Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[anglolawyer]

I don't know anglo. Because of you I'm looking through SS7 message protocol stack and particularly at MM7 and MM8 Billing protocol specification to see what data is recorded where. I'll get back to you to see if I can nail this down for you.

Cool, thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

In the last couple of days, there has been speculation posted here that the police had erased Patrick's text on Amanda's phone durring her interrogation. They may have deleted that text. They would see it as an extreme embarrassment contradicting their entire case for which they had already imprisoned three people. But they would not delete the text on Amanda's phone. There's no justification for it. If they were going to delete the text, they would have to insure that it was deleted on both the senders and the receivers phones.

At the time of Amanda's interrogation, they had no guarantee that they would be able to acquire Patrick's phone to also erase the source text. That the text was not on Amanda's phone confirms that Amanda had erased the received text.

When they arrested Patrick, they would have searched his home to find his phone because the text on Patrick's phone would be proof of his plan to meet Amanda and therefore evidence of his guilt. But when they find the phone with the same number that matches source of the text, the text would not be on that phone. This to the police would confirm that there was a meeting and a conspiracy to erase the evidence.

If the police ever discovered the source text message, it would have been about a week after the arrests. At that time, they have already committed to their theory and taken it befor a judge. They cannot say oopsy, the suspects were telling the truth and the evidence was here all along.

The other possibility is that the police never discovered the second phone. It would have been at Patrick's bar and the police would have collected it into evidence. But at that time they would not be looking for the phone that sent the text because they already found it. This would just be another phone that doesn't fit the case. So, did Patrick erase the text after he was released?

Dan,

Could the police get the body of the SMS texts directly from the cell phone carrier quickly? I know that data resides on the SMS server for a period of time. I know the servers are capable of saving that data virtually indefinitely or deleted immediately depending on they set it up.

 

[Dan O.]

So I"m curious about whether cell phone tower antennas are directional or omnidirectional? They could be either but I believe it is more likely that they are omnidirectional.

The typical cell tower is a triangular arrangement of antennas that each cover roughly 120 degrees from the tower with some overlap. They also generally use three frequency bands so each tower will report up to 9 sectors. You can see references to sectors in Massei. In the usual arrangement, every third sector covers the same area but just on a different frequency.

 

[Grinder]

Maybe I have been little too hard on Vulcano and it turns out his evidence was true , that the bar was closed when he sent the text and Lumumba was lying to Matteini and only opened up later. After all, it seems a bit unlikely he opened at 5-6 p.m. but didn't rack up a single sale until 10.29. If so, that would be further evidence that the message itself was available at the interrogation. But I digress.

It was assumed by Grinder that the same technique was used by Lumumba as is used worldwide in bars and restaurants. Sales are made and not rung up in order to avoid paying taxes. Until the use of credit cards became ubiquitous many restaurants understated profits substantially. It used to be a joke that restaurants that didn't make much money sold for high prices. Generally sales are rung up more when there are employees present or a customer that may be a collector.

ETA - Randy I think you may have left off the most egregious of Mignini's actions and inactions. He charged Amanda's parents for repeating what she had told them to Follain while in Seattle (someone corrected me as I had thought it was in England) and neglected to charge him. At another time he threatened the West Seattle Herald for repeating what someone said about Mignini.

I find that the PGP are so enamored of M, not withstanding their PG status, is strange.

 

[anglolawyer]

It was assumed by Grinder that the same technique was used by Lumumba as is used worldwide in bars and restaurants. Sales are made and not rung up in order to avoid paying taxes. Until the use of credit cards became ubiquitous many restaurants understated profits substantially. It used to be a joke that restaurants that didn't make much money sold for high prices. Generally sales are rung up more when there are employees present or a customer that may be a collector.

ETA - Randy I think you may have left off the most egregious of Mignini's actions and inactions. He charged Amanda's parents for repeating what she had told them to Follain while in Seattle (someone corrected me as I had thought it was in England) and neglected to charge him. At another time he threatened the West Seattle Herald for repeating what someone said about Mignini.

I find that the PGP are so enamored of M, not withstanding their PG status, is strange.

So Lumumba preferred to be locked up for murder than tax evasion? Seriously, I buy your idea. No problem. However, having rehabilitated Vulcano I am obliged to condemn Patrick and I consequently (and confidently) assert that his bar was closed. Good theories, as Halides will tell you, make predictions and this is a Prediction of The Theory.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan,

Could the police get the body of the SMS texts directly from the cell phone carrier quickly? I know that data resides on the SMS server for a period of time. I know the servers are capable of saving that data virtually indefinitely or deleted immediately depending on they set it up.

Even in Italy there are privacy rights. There is no law that I am aware of that requires carriers to keep texts after they have been delivered. There is no reason for a carrier to keep the texts and possibly a privacy liability issue if the keep the text longer than necessary.

Assume that the police had access to the texts from the carriers. Judges would know that the police had this access. The police or prosecution would not be able to lie to the judge about what they believed the text said because evidence of the lie could be on the senders phone or the recipients phone or the senders carrier or the recipient's carrier. If the police had access to the text from the carrier, they would just present this information to the judge and not some speculation as to what they believe was in the transaction.

 

[Grinder]

So Lumumba preferred to be locked up for murder than tax evasion? Seriously, I buy your idea. No problem. However, having rehabilitated Vulcano I am obliged to condemn Patrick and I consequently (and confidently) assert that his bar was closed. Good theories, as Halides will tell you, make predictions and this is a Prediction of The Theory.

Anglo, he was innocent and had people that he was sure would step up. He sort of told the truth that he had served drinks but hadn't rung them up. I could see him thinking saying "I sell drinks for cash and don't ring them up as a matter of course" wouldn't make him exactly more credible than saying he just hadn't rung them up.

I have no problem believing that at 7 the bar was closed. Wouldn't it be a hoot, in a very dark House of Cards sort of way, if in fact it was Patrick with Rudi after all. His phone pinging near the cottage and his switching out phones the next day. Maybe you can work out a theory on the police deleting his text to save him.

 

[Dan O.]

Speculation? Speculation? Proof Dan. Proof. I bet the first thing they did was seize his phones and delete any offending material at once. I have seen it speculated here that he had his phone set to delete sent messages automatically and that has been offered as the explanation why that text never showed up. It could have been of enormous value to Amanda's defence. See how it's absence was exploited in front of Matteini.

The police were so incompetent that they didn't even know that Patrick had two phones on the same number. They thought that the changing IMEI ment that Patrick swapped his SIM after the murder.

I really wish there was an organization that could investigate the investigation. There is so much evidence that should be out there but is just out of our reach.

 

[Grinder]

Even in Italy there are privacy rights. There is no law that I am aware of that requires carriers to keep texts after they have been delivered. There is no reason for a carrier to keep the texts and possibly a privacy liability issue if the keep the text longer than necessary.

I posted a list of US carriers' policies and one, Verizon IIRC, kept text messages for 3 to 5 days. Given that the PLE had their phones tapped within hours or at most a day, I'm pretty sure they would also have been given access to any records available.

Assume that the police had access to the texts from the carriers. Judges would know that the police had this access. The police or prosecution would not be able to lie to the judge about what they believed the text said because evidence of the lie could be on the senders phone or the recipients phone or the senders carrier or the recipient's carrier. If the police had access to the text from the carrier, they would just present this information to the judge and not some speculation as to what they believe was in the transaction.

I agree and further the police would have to know for sure that the texts weren't anywhere on a computer if they planned to delete it and say it was different than it really was.

 

[anglolawyer]

Anglo, he was innocent and had people that he was sure would step up. He sort of told the truth that he had served drinks but hadn't rung them up. I could see him thinking saying "I sell drinks for cash and don't ring them up as a matter of course" wouldn't make him exactly more credible than saying he just hadn't rung them up.

I have no problem believing that at 7 the bar was closed. Wouldn't it be a hoot, in a very dark House of Cards sort of way, if in fact it was Patrick with Rudi after all. His phone pinging near the cottage and his switching out phones the next day. Maybe you can work out a theory on the police deleting his text to save him.

LOL. I'll work on it. The ideal scenario for me would be if Patrick opened up sometime around 9-9.30 but, failing that, I'm happy for him to be the look-out.

 

[Grinder]

LOL. I'll work on it. The ideal scenario for me would be if Patrick opened up sometime around 9-9.30 but, failing that, I'm happy for him to be the look-out.

No, no, no, he opened earlier and then exited for a quick run to Meredith's. He donned his white, blond Italian costume and entered and killed Meredith. Then he took off his outfit and returned to his Swiss professor customer.

When was his phone pinged?

O.T. - Lincoln's hat won't be tested for DNA because the test wouldn't be accurate.

 

[anglolawyer]

no, no, no, he opened earlier and then exited for a quick run to meredith's. He donned his white, blond italian costume and entered and killed meredith. Then he took off his outfit and returned to his swiss professor customer.

when was his phone pinged?
o.t. - lincoln's hat won't be tested for dna because the test wouldn't be accurate.

20:38

 

[Grinder]

20:38

Clearly on his way to the cottage - murder at 9:05 and back behind the bar by 9:15 all clean after ditching the costume and blond wig.

 

[anglolawyer]

Clearly on his way to the cottage - murder at 9:05 and back behind the bar by 9:15 all clean after ditching the costume and blond wig.

It's beginning to look that way.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clarification shortly

I sense a little, I told you so, in that. I have a very low opinion of Mignini and the power given to his position to stifle the defense. I am not as upset with these charges as those made during the trial against defenders of the kids.

I did not intend to say "I told you so" by implication, and my apologies if it came across that way. I intend to respond to CoulsdonUK shortly, which should clarify my meaning.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

by his words and actions...

Halides1

As soon as the MOF case against Mignini was nullified it was a no brainer that he would sue Raffaele, still its early days. I believe Raffaele may well face the legal wrath of others, no doubt you will conclude Mignini is pulling the strings in the background.

CoulsdonUK, I pointed out Mignini's actions to expand upon something that I brought to your attention and to which you have yet to respond. It is within the universe of possibilities that the charges against PM Mignini are without merit. Likewise, it is possible that Douglas Preston's impressions of him are wrong. However, Mr. Mignini is himself responsible for what he says and whom he charges. IMO there is enough information in his words and actions to form an opinion of how he executes his official duties. I have no idea why you would make the statement that you did in your last sentence, although I would like to hear the identities of these other people. I also would be interested in hearing your opinion of the merits of Mignini's case against Raffaele.

Randy, There is a list of people or organizations charged by Mignini at IA. I asked CoulsdonUK for his/her opinion of one or two of them, such as the one brought against Joe Cottonwood (who obviously is not a friend of Amanda's), but without a response.

 

[anglolawyer]

Pacelli and 'context'

As suggested, I am reading Amanda's testimony. It is said I have taken what she said out of context. Here are some excerpts of Pacelli's cross exam. on behalf of Lumumba with my commentary.

P5
PACELLI: I appears that you answered 25 minutes later. Why all
that time?

Where does he get the 25 minutes from? I thought Patrivks's message was sent at 20:18 and her reply at 20:35. That's 17 minutes.

P6
PACELLI: How did you come to decide to delete Patrick's message?
AK: I had a limited amount of space in my phone, and whenever I
received a message that I didn't need to remember something for,
I deleted them.

Note the leading nature of this question, not objected to by the defence and launched without preamble. Nowhere prior to this has she admitted she deleted his message. Even so her answer is general and does not specifically refer to Patrick's email.

Here she gives a free account of the interrogation, sustantially uninterrupted by questions, which is important.

P8-10
AK: Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn't expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days...all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn't know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message.

This can only be one of two messages: either Patrick's or hers.

When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn't remember doing.

This makes completely clear 'the message' was Patrick's message and what she had forgotten was her reply. The fact she says she had no recollection of replying also evidences that 'the message' was Patrick's.

That's when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh] So I was there, and they told me that I was trying to protect someone, but I wasn't trying to protect anyone, and so I didn't know how to respond to them. They said that I had left Raffaele's house, which wasn't true, which I denied, but they continued to call me a stupid liar. They were putting this telephone in front of my face going "Look, look, your message, you were going to meet someone".

One could read this as contradicting the discovery of Patrick's message because now she appears to need reminding of who she sent her message to, which would not be necessary if they had just found his message. But what she is resisting is the idea she left the house or that she met anybody. That's why they shove phone in her fact - it says 'see you later'.

And when I denied that, they continued to call me a stupid liar. And then, from that point on, I was very, very scared, because they were treating me so badly and I didn't understand why. [Sigh] While I was there, there was an interpreter who explained to me an experience of hers, where she had gone through a traumatic experience that she could not remember at all, and she suggested that I was traumatized, and that I couldn't remember the truth. This at first seemed ridiculous to me, because I remembered being at Raffaele's house. For sure. I remembered doing things at Raffaele's house. I checked my e-mails before, then we watched a movie. We had eaten dinner together, we had talked together, and during that time I hadn't left his apartment. But they were insisting upon putting everything into hourly segments, and since I never look at the clock, I wasn't able to tell them what time exactly I did everything. They insisted that I had left the apartment for a certain period of time to meet somebody, which for me I didn't remember, but the interpreter said I probably had forgotten. [Sigh]
PACELLI: Listen, when you found yourself...have you finished?
AK: No.
PACELLI: Oh, please go ahead.1 AK: I haven't explained what I needed to say.
THE COURT: Listen, excuse me, please, if you need a break...
AK: No, I'm fine.
THE COURT: We can do it. Okay, let's go on, but if it's
necessary, you can say so.
AK: So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what I apparently, according to them, had forgotten.
Under the amount of pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn't protecting, that I couldn't remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must have had...it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point, I just...I couldn't understand why they were so
sure that I was the one who knew everything.

A large chunk of evidence without interruption and then she finishes with this:

And so, in my confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized,like what they said. They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.

This is another indicator that 'the message' was the one Patrick had sent her.

P13
PACELLI: I understand, but were they telling you to say that, too, or did you say it of your own free will.
AK: They were suggesting paths of thought. They were suggesting the path of thought. They suggested the journey. So the first thing I said, "Okay, Patrick". And then they said "Okay, where did you meet him? Did you meet him at your house? Did you meet him near your house?" "Euh, near my house, I don't know." Then my memories got mixed up. From other days, I remembered having met Patrick, at Piazza Grimana, so I said "Okay, Piazza Grimana." It wasn't as if I said "Oh, this is how it went."

And that's it so far as Pacelli is concerned, aside from a few pages of squabbling about admissibility. The important thing to notice in this account is that she nowhere mentions what Patrick's message actually said and yet despite this the content was set down in the 1.45 confession. Her evidence is clear that she could not even remember replying, which suggests the whole exchange had faded from her mind. This is another indicator favouring my theory. The 1.45 confession contains more detail of Patrick's message than she could recall.

Taking just this evidence and ignoring the remainder of her examination, one would have to conclude that 'the message' was Patrick's. And this part of her testimony gains weight because it was the first part and because she got to give a free account so if Katody wants to argue about 'context' s/he has an uphill struggle IMO.

I will, of course, read on.

ETA - the other thing to add is that the subject of Patrick has to get into the interrogation somehow. Aside from his text, how did that happen? And how does Amanda say it happened in her testimony?

 

[acbytesla]

Could you tell me what point you are making here? Are you saying, contrary to what Katody Mattrass said, that the billing records are not definitive as to the time at which texts are received?

I have no doubt at all that cell phone surveillance and record-checking was central to the investigation.

What I have uncovered today explains a lot to me. Dan O. reminded me that cell phone towers have essentially 3 wide angle 120 degree antennas and each antenna is a sector. (Thanks Dan O.) And if the police had this record almost immediately, this is why the police thought Amanda was lying from the start.
Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV are all in a very specific direction from the cell tower at Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell...(if I'm right about the the cell tower's location) Raffaelle's flat would be on the periphery of this antenna being at least 70 degrees in a different direction.

This has to be this little piece of what the police thought was CONCRETE evidence that Amanda was lying even before November 5. (But I have to consider, that radio signals bounce and SMS transmissions use very little bandwidth) So I have to wonder if those factors came into play how this antenna came into play.

What do you think Dan O? Also, is there cell phone antenna map of Perugia in evidence that you have seen?

Grinder points out that US carriers keep a copy of the text up to 5 days and Dan points out privacy issues as well as the likelihood that the judges would know the police would have access to those records, both of which kind of contradicts each other in my mind.

As for the police "deleting" the message on Amanda's phone. I don't know if they did it or not. I can see how you came to your idea. I think it is possible, but there is no way to know for sure. If they already knew what the texts said, which Dan O. says they didn't, I can see them deleting the text to "screw" with Amanda's mind, keep her off balance during the interrogation. But there certainly is no "proof" of it regardless of what was "slipped" during press interviews and phone calls home. Katody's contention that these lines may be out of context, is right.

 

[anglolawyer]

What I have uncovered today explains a lot to me. Dan O. reminded me that cell phone towers have essentially 3 wide angle 120 degree antennas and each antenna is a sector. (Thanks Dan O.) And if the police had this record almost immediately, this is why the police thought Amanda was lying from the start.
Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV are all in a very specific direction from the cell tower at Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell...(if I'm right about the the cell tower's location) Raffaelle's flat would be on the periphery of this antenna being at least 70 degrees in a different direction.

This has to be this little piece of what the police thought was CONCRETE evidence that Amanda was lying even before November 5. (But I have to consider, that radio signals bounce and SMS transmissions use very little bandwidth) So I have to wonder if those factors came into play how this antenna came into play.

What do you think Dan O? Also, is there cell phone antenna map of Perugia in evidence that you have seen?

Grinder points out that US carriers keep a copy of the text up to 5 days and Dan points out privacy issues as well as the likelihood that the judges would know the police would have access to those records, both of which kind of contradicts each other in my mind.

As for the police "deleting" the message on Amanda's phone. I don't know if they did it or not. I can see how you came to your idea. I think it is possible, but there is no way to know for sure. If they already knew what the texts said, which Dan O. says they didn't, I can see them deleting the text to "screw" with Amanda's mind, keep her off balance during the interrogation. But there certainly is no "proof" of it regardless of what was "slipped" during press interviews and phone calls home. Katody's contention that these lines may be out of context, is right.

They certainly did not delete anything to screw with Amanda's mind or keep her off balance. The content of Lumumba's text threw them off balance, which is why it had to go. It jarred with their theory, constructed in large part from the examination and misinterpretation of cell phone records.

Going into the evening they seem to have had this:
For various reasons, Amanda was in the frame (key holder, odd behaviour, bathmat etc.)
She had exchahged texts with Lumumba. He was pinged near the apartment and she had switched off her phone. He had called her at the questura on the night of 02 Nov and met her on the church steps on the morning of 05 Nov. He was black. He knew Meredith. And, I now believe, in 40 hours of questioning (or whatever it was) she had failed to mention that she had gone out or the exchange of texts which, by the night of the 5th she had all but completely forgotten (see her testimony).

So, they set it all up. Raffaele confirmed what they already knew and then they got to look at her phone with both its messages. 'See you later' was the jackpot, 'bar closed, don't come' was anomalous. As that's what it said, they stuck it in, puzzled, then retired into a huddle and came up with the new, improved version at 5.45.

 

[Grinder]

Where does he get the 25 minutes from? I thought Patrivks's message was sent at 20:18 and her reply at 20:35. That's 17 minutes.

The Italians seem to be sloppy with lots of details. Massei gets cell towers wrong according to some stuff I've read. Maybe he looked at his notes and misread 18 for 10.

Taking just this evidence and ignoring the remainder of her examination, one would have to conclude that 'the message' was Patrick's. And this part of her testimony gains weight because it was the first part and because she got to give a free account so if Katody wants to argue about 'context' s/he has an uphill struggle IMO.

I gave you something about the days of interviews preceding the interrogation that indicated she was asked over and over what they did that night. She would have mentioned the incoming text over and over. There has never been any dispute over the fact of the text or the contents except whether it said closed or slow. Except for Matteini, a difference without distinction.

They probably started that night with the same questions and then sprung the text on her. All along the only text of meaningful dispute was hers and what it meant.

If you read the testimony and other material with that in mind it seems clearly to be referencing the return text. They found the message (the response) which they then asked about and she didn't remember sending. Why doesn't anyone reference the incoming message in this context more directly.

Patrick sent you a text is that correct?

Yes.

What did it say?

Don't come to work.

How could you have forgotten that?

I didn't, I had told the police about it for days.

When they showed you the actual text did they ask about a reply?

They didn't show me the text because I erase all unimportant texts.

ETA - the other thing to add is that the subject of Patrick has to get into the interrogation somehow. Aside from his text, how did that happen? And how does Amanda say it happened in her testimony?

She had told them for days about getting out of work. Do you really believe they never quizzed them about the murder night even though her people say they did?

ETA - This statement from FOA

The police questioned Amanda and Raffaele repeatedly as witnesses over the next few days. Both gave the same account of their activities and whereabouts. But on the night of November 5-6, the two were pulled into separate rooms and subjected to more aggressive interrogations. Under intense pressure, they changed their accounts.

Please, Anglo at least admit that in remembering the night it is a giant stretch to claim she forgot she was supposed to work but had received the text.