Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Draca]

http://www.4shared.com/document/u9uVW2FI/Oggi.html

Does anyone know of a way to run a translator on a pdf.

This Oggi article looks really interesting. I wish I could read it.....



There is also a new article in Rolling Stone - but it requires a subscription.
http://www.rollingstone.com/plus/archive#/2/1212/86/S

Most are rating it - eh, it's ok

 

[Draca]

delete

 

[Paninaro]

In the days before answering machines, voice mail and caller ID you had to keep calling. Unless someone heard the ring and answered the phone, there was no way to know who was trying to call.

Young people who grew up with modern cell phones never learned to repeat a call. They understand that the other person's cell phone will inform them that a call was missed and provide the phone number, time and the name of the person calling,

That thought had crossed my mind too!

And if Knox's recollection of the calls in the E-mail is wrong and her calls to both phones were cut short, one because the phone was turned off and the other because she got voice mail, then that explanation would fit with what the phone records tell us. Because I still cannot understand how the phone "just kept ringing", while it was turned off at the police station.

 

[PhantomWolf]

While it's all well and nice having discussions about what "I" would have done, what Amanda actually did on the morning of the 2nd is totally irrelevant to the question of guilt or innocence.

The simple fact of the matter is that different people react differently to circumstances. Had it been me and I had been guilty, I'd have rung and left about 15 messages on Meredith's voice-mail about how worried I was and can she call me back as soon as she got them. Amanda didn't do this. Can I thus conclude that since she didn't exhibit this behaviour of trying to make herself appear overly innocent, that she actually is innocent? Of course not, and neither can I assume that she is guilt merely because she didn't exhibit behaviour that I believe I would do if I was innocent.

This is why the case needs to be decided on facts and not conjecture. Placing yourself in a situation and then saying, "Well I wouldn't have done that if I were innocent so she must be guilty" is simply a form of personal incredulity, a form of logical fallacy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

BTW, does anyone happen to know when the police interviewed Jovana Popovic?

 

[Kestrel]

That thought had crossed my mind too!

And if Knox's recollection of the calls in the E-mail is wrong and her calls to both phones were cut short, one because the phone was turned off and the other because she got voice mail, then that explanation would fit with what the phone records tell us. Because I still cannot understand how the phone "just kept ringing", while it was turned off at the police station.

The ring heard by a caller is generated by the network, not by the phone on the other end. Depending on configuration, a call to a turned off phone can just keep ringing.

 

[pilot padron]

Neither side is a contingent solely staffed by saints

I can't confirm or deny that they made any attempts to contact anyone who might or might not have been my employer.

However they did make a determined effort to ascertain my identity, and I think it's naive to think that the PMF/TJMK crowd do that without the intent to do something about it once they ascertain it. Jackie/Treehorn/etc also made at least one statement indicative of a desire to inflict physical harm to my person, but I suspect that was empty bravado born of the safety of distance.

As I have commented before, the guilters are not just a group of people who are wrong in the face of the facts - homeopaths, Bigfooters, crystal healers and whatnot are all equally wrong but they aren't nearly as nasty about it. The guilters as a group harbour a hard core with the pathological viciousness and total lack of a functioning moral compass which you normally only see in worst-case cults like Scientology or hate groups like Stormfront.

Not only is the above 'argument' little more than a pretty much off topic ridiculous reality show reminiscent rant, but I additionally find the target of these very vicious comments to be patently illogical as well as personally offensive.

The regrettable element you describe with such flowery prose and extreme examples unfortunately has at least as much if not more applicability to the radical elements definitely present also on your side of the discussion.

Personalities such as Michelle Celestial Early Moore incredibly reminding opponents about how her husband is a sniper as well as the documented despicable actions against Skeptical bystander and her family are just two quick examples.

Whining 'arguments' about radical elements, enhanced with hyperbolic comparisons supposedly present *only on the guilter side*, serves no sensible purpose other than per chance satisfying psychological shortcomings of the whiner and his inevitable ensuing tag team 'pile on' partners.

 

[Dan O.]

... Because I still cannot understand how the phone "just kept ringing", while it was turned off at the police station.

The phone itself doesn't produce the ring that the caller hears. That is provided by the CO or network. In the case of a cell phone, the cell network may provide a ring even before it knows the phone is on the network.

 

[Kevinfay]

http://www.4shared.com/document/u9uVW2FI/Oggi.html

Does anyone know of a way to run a translator on a pdf.

This Oggi article looks really interesting. I wish I could read it.....



There is also a new article in Rolling Stone - but it requires a subscription.
http://www.rollingstone.com/plus/archive#/2/1212/86/S

Most are rating it - eh, it's ok

Draca,

I've had a look at the piece from Oggi ..... Remember that Oggi is more 'National Enquirer' than 'Washington Post' ... that said:

1.The main part, about the jailbirds testimony, says nothing you've not already learnt on, and since Saturday

2. The inset piece on the Judges and one of the prosecutors looks more interesting ... its 04:40 here ... must sleep. I'll leave it open and translate later today.

Stop Press kinda thing - Antonella Conserva, ex wife of Alessi, has just been given 24 years for her part in the kidnap of Tommaso Onofri.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

missing the target

Personalities such as Michelle Celestial Early Moore incredibly reminding opponents about how her husband is a sniper as well as the documented despicable actions against Skeptical bystander and her family are just two quick examples.

pilot padron,

I suspect that Michelle's comments about sniper training were in response to threats against them. When I told a friend of mine about the time I was threatened, he indicated that his professional training with a rifle meant that I should not be too worried.

 

[Amazer]

pilot padron,

I suspect that Michelle's comments about sniper training were in response to threats against them.

Even if this is true (your suspicion), I hardly think that a (counter-)threat against someones life is an appropriate response.

 

[Antony]

Following on from what I was saying yesterday, I had a read round some of this. I'm even more baffled by the attitudes of those pushing the "guilt" line.

What is their connection to the case? Who are they to write to people's employers and try to get them silenced for expressing an opinion that differs from their own? Why are they championing this hate campaign, when the Italian criminal justice system seems to have the situation under control anyway (from their point of view)?

Do they go after everyone involved in the Innocence Project, or MOJO, to insist that nothing should ever be published suggesting someone convicted of a crime might actually have been innocent? And dammit, the people these organisations champion have actually been through the full legal process and been confirmed as convicted!

Amanda Knox is not the only accused or convicted person who has been the centre of a campaign suggesting there has been a miscarriage of justice. It's actually quite common. I never heard of anyone being threatened like this in any other case.

It's really quite bizarre.

Rolfe.

My bafflement reflects yours. It's also conspicuous that when an article favourable to Amanda and Raffaele is published, a very common reaction from the guilter side in the comments section is to attack the newspaper - saying what a disgrace it is that they should publish such an article.

As for the explanation, it resembles many a political or religious confrontation in which the side supported by establishment view thinks itself justified in using varying degrees of personal pressure against opponents. Someone getting into an argument that turns nasty over a matter of opinion in a pub will maybe see the connection.

 

[Antony]

How about telling the truth?
It has the advantage that he doesn't have to care about those pitfalls.

That begs the question of what you believe the truth to be (which after all is what this debate is about). You seem to be assuming that Amanda and Raffaele really were involved in the murder, along with Guede - in which case he will of course be able to provide a coherent account of it that matches the known facts.

The trouble is that nobody among those sharing your assumption has been willing even to suggest a timeline of events (who was where at what time) that fits the bill. That is why many of us here are confident that Guede (hypothetically) telling the truth about the murder would exonerate Amanda and Raffaele.

(ETA: ) Since you appear to be assuming guilt of all 3, would you now do what nobody else has been able to do: describe what you think happened in terms of what time they each arrived at the cottage, what time and how the murder took place, and what time they left?

Not that I expect him telling the truth Monday.

This is probably something that everyone can agree, on both sides of the debate. Even so, there is huge potential for a game-changing contribution from him.

 

[pipelineaudio]

The trouble is that nobody among those sharing your assumption has been willing even to suggest a timeline of events (who was where at what time) that fits the bill.

I sadly predict that bolint will not be the first to do so either.

The sad part is that if they're at all sure their view is true you think one of them would be brave enough to try and lay out some outline of events, but so far they've all run away from the challenge

 

[Katody Matrass]

I've been doing some googling in Polish recently and here's a little curiosity I found:
A blogpost from a Polish girl living in Perugia at the time of crime. Nothing new really but apart from standard tabloid smear it contains a few interesting up-close details.

About Guede:

They arrest Rudy on a train in Germany. He's the same Negro, who a few months before this event had broken in to the flat of my colleague Em and threatened her boyfriend with a knife. He got away with it because the Carabinieri called to the students' place showed up after four hours.

About Patrick:

I remember I was drying the dishes, glancing at the TV. When I saw Patrick walked in cuffs the cloth fell out of my hand. We exchanged tens of mails and phone calls with my just met acquaintances in Perugia. No one could believe in Patrick's guilt. The whole town knows him. He was cooperating with the university organizing concerts, he made a record, he was present at every larger event. He has a little son and a Polish wife from Pszczyna.

 

[komponisto]

Mignini's letter to Oggi

Translation of Mignini's letter to Oggi regarding the Graham interview, and the editor's comments.

PM [Public Minister] Mignini writes: "The prosecution has no doubts".

The magistrate [a term that refers to both judges and prosecutors] asks us to publish a letter of correction. We do so [below]. With a few clarifications.

In issue 24, Oggi published an aticle on the Perugia trial entitled: "On Amanda, the prosecution has some doubts". The piece described a long conversation between PM Giuliano Mignini and an Irish journalist, Bob Graham. And it distilled the essence of that conversation: veiled criticims of the police, [and] Mignini's own doubt that Knox was ever in the room where the crime took place. The Perugian prosecutor sent us a letter of correction, which you will find below, along with a response from Oggi's editor-in-chief Umberto Brindani.


In relation to the article's content and to the implications [tenore litterale, "literal tone"] of the title, the undersigned, Giuliano Mignini, requests, pusuant to the laws governing the press, that the following denial be published.

In the first place, there was no inveview with Graham, but [only] a conversation that the journalist surreptitiously recorded, totally without my knowledge.

However, what is very serious and appears to be in total contrast with the recording, which I have carefully listened to, is the assertion that I hold doubts about the culpability of a defendant whom I (together with my colleague Manuela Comodi) successfully prosecuted. The statements of mine recorded by Graham are an absolute defense of the prosecution's case, and it suffices to listen to the cassette to realize this. The author of the article has completely and seriously misrepresented my assertions, including those having to do with the absolute trust and respect that I have for the State Police, both in general and in relation to their work on the Kercher case -- a trust and respect that is shown by the long and productive relationship that, as a magistrate of the Public Ministry, I have always had with the State Police.

Reserving [the right to take] all action to protect my rights regarding the article and all those who participated in various roles in the use of the cassette and the publication of the article, I request that you publish the present denial.

- Giuliano Mignini


We have published, as requested, Mr. Mignini's polite letter of correction. And we confirm that for the entire 2 hours, 30 minutes, and 51 seconds of the conversation, the magistrate attempted "an absolute defense of the prosecution's case" in the face of repeated and specific challenges from Graham. We must however add a few clarifications:

1. We don't know whether Mignini considered the conversation an interview in the strict sense, and it doesn't concern us. We note, however, that Graham's recording is perfectly legal: anyone can legally record a conversation in which he or she takes part.

2. In any case, near the end of the meeting, Mignini agrees to a photo-op with Graham and the interpreter the day after, in the waiting room of the Court, on the 1st floor. Can we be sure this was just an informal conversation?

3. Among many other details, at around 23 minutes, Minigni speaks at length about the difference between the Police and the Carabinieri. A couple of typical sentences: "I know the Carabinieri better and work better with them. I prefer them." "They would have been a bit more soft with people, you know."

4. After around an hour and 20 minutes of conversation, Mignini admits that "the Police were not able to examine all the findings in the room". "I think there were probably traces [of Amanda -- editor] but the police weren't able to see all of them, and extrapolated". And then he says, literally: "Theoretically Amanda could have instigated the crime, even from another room...I think she was there, because Sollecito was there".

(U.B.)

Also, contrary to Kevinfay, Oggi is comparable to People, not the National Enquirer.

 

[bolint]

I'm going to assume that someone else told you this pack of lies and you are just repeating it because you haven't had the opportunity to verify it."

Ahh, I fell on my sword.
But with my last energy I'll copy some paragraphs from Eberspächer et al. - GSM – Architecture, Protocols and Services, Wiley, to be placed on my tomb.

(They must be heavily in this "propagating pack of lies" business, as it is the third edition of their book. )

It is somewhat reassuring, though, that you really "had the opportunity to verify it."

4.9 Power-up scenario
At this point, all of the functions, protocols and mechanisms of the GSM radio interface
have been presented which are needed to illustrate a basic power-up scenario. The following
describes the basic events that occur during a power up of the MS. The scenario can be
divided into several steps.
1. Provided that a SIM card is present, immediately after turning on power, a MS
starts the search for BCCH carriers.
(...)

5. The MS must now prepare synchronization with the six cells with the strongest signal
level (RXLEV) and read out their BCCH/SCH information, i.e. steps 1–4 above are to
be performed continuously for the six neighboring cells with the best RXLEV values.

6. If significant changes are noticed using the path loss criterion C1 and the reselection
criterion C2, the MS can start reselection of a new cell. Both criteria are determined
periodically for the current BCCH and the six strongest neighbors.
Cell reselection more detailed:

4.5.4 Cell selection and operation in power conservation mode
Cell selection and cell reselection
A MS in idle mode must periodically measure the receivable BCCH carriers of the base
stations in the area and calculate mean values RXLEV from this data (section 4.5.1).
Based on these measurements, the MS selects a cell, namely that with the best reception, i.e.
the MS is committed to this cell. This is called ‘camping’ on this cell. In this state, accessing
a service becomes possible, and the MS listens periodically to the PCH. Two criteria are
defined for the automatic selection of cells: the path loss criterion C1 and the reselection
criterion C2. The path loss criterion serves to identify cell candidates for camping. For such
cells, C1 has to be greater than zero. At least every 5 s, a MS has to recalculate C1 and C2
for the current and neighboring cells. If the path loss criterion of the current cell falls below
zero, the path loss to the current base station has become too large. A new cell has to be
selected, which requires use of the criterion C2. If one of the neighboring cells has a value of
C2 greater than zero, it becomes the new current cell.
(...)
Once a MS is camping on a cell and is in idle mode, it should keep observing all of
the BCCH carriers whose frequencies, the BA, are broadcast on the current BCCH. Having
left idle mode, e.g. if a TCH has been assigned, the MS monitors only the six strongest
neighboring BCCH carriers. A list of these six strongest neighboring BCCH carriers has
already been prepared and kept up to date in idle mode. The BCCH of the camped-on cell
must be decoded at least every 30 s. At least once every 5 min, the complete set of data from
the six strongest neighboring BCCH carriers has to be decoded, and the BSIC of each of
these carriers has to be checked every 30 s. This allows the MS to stay aware of changes
in its environment and to react appropriately. In the worst case, conditions have changed so
much that a new cell to camp on needs to be selected (cell reselection)."

As for your remarks:

To continually reregister with the cell network every time the best reception changes to another tower would be an incredible waist of limited battery power and pollute the already congested airwaves.

This is utter nonsense, as no reregistering of any kind happens even when a new cell is selected. No air traffic is produced when a handset changes cells. It simply starts listening (passively, like a common radio receiver retuned to another station) to the paging channel of the base station of another cell.
(Except when the new cell is in another Location Area, but that does not happen within towns of the size of Perugia, as they are too small to be divided into Location Areas)

Cell phones are so conscious of conserving energy that that they schedule in advance when the towers can call them and then turn their receiver off except for the fraction of a second at the scheduled time to check if there is an incoming call or message.

Yes this is the so called idle DRX mode when only a predefined subblock of the paging stream is received and decoded. But this is largely irrelevant as it is an optimization on a periof of subsecond or second scale while the period of cell reselection is in the order of tens of seconds or a few minutes as seen above.

As long as they are still hearing the tower that they last registered with, they will not go through the overhead of activating their transmitter to change towers.

As seen above they don't need any transmitter activation to change towers.

When the cell network has an SMS message to send to a phone, it simply sends it through the last tower that the phone was registered with. If the phone replies that it received the message, that's all there is to it.

Wrong again. The network won't try to deliver the SMS message to the last known tower. A proper full paging is always executed, meaning that all cells of the last known Location Area (not last known cell!) are paging the given subscruiber and it is the handset that selects, there and then, the best cell to which it connects for the transfer of the message.

Your description of tracking the best tower is what the phone does when there is an active call. The phone may then need to hand off the connection to another tower and needs to be prepared so there is no interruption.

While this is true for the handover, you seem to miss the difference between the idle mode and conversation mode signal quality related actions.
In both cases the handset measures the signals of available cells. The main difference is that in conversation mode the results (of the 6 best cells) are submitted to the network in order to let it initiate a cell reselection if needed, while in idle mode it is the handset that makes the decision (unknown to the network at that time).


In summary and quite specifically for the Perugia case:
When Lumunba sent the SMS message at 20:15, all cells of Perugia paged Amanda's handset and it was her handset that selected the best server based on its signal quality measurements of the previous few minutes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you for that translation komponisto. It seems as if Mignini is more concerned with his criticism of the local cops than anything he said about the case. He has made some pretty dumb remarks of late. He has been relatively quiet during this appeal, letting Maresca be the mouthpiece for the prosecution. I wonder if someone has told him to limit his comments about this?

"Theoretically Amanda could have instigated the crime, even from another room...I think she was there, because Sollecito was there".

This to me represents a very weak fall back position of no proof that Amanda was present. I think he believes the knife evidence will not hold up.

 

[bolint]

Bolint,

Oggi. "La sera e la notte in cui è stata uccisa Meredith, lei e io eravamo a casa mia. Non siamo usciti."
Google Translation: "The evening and the night Meredith was killed, she and I were at my house. We are not leaving."

Not bad, after almost four years.
I'm sure Raffaele explained clearly why he had thougt it otherwise and why it took such a long time to come out with it.

Could you paste that part in?

 

[RoseMontague]

In summary and quite specifically for the Perugia case:
When Lumunba sent the SMS message at 20:15, all cells of Perugia paged Amanda's handset and it was her handset that selected the best server based on its signal quality measurements of the previous few minutes.

It is pointed out in the appeal that signal quality is not the only thing that determines what tower may handle a transmission.

The experts of the scientific police:
· formulated approximate hypotheses on the radio-electric coverage, displaying a map on which they reported the direction of radiation only of the cells engaged by the investigated phones and, in order to define the area served by these cells, traced ‘circles’ of position and radius without taking into account either the technical characteristics of the system of the telephone operator, or the orography of the territory, or any model of a scientific propagation, or the interaction of the neighbouring cells;
· only performed measurements on the field strength of the signals emitted by the cell phone network, without acquiring any of the elements transmitted by the network which condition the choice of cell involved, nor making reference to the selection criteria adopted by the cell phones;

Dr. Pellero, Sollecito’s defence consultant:
· acquired detailed data on the radio-electric coverage of the cells at the time of the crime directly from the source, the cell phone operators. This allowed it to be demonstrated to the Court, on the basis of objective data, that the area of coverage of each cell is far from a regular geometric shape. Taking into account the technical characteristics of the systems, the orography of the territory and an appropriate model of scientific propagation, the telephone operator makes the area of coverage of each cell adopt the dimensions and the shape most able to serve its own customers, both in terms of quality and of density of traffic. This allowed the production of a detailed map, based on objective data which, also taking into account the interaction of all the cells present in the area of investigative interest, shows – with best approximation – the coverage area of each cell, or rather, the area within which, with maximum probability, the device which connected with each cell would be found;
· carried out field strength measurements of the signals emitted by the cell phone network, taking care to also acquire the elements transmitted by the cell phone network which condition the choice of which cell will be connected with, with reference to the selection criteria adopted by the cell phones (objective criteria fixed by binding Technical Regulations – ETSI Standards – knowledge of which was given to the Court, and which clearly indicate that the choice of cell is not solely a function of the field strength measured by the cell phone);