Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
halides1 said:
RoseMontague,

Wow. Thanks for posting this. Where were Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt when Ms. Bongiorno was speaking?
Click to expand...

Thanks, there is more of course as I mentioned above. I don't believe the defense consultant that testified later that day had the necessary information either. More later
 
Ghirga is up next (da Google translation):

ATTORNEY Ghirga - Very little to integrate, always for the defense of Amanda Knox to support the view of Advocate Bongiorno efficient, effective, appealing, although to assess whether an act is unique, then take the form of Dr. Stefanoni heads consultant PM in short, has posed a very serious problem indeed, but that marks the history of our process, reminding the Court that the knife 36 for the findings we have followed the same bad luck during the preliminary hearing the first notes of September 16 we have enclosed tower, where Gino Patum the first page say: "there is no quantization of the exhibit" From this it follows ... the finding of DNA extracted obviously finding the knife 36, the first page of advice which is on file, we were not listened to even remember that finding 36 (inc.), audiences she drew 22 and 23 May to Dr. Stefanoni Page 165 of the minutes of the May 23 transcript at the request of the undersigned and in relation to finding 36 "but the amount has been quantified?" "No" "where it can be inferred?" "The date, day of the extractions from the register" the Register is part of the daily extraction of the compendium of documents attached to July 30, 2009, when we look at the log where we get the daily sweepstakes drawing date, I think November 13, 2007, I think because there is another, or in some attached sheets of drawings on the premise that there is a daily listing of exhibits including 36 where _he finding of the knife in four tracks A, B, C and D to the track regards
Meredith and the genetic profile that is written too low, the departure is that of too low too low with all that entails in the attributability of analysis when we are dealing with low copy number, but we (inc.), but we are not satisfied even now, because in the opinion of our consultants and the undersigned attorney for the past few months we have all the DNA still attached documents by the Scientific Rome are incomplete and not so much not only in newspapers but also the presence of logs in the failure of the allegation in relation to raw files Electrophoretic analysis method used and the file (inc.) 36 through which sample ... through which raw files under a scientific, operational instrument as you do exactly what the analysis can be traced to the starting point of the quantum trace of DNA extracted all those steps that the Dr. told us Stefanoni, since we have been able to extract 20, 30 (inc.), diluted, refocused, sequencer, etc., etc. so even today we believe that the Science of Rome has fulfilled the invitation particularly appropriate for this Court to give all the papers relating to the operations, laments the lack of daily records, we add RAW files under the two grounds to retrace those races, and electrophoretic analysis of these issues only subject to conclusion by the Stefanoni. This is in support of the very important, heavy question, except that it ... we extend the finding that 36 had followed the same fate of a failure to respond to the needs of defenders who took part of its consultants with unique operations and then you can say (off microphone) but were never made a. .. unless you think that before (inc.) in a laboratory and see the daily operations were never put in a position to know the data that should belong to the prosecutor's file first, and of course
so parts availability to support the first question we associate so important in that profile. For what Dalla Vedova said the lawyer if it is not a subject is a different matter I agree, there is integration, withdrawal of the deposition of Stefanoni procedural or otherwise reuse the same forms that the parties will establish in process, however we are ... I (inc.) in support of the thesis defense, and of course also urge fellow Dalla Vedova for Amanda Knox.
PRESIDENT - Public Ministry, the plaintiffs also want to deduce this?
Prosecutor DR COMFORTABLE - Well I would say yes. PRESIDENT - After the PM and then pray.
ATTORNEY MARESCA - yes President.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all I get Google to give me on Maresca is Number 9, Number 9, Number 9. Must be a scratch, will attach the Italian of both.
 
Tagliabracci (Google translation)

DEPOSITION OF CONSULTANT - ADRIAN TAGLIABRACCI PRESIDENT - Professor Tagliabracci is invited for further discussion as before the suspension of this hearing was given.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - I am the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, I wanted to know Professor in the light of these ... material which was filed July 30, 2009 that we obviously have submitted for examination, what kind of documentation is filed, it takes significant and any other type of its consideration of the importance and relevance of the documents.
CONSULTANT - If I can avail President ...

PRESIDENT - Certainly.
CONSULTANT - a few slides that I prepared in relation to the requirements that I have now laid the Attorney Bongi_rno. So, as mentioned this morning we received about 300 unnumbered pages of two types of documents is called a "work progress" that will call from now on sal not be too long and the other is called ... are reports of quantification of DNA that have been ... which are basically of two types, a quantization carried out with a car and a technology called Real-Time PCR and the other with fluorometer. What you see here is the card work in progress, but I took a ... in short, is a prototype are all more or less the same in which several items are listed, the official Dr. Stefanoni who performed the investigation and then the list of exhibits, the track list, the code of the track, then down the last lines of the draw date you see here is given, then I laid two or three extractions second or third extraction quantification, amplification so on. In reality this was a work in progress we can define the initial state of the work because it is reported only the first extraction, then we do not further mention with regard to any subsequent extraction, quantification, amplification and then a commercial kit that has been used and electrophoresis, so this is a job status that includes only part of the journey I would say the initial phase which followed the track.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - Excuse me, but normally when you make these

the progress of works from what I understand is a sort of highlight the type of work you are doing so with a degree of progressivity, and beyond that there should be no other sal?
CONSULTANT - Sure, if we want to work progress

an example is like the medical record that refers to
hospitalization of a patient throughout the care pathway documentation that was made during hospitalization, is a bit 'as saying that the report is prepared at this time then documenting what was said at the hearing because it can be useful for subsequent hearings and so on, so it's something very important here, for example missing the volumes used for amplification.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - But why are they important?

CONSULTANT - We do not know what volume is used, we do not know ... is important because we do not know the amount of extract that was used from time to time.
PRESIDENT - Excuse me what it means when it says the volume volume

ie what is the volume?

CONSULTANT - Volume is the amount of material that was placed in a test tube bearing in mind that normally recommended by the user manual as to which was referred to Dr. Stefanoni citing it in the first pages of his report surveys the volume is normally 25 microliters of 15 microliters this volume are necessarily taken by the reagents that you bring to get the result of analysis, 10 microliters is usually the amount that is ... extract that is placed, now put 10 microliters of extract or put 5 or 7, 8 has importance in relation to the amount of DNA that may be present in the extract.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - Excuse me to understand better, so if I put more or less milliliters milliliters, which has accordingly?
CONSULTANT - Meanwhile, we should try to put 20 microliters for the optimum, the optimum volume, we can possibly put even less, however, depends on the amount of DNA that we have in each microliter, if there is a poor one microliter quantities of DNA by placing 10 microliter DNA will not take long, but if there is an abundant amount of DNA they put a lot by putting 10 microliters. This is important because then we
results that we are also ... I say not only employees but also by the amount of DNA that we have spent and if I do not know how DNA was put there and this operation is not known on the cards that we have been provided I can make a speech of low copy number or ideal amount DNA based on electrophoretic traces I get if I have some peaks that are low I can speculate as I did in my speech earlier hearing that the amount of DNA is low and that it is of low copy number, so it's important to know the volumes and concentrations used to me otherwise lack the data to be able to judge considered and then I can only assume on the basis of the results whi_h I did before the hearing.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - Just to understand, these data volumes

that looking at these sal still missing she says, "do not allow me to ... weighted to judge "what I had said earlier the reason why I insist to have the documents, I understand a weighted opinion on what?
CONSULTANT - That I can put under a critical observation

electropherogram, a result that is provided only if I have this data base.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - So for me to understand ...

CONSULTANT - Can I put it ...

ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - To understand one thing Professor, we mean those slides with electropherogram peaks, she says, "without this I do not even know if I read them as these peaks are tracked properly"?
CONSULTANT - I do not know if the height of the peaks in our

If the two pieces that interest me is low depends on the amount of DNA that has been put in amplification, the mixture or it can also depend on other factors, there may also have been an error in the mix of reagents.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - I get it.

CONSULTANT - There may be some substances that inhibited the amplification, which is why it is essential to assess the goodness of the results that I know the concentration of DNA present in the extract and quantify the amount and therefore the actual amount that is put the mixture in each ... in any mix of ... amplification in each volume. ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - Lack of awareness ...
CONSULTANT - Why do I say this? I say this because if they were

followed standard procedures for which you always put 25 microliters in volume and I would miss anyway because I do not know what is the amount of DNA that is present in an extract, but there were also changes made that are not reflected among other in the technical report of research that has been filed but have been described at the hearing, are not reported even in these cards work in progress, for example, the finding that 36 B has been in audience GUP has taken place at a concentration of the sample which was increased to 20, 22, 23 microliters was then I made a further concentration because it was said by Dr. Stefanoni ... I think they are 178, 179 GUP hearing that has been amplified a volume of 20 microliters, 25 microliters lower than the canonical. Now this is important, it is important and I want to know when I have to evaluate the goodness of an electropherogram, how do I evaluate the goodness of this electropherogram I do not know what is the amount of DNA that has been made, as if I do not I have made assumptions as to suppose that the amount was low, we were in the presence of low copy number, and so on, are data that are not there. Among other things, I think that these data as part of laboratory practice, I believe in our laboratory as in all other laboratories is kept a register of writing: the amplified
I put 15 microliters of sample mix baffer (or similar) all that goes in the reaction because the result is good, plus I added 10 microliters of extract and then I simultaneously amplified because the machine can do more amplification, I 15 tubes simultaneously amplified in the first tube I put this finding in the second and so on, and you put the volume, this is a normal practice lab, you can ask any forensic geneticist or less and all will say that it does so , this is not reported in this work progress.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - But these were usually feed

works really bring all this data and are more sal? That is, I understand ...
CONSULTANT - More?

ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - As she says: "there is a lack of other sal but" the fact that others are missing she seeks to show that these data are missing?
CONSULTANT - No I deduce this because as the practice of

This laboratory is one that writes what he does on a daily log imagine that even in the laboratory of the Scientific Police you write what is being done that day, you write if you have rebuilt the extraction, quantitation, amplification, now I'm talking about the 'amplification, was placed a volume of 25, were placed 10 microliters of solution, 5 microliters, what has been put, t_is is usually written otherwise if the result is not good and you have to repeat something maybe after some time I have not even the historian to make those changes you need, so you do not have the historical ... I think there must be if there are no records of these logs is difficult to perform the analysis correctly. ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - of course I will end as soon as you ask the question again, these records, what I want to ask
is this however: according to what we have now is correct that there is no documentary evidence of the quantification of DNA?
COUNSEL - No report on the quantification is made, is documented by these reports that we are going, I miss the intermediate steps, we have only the initial state, then when it starts to take the analysis to extract a profile from this finding is not mentioned amplification, electrophoresis is not cited, if they were repeated, and so on. ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - So basically we have a beginning and an end and there is no middle path.
CONSULTANT - Yes missing.

ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - The middle path ... CONSULTANT - should be detailed on the path.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - must be detailed now, but apart from the formal as we say should be detailed I want to ask, in essence, that we know the start point and end point but not the middle path as it may affect the final result because they know if it is Only one thing I miss the formal documents but having the start point and end point is not important to understand how I affect the final result of his reading, because it says it is so important?
CONSULTANT - can affect ... impact in the sense that I can not

assess whether the quantity and quality of the material that was analyzed was adequate or not so I can not tell if we are faced with a low amount of DNA is of low copy number or we are faced with an error of laboratory or we are faced with inhibitors that prevented the amplification I can not correctly interpret this data, I can do something I guess I did and ... I imagine that we will again. ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - So right now I am President
examination directly ask the Court to take note that once again a technical consultant indicates that lack of reading material that is used for exact dell'elettroferogramma, I think he said this time more specifically, perhaps the clearest ' importance, we are talking about a test I think was essential and reiterated the fact ... us for now we're just arguing that there is something missing, not the end result, then to avoid any disqualifications I well understand at the same time I'm feeling the track remained a consultant I would like at this time to the Court that I ask again that this material be acquired immediately and ask that this material has not been made available, the so-called intermediate material of which the Professor spoke Tagliabracci records that do not exist and these are immediately made available and once again I repeat that if this is not was put ... that the very fact of being made available does not eliminate the consequences that I always reiterate the deposition of dell'inutilizzabilità Stefanoni and void because, of course, will be continued to grow, but in addition to reiterate that I believe what is said by the consultant to support an exception that was promptly rejected immediately appeal to the Court this instance, I have to continue or decide now?
PRESIDENT - The Court can not but note that the same

consultant said: "I guess there were these intermediate sal" then we have no certain proof of their existence, on the other hand, the Court has required the provision of the parties and the Court itself of all documents, if there are existing items not deposited the Court obviously can not know nor have heard part of the consultant knows because he exhibited a hypothetical assessment, if
then the other parties are aware of the presence of these acts maybe we can ... Prosecutor if ...
Prosecutor DR COMFORTABLE - President not us, Dr. Stefanoni is telling me that these files are, this is the ... metrics are those who requested and were then deposited the amount of DNA used can be seen by all those numbers and I really can not so do not ...
CHAIRMAN - Okay, okay.

Prosecutor DR COMFORTABLE - I mean there's nothing else here. PRESIDENT - We can do this and then we can ... we felt that the evaluation has shown and is still exposing the consultant, will be assessed in contradictory parts.
ATTORNEY BONGIORNO - Since I've been told that I'm asking
late at this point I find it just ask. Professor Go ahead, other documents that she has examined whether there are slides.
Click to expand...

I can't help but notice the frustration apparent at having to fight the testing results without the necessary data. At least Hellmann did the right thing with forcing Steffi to hand it over to the experts.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Thanks, there is more of course as I mentioned above. I don't believe the defense consultant that testified later that day had the necessary information either. More later
Click to expand...

In my opinion, they still don't have it. C&V do not appear to have any contemporaneous records of the November/December 2007 tests. The e-grams that they were given are dated 2008 or later. There must have been tests run in 2007 (the knife "match" was announced around 11/14/07) and there must be data files pertaining to these tests and dated 2007. Stefanoni has tried every trick in the book to hide the contemporaneous test results, which demonstrates that she knows that there is a problem there.

Hopefully, the defense will nail her on this in September. It would be the final nail in her coffin, because Hellmann is already all over this issue.
 
If anyone wants the complete 14 September debacle in pdf Italian just email me.

It pains me to read any more of this at the present time.
 
Diocletus said:
In my opinion, they still don't have it. C&V do not appear to have any contemporaneous records of the November/December 2007 tests. The e-grams that they were given are dated 2008 or later. There must have been tests run in 2007 (the knife "match" was announced around 11/14/07) and there must be data files pertaining to these tests and dated 2007. Stefanoni has tried every trick in the book to hide the contemporaneous test results, which demonstrates that she knows that there is a problem there.

Hopefully, the defense will nail her on this in September. It would be the final nail in her coffin, because Hellmann is already all over this issue.
Click to expand...

You may be right, there are several indications in the report that stuff is either missing or implied that it was never there to begin with (LOL). (Pain)
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Nadeau responded as follows:

While I respect your request to retract the diary excerpt in The Daily Beast article, I wish to clarify that I did not quote page 59 from the 80-page diary you refer to in your press release. I am quoting a subsequent passage from a "memoriale" that has been entered into evidence and that is contained in the 10,000 prosecution page dossier.
Click to expand...

Translation:

"Well, Knox may have said something different than what I wrote. But this doesn't matter, because, to describe what she said, I decided to quote from a source that I know misquotes Knox. And even though what I wrote isn't really true, I didn't misquote the source that misquotes Knox. Furthermore, I had no obligation to acknowledge Knox's actual quote, since all I was doing is quoting the misquotation. PS: If you want to try to find the source that I quoted, I'll give you a clue: it's in the court record. Which, by the way, is TEN THOUSAND pages, in Italian! So, good luck with that, sucker."
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Perhaps that should be "2008"


It might be useful to search for references to Amands's Facebook page looking for references to it being closed.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Time travel, what the hell was I thinking, brain fart. I had no luck finding out when it had been closed. What I was wondering was whether in January of '08 the source material was available to the typical person searching casually. At that time there would be no massive cache of data about the case that had been filed at an easily-found website....
 
christianahannah said:
I think the reduction in Rudy's sentence (after the sentence imposed for the fast track trial) had to do with mitigation and the sentence Amanda and Raffaele received because of such.

It has been argued that the prosecution could not appeal a fast track sentence while others say it could have been done. I have been trying to find a legal cite for either argument but so far have been unable to do so.

Hypothetically, if Amanda and Raffaele would lose their appeals and the prosecution would win their appeal (against a reduced sentence), would Rudy's sentence then increase since its decrease was dependent upon the sentence of Amanda and Raffaele?
Click to expand...

My understanding is the reasons for mitigation outlined in Raffaele's first appeal were not dependent on the mitigation AK and RS received. The current prosecution appeal is to void the mitigation that AK and RS received and would not have any impact on Rudy.
 
Rose(or anyone else who knows what's going on),
what's with the latest translations that you provided? Could you fill me in? Simple (English) and short answer would be great.

RWVBWL,
I'm so sorry to hear that. Hopefully, everything will work out fine and you'll be able to move on.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
You may be right, there are several indications in the report that stuff is either missing or implied that it was never there to begin with (LOL). (Pain)
Click to expand...

The only document that I've ever seen that indicates that any test was done in November 2007 is the Qubit Flourometer quanification worksheet attached to the C&V report. And, SAL records seem to indicate an extraction date of 11/13/07.

That's it. There are no records referenced in C&V that reference any sample concentration, PCR quantification, amplification or electrophersis analysis that occurred in November 2007. Without these records, how can Stefanoni even prove that she did these procedures/tests before the "match" was announced on or about 11/15/2007?

There must be contemporaneous records of these missing steps. Stefanoni is either lying about having done these steps or she is still witholding the records.

ETA: As far as we know, based on the documentation, she actually did stop her testing when the Qubit Flourometer said "too low" on 11/13/2007. We have no documentary proof of any electrophersis analysis occurring before June 2008, which is the date of the e-gram attached to the C&V report. How can we really know what might have been fed into the machine on that date? All we have for the period prior to that the testimony of Stefanoni saying "I got a match via electropherisis in November 2007". I don't believe her. Show me the proof.
 
Last edited:
an old DNA summary

Belz... said:
Thanks, then. That was quite a change of heart you had, there. I appreciate it. I suppose this is the first time being completely undiplomatic got me exactly what I wanted. :o
Click to expand...
Belz,

Near the start of the first Knox/Sollecito thread I wrote a summary of the DNA evidence that attempted to describe both sides of the debate. It is somewhat out-of-date, but it might still serve as a starting point. The only thing that jumped out at me (upon a quick re-read) was that spectroscopists and geneticists use the word "noise" very differently, and that might have led to some confusion.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
Rose(or anyone else who knows what's going on),
what's with the latest translations that you provided? Could you fill me in? Simple (English) and short answer would be great.

RWVBWL,
I'm so sorry to hear that. Hopefully, everything will work out fine and you'll be able to move on.
Click to expand...

The translations/excepts are from the transcripts of testimony on 14 September 2009, matching the date in Frank's post I outlined in my first post (Too Low).

This is the point the where Massei decides enough with the discovery stuff, the prosecution gets to keep the advantage of not turning over the documents the defense needed to properly dispute Ms Steffi's work.
 
RoseMontague said:
This is the point the where Massei decides enough with the discovery stuff, the prosecution gets to keep the advantage of not turning over the documents the defense needed to properly dispute Ms Steffi's work.
Click to expand...

Totally ridiculous, spineless decision by the nitwit Massei.

It strikes me as even worse, though, that he denied further work on the computers. This is the defendants alibi. The prosecution destroyed the evidence. How can you justify not letting the defendants obtain additional testing so they can attempt to prove their alibi? The prosecution is allowed to shred alibi evidence, present their version of what the alibi evidence was/was not, and the defense has no recourse? It's outrageous.
 
Diocletus said:
Translation:

"Well, Knox may have said something different than what I wrote. But this doesn't matter, because, to describe what she said, I decided to quote from a source that I know misquotes Knox. And even though what I wrote isn't really true, I didn't misquote the source that misquotes Knox. Furthermore, I had no obligation to acknowledge Knox's actual quote, since all I was doing is quoting the misquotation. PS: If you want to try to find the source that I quoted, I'll give you a clue: it's in the court record. Which, by the way, is TEN THOUSAND pages, in Italian! So, good luck with that, sucker."
Click to expand...


Perhaps we should start referring to her as Barbie Clouseau

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74YLwinLT7M&feature=related

:D
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
It really and truly does. On Nov. 2, 2007, Amanda made a series of phone calls between 12:07 and 12:20. All went through the Aquila sector 3 cell except the first, which went through the Aquila sector 9 cell. Amanda says she was at Raffaele's apartment when she made these calls, and computer records substantiate this claim.

[/I]
Click to expand...

I never got that until now, sooooo the pc connection corroborates the cell tower issue for her.

But still to determine if it Possible or Impossible that this sector3 works should be fairly easy for them to test right? I understand they tested the towers from the front doorway outside, as I recall...or I'm wrong about that.
 
RoseMontague said:
The translations/excepts are from the transcripts of testimony on 14 September 2009, matching the date in Frank's post I outlined in my first post (Too Low).

This is the point the where Massei decides enough with the discovery stuff, the prosecution gets to keep the advantage of not turning over the documents the defense needed to properly dispute Ms Steffi's work.
Click to expand...


Massei appears to have simply taken Comodi's word for it when she argued that the prosecutors got to decide what was necessary to be handed to the defence, and that if the prosecutors didn't think a particular piece of information was necessary or important, then they would ignore defence requests for it.

And once again, I think that this issue is strongly indicative of the unhealthy relationship that can exist between judges and prosecutors in Italy: there appears to be the potential for judges to ascribe an improper and unwarranted level of trust and probity to prosecutors. I think that this is what happened here. I think Massei blindly assumed that Comodi and Mignini only had the "interests of truth" at heart, and that therefore the prosecutors were non-partisan and fair. This might have been the case - in theory if not in practice - when Italian criminal justice operated under a pure inquisitorial system. But it certainly isn't the case in Italy now. I get the feeling that Massei has more than a few reactionary bones in his body, and that he may be having considerable trouble adapting to the relatively-new concept (in Italy) of the adversarial system, and the maxim of "innocent until proven guilty".

But whatever Massei's underlying thinking and motivation may have been, I think that this issue (the non-allowance of important discovery material to the defence, essentially on the prosecutors' say-so) would constitute one of many actionable issues if the case ever made it as far as the Supreme Court. However, I think that this is a moot point, because I am extremely confident that Knox and Sollecito will be correctly acquitted by Hellmann's appeal court. It might make an interesting discussion point in any subsequent judicial inquiry into the whole fiasco, though.
 
JREF2010 said:
I never got that until now, sooooo the pc connection corroborates the cell tower issue for her.

But still to determine if it Possible or Impossible that this sector3 works should be fairly easy for them to test right? I understand they tested the towers from the front doorway outside, as I recall...or I'm wrong about that.
Click to expand...


Well it's still possible that the Massei Report makes the same mistake four times when it assigns the cell phone calls made by Knox at 12.08-12.12pm on the 2nd November to this particular base station (Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3). But I personally think that such a multiple error is unlikely, and that this base station does indeed provide signal to Sollecito's apartment.

As Dan O remarked earlier, GSM base stations contain a number of transceivers (transmitter/receivers) which are arranged in a circular pattern around the central mast, and each of which therefore covers only one particular segment of the 360-degree circle centred on the base station. As he also pointed out, it's very common in urban environments for more than one transceiver to be needed to cover the same segment of the circle: not for reasons of geographic coverage, but for reasons of network capacity. Since the typical GSM base station has three segments, it's entirely likely that for this particular base station the original transceivers labelled Sector 1, 2 and 3 point to the same segments respectively as Sectors 4, 5, 6 and 7, 8, 9 (which may have been added at a later date, as cellphone usage increased and there were capacity constraints). In other words, Sector 3, Sector 6 and Sector 9 would all cover exactly the same geographic area.

I believe (although I can't be certain, and others probably have the information closer to hand) that the defence showed that cell phone reception measured inside Sollecito's apartment had very different characteristics than that measured at his front door. This would be very unsurprising, as his front door opened northwards onto the narrow Corso Garibaldi, while his apartment had southerly and westerly facing windows. I believe it's entirely possible that a proper test conducted within Sollecito's apartment would show that Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 did indeed provide a signal there. And if that's the case, then it's entirely possible (in fact likely) that Knox was sitting in Sollecito's apartment when her phone received Lumumba's text message at 8.18pm on the 1st.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom