Well it is quite certain what the defence doucment doesn't say: they don't say there where no connection to cell 30064 prior to the 22:13. Maybe they were not, but the defence document certainly doesn't make this argument.
I don't see how Al-Fakh translation contradicts my reading of the original Italian.
Fair enough, I agree that the two calls which connected with the 30064 cell, mentioned by the defence, might have happened before 22:13 (I'd assumed they were suggesting those calls happened on November 2, based on one of the calls happening at the same time as Amanda's on that date). They don't specify a date, so it's possible they could have happened earlier.
About thoughtful, sha says:
"The appeal also notes that that call is the first one ever picked up by 30064 on Meredith's phone (at least I think that's what it says. It mentions two other phone calls at 12:11 and 16:22 picked up by that cell, but doesn't specify the date. If these are on Nov. 2 then this would be in contradiction with the Massei report, which states that all calls from 12:07 onwards were picked up by 25622.)"
The fact is that the court's report doesn't say that. The first connection on 25622 is at 00:10, while connections on nov. 1 were on 25620 betwen 14:00 and 15:00 and on 25621 between 15:00 and 16:00. To be honest the court of Assise doesn't confirm the defence data about cell 30064 (no call happens at 16:22, and the 12:11 is on nov 2, but on a different cell sector), but on the other hand doesn't give any particular contrary datum. However, my conclusion is that the defence proposes different arguments about the cell phones activities - based on the number of sms messages and anomalous use around 22:00 - but does not propose an argument based on a probative value of the 30064 cell usage at 22:13. The defence only wants to dismiss the probative value that the court attributed to the 22:13 call, by saying that this 30064 cell is well reachable also from the area of Parco S.Angelo. In other words, the defence doesn't say that the 22:13 call proves, instead they says it doesn't proove. They say instead that the 21:58 and 22:00 calls could "prove" the time of death.
I'm not sure I agree about the defence not putting forward an argument about the 22:13 call. Certainly they dispute Massei's statement that the phone
must have been in the cottage at that time, based on the dichotomy between the two cells (one receivable at the cottage, the other in the garden). But I think they also argue it is
more likely that the phone was on the way to garden then.
They point out, in the first place, that the cell 30064 has "optimum" coverage in St. Angelo Park, and that Massei acknowledged this. PMF translates "ottimale" as "excellent" in that sentence, but I had interpreted it more along the lines of Al's translation: "a place that enjoys the best coverage of the cell Wind 30064" (my translation: "a place that enjoys optimum coverage of the cell Wind 30064"). This is why I had assumed coverage of that cell was better in the Park than in the cottage, which you indicated in an earlier post was not the case. I think the point of the defence noting that coverage of the cell was 'optimal' in the Park is to suggest that it is more likely to have been there during that connection.
They also seem to claim that Meredith's cell had only connected with that particular cell twice before (on whichever date that had happened). Again, the point of mentioning that would seem to be that this was an unusual connection (particularly in view of the fact that of the series of four or five calls Meredith made from the house that day, none connected with cell 30064). If they were simply disputing Massei's certainty about where the phone was, I can't see why they would have mentioned this. I'm a bit unclear as to your view on this part of the defence's argument: are you saying the defence are wrong about this, or that they aren't actually saying it, or...?
They also appear to argue specifically that the phone was in the park then, as indeed did the defence expert during the trial:
In reality, it is certainly more in accordance with the objective data that Meredith’s cell was inside Parco S. Angelo at 22:13:29, at the moment in which the receipt of an MMS message activated the GPRS connection and the murderer, realizing that he had with him a dangerous bit of evidence, thought to get rid of it by throwing it in the direction of what he took to be a cliff, but then turned out to be the garden of the Lana-Biscarini house, the house situated in via Sperandio 5 bis, which does not conflict with any of the objective elements acquired during the trial.
In realtà è certamente più rispondente ai dati oggettivi che il cellulare di Meredith si trovasse proprio all’interno di Parco S. Angelo alle 22:13:29, al momento in cui la ricezione di un messaggio mms ha attivato la connessione GPRS e l’assassino, ricordatosi di avere con sé un pericoloso elemento di prova, ha ritenuto di disfarsene lanciandolo in direzione di quello che riteneva essere un dirupo, poi rivelatosi essere il giardino di casa Lana-Biscarini, la villa sita in via Sperandio 5 bis, ciò che non è in contrasto con alcuno degli elementi oggettivi acquisiti agli atti.
Although I agree - as I said in a previous post to Christiana - that the defence are principally disputing Massei's certainty that the phone was still in the house, I think they are also suggesting that it is somewhat
more likely to have been already in the park at that point. Why else would they note the 'optimal' coverage in the park and say that there were only two other calls which had connected with that cell?
