr context during the prosecutor's arguments. You omit the precise reading of Micheli's words. You could claim he is making a mistake, but you cannot claim he didn't give a precise statement mentioning several previous connections to the same cell as in the 22:13 call.

 

[Danceme]

When did you earn sufficient credit in this thread to demand citations?

Are you for real? You make a claim that I, and perhaps others, have never seen before, and you have the audacity to so arrogantly infer I have no right to ask you where it came from. Are we to just accept everything you write just because you say it?

This is what you said;

Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
Unfortunately, the bumbling ILE couldn't even prove that this was Meredith't blood.

I've been here 7 months now but have yet to come across the regulation stating a longer period is required to ask an older member to back up a claim. Sure, that makes me a relative newbie compared to a senior like you so perhaps you can point me to it, in other words "cite please".

 

[christianahannah]

Good point katy_did. We have seen that Massei made a mistake earlier on the cell phone connections regarding Amanda and contradicted himself in the report. It is possible that Micheli makes a similar mistake. It is clear that the defense finds this connection unusual. The defense could be in error as well.

Do you have a translation of that particular section of Raffaele's appeal? Al-Fakh and thoughtful both indicated to me that they felt the defense made an error referring to an error Massei made regarding a different connection. There seems to be a lot of errors and confusion going on with the cell phone records and interpretation.

I had also wondered about the cell to Raffaele's for the night message from Patrick. When Amanda responds it is connected to a different cell tower than the incoming message from Patrick.

Did the phone records of Raffaele's from previous days show that the tower 5 connection was used during the day, however, not at night and that the more powerful cell tower 7 was always used (for calls and messages from Raffaele's flat)?

 

[loverofzion]

I didn't deny Micheli had the phone records. So did Massei and the defence. They understood the significance of the individual cells, too, and referenced them; they didn't just talk about a connection in the "Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia area", as Micheli does.

I don't think you've addressed the points I made...

I see Mary H does not address the points I made when they contrast with her belief system.

 

[RoseMontague]

From thoughtful's summary:

They furthermore note that the only other calls Meredith ever made which were caught by that particular cell tower were at 12:11 (Amanda's) and 16:22 (?), no other calls that she ever made from home.

Not sure if this is an indication that they are saying that it did connect with the cell at some times when she was not at home?

 

[RoseMontague]

I see Mary H does not address the points I made when they contrast with her belief system.

I think she had asked you about your claim that there was "blood" found on the knife blade. It was tested for blood and there was no blood found.

 

[pilot padron]

Struggles and Undisturbed Glass of Water in the Bedroom

As I play catch up reading, the thesis (with illustrations) proposed here earlier that the ability of a glass of water to remain undisturbed IF indeed a multi combatant struggle had occurred in close proximity definitely caught my attention.

The fact that this was the first time I had been presented with this argument, after a 3 year rather intense following of the case, is well a credit to the postulant, (and to Mr Randi's objectives).
The thesis caused some deep personal reflection, which in turn generated a twinge of doubt.

Then as rebuttal thoughts began, consideration given particularly to:

1) Verified and universally accepted findings of the *total number of*, and particular emphasis by me now to the *bruise type* wounds to Meredith.

2) Having Witnessed at innumerable air shows the ability of a pilot in a correctly executed complete vertical loop to fly completely inverted at the apex of the maneuver with a glass of water on the console remaining un disturbed.....

Doubts sufficiently were erased about this inconsistency thesis and/or the possibility that the close proximity of an undisturbed glass of water negates co-existence of multi person "struggle"

 

[Machiavelli]

I think kady-did simply is not able to read the precise statement by Micheli, which I paste again below, hghlighting some logical connectors:

Analogamente, l’mms in arrivo alle 22:13, che trova il cellulare inglese nella zona di Ponte Rio – Montelaguardia, non dà affatto la dimostrazione che a quell’ora l’apparecchio si trovasse già nei pressi della casa della signora L. B.: i tabulati dei giorni precedenti, come puntualmente osservato dal P.M., documentano al contrario che molte delle comunicazioni relative a quell’apparecchio andavano ad impegnare quella stessa cella, il che sta a significare che vi era un normale rimbalzo fra le celle più direttamente interessanti la zona di Via della Pergola e la cella in questione (a meno di ipotizzare, fuori dalla logica, che M. se ne andasse a passeggio in Via Sperandio ogni volta che dovesse chiamare i propri familiari).

The Ponte Rio-Montelaguardia area is no "mast" or "tower", it is just an area of the city in the neighborhood around Parco S. Angelo.

The appeal defense document makes absolutely no mention of the 22:13 call being the first connection on cell 30064. This claim that you make is totally absent from the defence documents.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think kady-did simply is not able to read the precise statement by Micheli, which I paste again below, hghlighting some logical connectors:

Analogamente, l’mms in arrivo alle 22:13, che trova il cellulare inglese nella zona di Ponte Rio – Montelaguardia, non dà affatto la dimostrazione che a quell’ora l’apparecchio si trovasse già nei pressi della casa della signora L. B.: i tabulati dei giorni precedenti, come puntualmente osservato dal P.M., documentano al contrario che molte delle comunicazioni relative a quell’apparecchio andavano ad impegnare quella stessa cella, il che sta a significare che vi era un normale rimbalzo fra le celle più direttamente interessanti la zona di Via della Pergola e la cella in questione (a meno di ipotizzare, fuori dalla logica, che M. se ne andasse a passeggio in Via Sperandio ogni volta che dovesse chiamare i propri familiari).

The Ponte Rio-Montelaguardia area is no "mast" or "tower", it is just an area of the city in the neighborhood around Parco S. Angelo.

The appeal defense document makes absolutely no mention of the 22:13 call being the first connection on cell 30064. This claim that you make is totally absent from the defence documents.

I believe katy_did is quite capable of reading Italian. I don't know if "totally absent" is the correct descriptive. See my post prior to yours.