Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

Would you mind answering some of the questions/comments that have already been directed toward you?

Halides,

I've still not got the questions you want me to answer?.

They can't be from LondonJohn ... he doesn't want to put questions either to me or the Prosecutors Office ..... if he prefers anonomous mud slinging, that is fine by me ... each to his own?

 

[Kevinfay]

What time do you think Meredith was stabbed? The witness testimony indicates they ate anywhere from about 6:00-6:30 PM. She was last seen a little before nine PM. When she was autopsied, nothing from her stomach had passed to her duodenum. This means something.

In the first trial all computer interaction after they put in Naruto was lost when the police overwrote those files, at about 9:27. The defense has since recovered indications of human interaction with the computer all night, but let's set that aside for a moment.

by 9:30 PM, the very earliest both Raffaele and Amanda could have been at the cottage, there's only a small percentage chance Meredith hadn't been stabbed yet going by generous assumption she didn't have a bite until 6:30, does that not constitute reasonable doubt in your mind they weren't involved?

Kaosium,

The time of death issue is being addressed in the appeal. That means we'll get experts from both sides giving evidence and being cross examined. We''ll also get the closing arguments from both sides.

We have got posters on this board who are expert enough to argue with incredible precision the TOD ... I think the sensible thing to do would be to hear the experts, hear the lawyers arguments and then form an opinion?. That is what the jurors do.

 

[lionking]

Kaosium,

The time of death issue is being addressed in the appeal. That means we'll get experts from both sides giving evidence and being cross examined. We''ll also get the closing arguments from both sides.

We have got posters on this board who are expert enough to argue with incredible precision the TOD ... I think the sensible thing to do would be to hear the experts, hear the lawyers arguments and then form an opinion?. That is what the jurors do.

Bravo. I agree.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

comment numbers and links

Halides,

I've still not got the questions you want me to answer?.

Kevinfay,

Scroll up to 13218, and you will find comment numbers with links. If you use RoseMontague as the username (along with your own as the search term) in the advanced search function, you may find some more.

 

[komponisto]

The also 'piling on style' repeatedly regurgitated requests for guilter timelines with accompanying associations of 'inability' also seem senseless to me and little more than tag team echoing.
This because if one does not accept the Google based ToD, the very complete and very well debated previous PMF easily accessed timelines are in fact still very valid.
Furthermore even if one does accept Google's Gook, the to date silence on the matter from the principals in the case who are the only ones who matter is also underwhelming and grounds to ignore the questionably motivated requests.

No it isn't. See here.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it is possible

Do you have evidence that an Italian court which spent months hearing witness testimony and viewing the evidence, based the conviction of Knox and Sollecito on faith.

odeed,

One juror said that we can all have too much to drink, then get into our cars and drive home and therefore that it was "possible" that Knox committed murder while under the influence, as I remarked here. I think that this is poor reasoning on the part of this juror.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

timeline

This because if one does not accept the Google based ToD, the very complete and very well debated previous PMF easily accessed timelines are in fact still very valid.

pilot padron,

The timeline presented by Fulcanelli in one of his very first posts here includes about 25 minutes of Meredith's being restrained. Where is Sollecito's DNA on her arms? I have spoken with several physicians about the rates of food passage, and I have relayed some of those comments here. All were in agreement with Rolfe.

 

[bolint]

Unfortunately, posting little throw-away remarks such as the one above does not tend to speak highly to your willingness to debate in good faith, with an open and inquiring mind.

It seems I have to learn a lot from you how to perfectly get rid of those little throw-away remarks as you are clearly above them.

But since you wrote it, can we take it from this witticism of yours that you believe Knox accused Lumumba out of thin air, without any police coercion (or maybe without the police even previously mentioning Lumumba's name, as some seem to think)?

The air must have been quite thick there.
And I think it was Amanda who first named Lumumba, yes.
I believe the "He is bad!" story is true.

Coercion?
I believe there was shouting, calling her liar, etc., as I believe Lumumba's first Daily Mail account is true, even if he denied it later.
But that is not enough to accuse someone of murder.

Just as it was useless against Lumumba.

 

[lionking]

I think that this is poor reasoning on the part of this juror.

"I think" sounds like an act of faith to me. But then again I somehow can't express an opinion on this thread.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Is driving under the influence a good analogy?

"I think" sounds like an act of faith to me. But then again I somehow can't express an opinion on this thread.

lionking,

I don't agree with your opinion about a conspiracy theory, for reasons I have made plain upthread. I don't have a problem with your expressing it, although I was hoping that you would expand upon it.

"I think" means that something is my opinion; faith is something else. What do you think of the juror's reasoning? Does it sound as if he or she applied a standard of reasonable doubt?

 

[lionking]

lionking,

I don't agree with your opinion about a conspiracy theory, for reasons I have made plain upthread. I don't have a problem with your expressing it, although I was hoping that you would expand upon it.

"I think" means that something is my opinion; faith is something else. What do you think of the juror's reasoning? Does it sound as if he or she applied a standard of reasonable doubt?

Your "faith" might be stronger than mine. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Antony]

Personalising the debate again. But it's good to see that someone is acknowledging what happens to those who don't toe the innocentisti line.

The irony has sadly passed over your head.

 

[bolint]

Raffaele explained it to Judge Matteini. “’Precisely because on that night I was very, very agitated because I was under so much pressure,’ he told her [Judge Matteini], adding that police had interrogated him very forcefully, saying repeatedly, ‘don’t give us ****’ and ‘be careful what you say.’ Later, they’d written down that he said ‘sack of ****.’ It had all been a nightmare.” (Murder in Italy, p. 199) I am not sure why you consider two and a half days to be a long time.

Well, this is then an answer for Rose, too, from the horse's mouth for the authenticity of the phrase "sack of crap".

Quote more stuff like that.

I still don't see, though, how a treatment like that makes someone state that Amanda went out at 9 and came home at 1PM.

Was he stoned again?

 

[Antony]

Do you have evidence that an Italian court which spent months hearing witness testimony and viewing the evidence, based the conviction of Knox and Sollecito on faith.

I understood the original remark to mean that it was lionking's views that were a matter of faith, not necessarily the verdict of the Massei court.

I really don't see why lionking has to repeat what the Italian court has concluded,

He doesn't, in a forum set up to discuss whether the conclusion of the original court was correct. In fact it's pointless to do so, but that doesn't seem to have stopped lionking and others on the guilter side to continue to do so.

if you think that the evidence and conviction is wrong then argue that point instead of trying to shift the burden and "piling on" the person with stupid snide remarks.

(again)

This, midway through filling-up a third forum topic with reasons exactly why the conviction was wrong. The "piling on" you talk about is after lionking avoided talking about the evidence and the conviction.

We want people here to put the guilter case based on facts and intelligible reasoning; I haven't seen any of that from them at least since the appeals started - it's all meaningless fluff (like how many times Amanda should have called Meredith's phones) and, as you put it, "stupid snide remarks". It's the so-called innocentisti who have come up with all the facts and meaningful reasoning.

 

[bolint]

(was there a link?)

No, it's from a book.

"A map of the location areas would also be helpful if it's possible to extract such information from the providers."

Difficult, not public.

From my previous readings I believe these are overlapping sets of cells but

No. They are never overlapping. The very essence of the Location Area notion is that each cell is uniquely assigned to one Location Area. That is the set of location areas is a partition of the cells.

I can't say if the whole town would be one area.

Even much larger cities than Perugia have one Location Area.
For example Zurich 372.000 inhabitants and one Location Area.
That means when someone is called in Zurich then all the towers in town page him. And he connects to the best server, the paging stops in all cells, a talk channel is established and then his phone starts ringing.

There are three events where cell phones appear to connect with towers that that are not optimum for the phone. These are: Amanda's receipt of Patrick's text, Patrick's sending of the text and Meredith's phone receiving the MMS message. These need to be explored.

And five more voice calls next day.

 

[bolint]

This would be an area in which I have some academic expertise (hi, pilot!). The ETSI standards for GSM in Europe (to which network operators, service providers and handset manufacturers all work) specify far less rigorous protocols for selecting base stations for SMS or MMS transmission than for voice calls. Bolint had indeed posted some of the selection protocols, but those are the ones that apply to voice calls.

There are two main reasons why SMS and MMS can and should be dealt with differently: these communications are simplex (i.e. they are only one-way communications, from the base station to the handset, with no need for simultaneous transmission from the handset to the base station as would be the case with a normal voice call); and they are asynchronous (i.e. the information does not have to be delivered at a strictly-timed and synchronised basis - unlike voice calls which have to be transmitted and received in real time, in exactly the right order, and with minimal time delay).

Because of these two important differences, base station selection protocols are far less rigorous with SMS/MMS than with voice. When an SMS/MMS is sent or received, it's actually fairly common for the signal path to involve a more "distant" base station - leaving the base station with the strongest signal path free for more complex, duplex, synchronous voice calls. It's therefore far from unlikely for Knox's handset to have been situated in Sollecito's apartment, but to have received Lumumba's SMS from a base station which was not the optimal one for that location. The appeals documents allude to this, and I would hope that Hellmann would allow expert witnesses to appear before the court and explain all this properly.

Wrong.
There is no different base station selection for SMS. No talk channel is established, as you said, the SMS traffic is transferred through the signalling channels, but that does not mean that the paging and base station selection is different.
Tha handset always has a list (and only one list) of base stations with a best station among them and it is selected by the handset for both voice and SMS.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks, but I've got the Italian version.
I was talking about the English one.

If you are talking about the translation at PMF it is not complete, parts were skipped. We wouldn't want someone to claim they "cut it when it started to be inconvenient." I believe you asked for the the "whole Matteini material to avoid selective quoting".

 

[bolint]

And all the measurements taken outside, by the doorway, not inside the actual apartment. Apparently that doesnt matter, to actually go inside and check each of the rooms and determine which tower is "best", because the expert didnt do that. I suppose it could still be done, but probably won't be and wasn't included in the request by the Defense.

The fact, that Raffaele's usage of the previous month was overwhelmingly through the best server measured by the police outside shows that the internal situation is not so different.

I suppose it could still be done

Base stations, antennas, could have changed significantly even by aging, let alone replacement.
But I agree, it should have been done at that time and with similar handsets.
But the revision of Maxwell's equations is hardly expected even from the Supreme Court.

 

[bolint]

If you are talking about the translation at PMF it is not complete, parts were skipped. We wouldn't want someone to claim they "cut it when it started to be inconvenient." I believe you asked for the the "whole Matteini material to avoid selective quoting".

Yes, that' s what I hoped you have.
I did not know that at PMF there is an English partial translation.

 

[RoseMontague]

Bolint,

Raffaele explained it to Judge Matteini. “’Precisely because on that night I was very, very agitated because I was under so much pressure,’ he told her [Judge Matteini], adding that police had interrogated him very forcefully, saying repeatedly, ‘don’t give us ****’ and ‘be careful what you say.’ Later, they’d written down that he said ‘sack of ****.’ It had all been a nightmare.” (Murder in Italy, p. 199) I am not sure why you consider two and a half days to be a long time.

With respect to Raffaele’s interview in Oggi, he described Amanda thusly: “Amanda is just a very sweet girl; she is beautiful, sensitive, nice, cheerful and a bit 'weird'. (She is) definitely special. Light years away from an egoic queen bee (depicted in the media)” (human translation).

Well, this is then an answer for Rose, too, from the horse's mouth for the authenticity of the phrase "sack of crap".

Quite so. Thank you halides1. I felt that this was another of those myths, it seemed to me to be common sense. It is good to see confirmation.