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

[anglolawyer]

Well, by far your best effort yet. It is seems clear at first she didn't mention Patrick by name. It doesn't preclude that she said she received a text from her boss or work telling her not to come to work.

So at this time did she say no one asked or I didn't remember until the police showed me his text - no she said until they suggested the name.

Once again one must wonder a bit on translation.

In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick.

He says that she mentioned Patrick Nov. 2, Nov. 3, Nov 4 and Nov. 6 -

Well, the way I read it he is applying the plural word 'declarations' to a single document, first to the 1.45 and second to the 5.45. The thrust of the question is clear: he is asking why she never mentioned Patrick before the night of the 5th-6th. If you want to believe she mentioned the texts but not who they were with, fine, but I suggest that's unlikely and entirely inconsistent with her evidence at trial at which it is clear, whichever of her inconsistent accounts you consider, the texts were, or appeared to be, new information so far as the police were concerned.

Further, as I already said, the fact she did not mention Patrick or the texts was surely considered highly suspicious by the cops who had surely worked out who she worked for and that she texted him.

Am I a yacht/condo ahead?

ETA this looks to me like a professional translation so it should be reliable.

 

[Grinder]

Well, the way I read it he is applying the plural word 'declarations' to a single document, first to the 1.45 and second to the 5.45. The thrust of the question is clear: he is asking why she never mentioned Patrick before the night of the 5th-6th. If you want to believe she mentioned the texts but not who they were with, fine, but I suggest that's unlikely and entirely inconsistent with her evidence at trial at which it is clear, whichever of her inconsistent accounts you consider, the texts were, or appeared to be, new information so far as the police were concerned.

Further, as I already said, the fact she did not mention Patrick or the texts was surely considered highly suspicious by the cops who had surely worked out who she worked for and that she texted him.

Am I a yacht/condo ahead?

ETA this looks to me like a professional translation so it should be reliable.

The "professional" translator of Massei had many errors that missed her eyes. I put it as an error of translation to give you a benefit because it clearly reads that she had mentioned it in those previous declarations.

I think the only way to get to the bottom of it all would be to see those declarations.

What exactly was the alleged bet?

There is no doubt that when the police "put" together the pieces of PL and texts and pings and meetings they thought they had it nailed, hence the "until she told us what was correct" line.

One problem for all of us is how deep was the incompetence of various players. Did they really not go into detail of the night at Raf's. Did they never figure where she worked? Did they never figure out when she worked?

It is very hard to believe in 40 hours with the police they never covered the territory. What exactly are the earlier declarations? Are they signed statements? Are they recordings (wouldn't that be rich?)?

If they had no records of the phones then the texts would be possible to be a surprise. I think the reply was the surprise if there was one.

Where did you get the doc you are now working off?

 

[anglolawyer]

The "professional" translator of Massei had many errors that missed her eyes. I put it as an error of translation to give you a benefit because it clearly reads that she had mentioned it in those previous declarations.

I think the only way to get to the bottom of it all would be to see those declarations.

What exactly was the alleged bet?

There is no doubt that when the police "put" together the pieces of PL and texts and pings and meetings they thought they had it nailed, hence the "until she told us what was correct" line.
One problem for all of us is how deep was the incompetence of various players. Did they really not go into detail of the night at Raf's. Did they never figure where she worked? Did they never figure out when she worked?

It is very hard to believe in 40 hours with the police they never covered the territory. What exactly are the earlier declarations? Are they signed statements? Are they recordings (wouldn't that be rich?)?

If they had no records of the phones then the texts would be possible to be a surprise. I think the reply was the surprise if there was one.

Where did you get the doc you are now working off?

To the last question - I don't know. IIP probably. It's been on my iPad for so long I forgot where I got it. It is 238 pages of AK evidence transcript. I think Katody M was also using it as a source.

I don't know where the earlier declarations are. I have never seen them, but you have to admit we have Mignini saying they make no reference to Lumumba. I don't know why you're so resistent to the idea they deliberately steered away from things they 'already knew' by other means as it's entirely consistent with your (and my) theory that she was in their sights from the beginning.

I agree your highlighted sentence 100%. I am pretty sure too they figured where she worked pretty quickly and that Lumumba became a suspect quickly too.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The case has been moved to Turin. We shall see if he faces another trial and if he is found not guilty on the merits. Just being charged by members of the ILE says a lot to me.

I do not wish to appear finicky but the case and court proceedings were nullified not moved. Turin’s prosecutors start point will be an investigation then assuming there were charges the next stage would be a first level trial.

Could you furnish a few cases in your area where a local prosecutor sued a defendant or a defendants relative for defamation? Can you give an example of someone being sued for what they said in court?

If I may say what happens in my country or your country is irrelevant; the question is whether in the context of Italy are Mignini actions unusual. Did you read the link I provided at the end of my post to Halides1?

The police didn't produce a recording for either of AK's interrogations yet if their defense attorneys repeat what she told them in court they can be charged with a criminal offense.

Did Amanda’s legal team raise a formal complaint with the court or the police regarding her treatment? Yes it does appear if someone defames a public official (police in this case) in Italy it is possible to be charged with a criminal offence.

Why are you sure that others will sue? What should he be sued about?

A post on PMF outlined that officials tend to sue not just because of personal reasons but also because of the office they hold. One of statements mentioned elsewhere relates to Raffaele stating the Mignini was willing to make a deal if Raffaele incriminated Amanda.

What does the CIA story have to do with anything?

The article makes the point that the head of the Italian ex intelligence chief was recently sentenced to 10 years because of his involvement or knowledge of an extraordinary rendition case. A quote from the article “Such accountability for high-level government officials is inconceivable in the US, highlighting its culture of impunity”

Are you saying that the prosecutors in Florence were showing judicial independence when they charged Mignini?

It is not a question of my personal opinion, an Italian court nullified the investigation and first level trial held against Mignini, it is a matter of public record.

Do you believe that Mignini was convicted by a corrupt court?

No. I am not aware of anyone involved in the case against Mignini being charged for
corruption, but as I have said above its verdict was nullified.

Did that court make a fair judgment or do you believe Italian courts are often corrupt including the one that convicted the Italian for the CIA crimes?

Well the article provided supporting links and documentation from WikiLeaks showing a certain amount of duplicity between American and Italian government officials; I thought the Italian judiciary showed remarkable independence not least the prosecutor involved.

The Italian judiciary is independent of political influence from government officials of the day, but I temper that opinion with this question. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies (Who Watches the Watchers)?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I am taking your words right out of my mouth

Halides1

Clearly you believe Mignini should have been removed from office in relation to this case and MOF.
SNIP
Yes Mignini has sued a number of people, I have no idea what current status is of any of the cases listed in the IA post.

CoulsdonUK,

I would be grateful if you would stop making claims about my beliefs, especially given that your statements are based on nothing I have said, and are, by the way, simply wrong.

You are simply repeating your previous deflection with respect to the cases Mignini has instigated, among them Cottonwood case. Posting tangential links does not amount to much of an answer. I never asked about the current status of (for example) the Cottonwood case. Yet again I am asking you about the merits of these cases, starting with the Cottonwood case.

 

[Grinder]

I don't know where the earlier declarations are. I have never seen them, but you have to admit we have Mignini saying they make no reference to Lumumba. I don't know why you're so resistent to the idea they deliberately steered away from things they 'already knew' by other means as it's entirely consistent with your (and my) theory that she was in their sights from the beginning.

Yes I admit that you produced what looks like a statement from Mignini that she hadn't used PL's name in earlier declarations (not exactly clear what the term means as I said earlier - does she sign these things - who writes them out? or were they recorded )

I am resistant to the idea because I see no gain and only risk for the PLE. They would generally want to preserve evidence and they could easily say it was code. At the time they erased it they wouldn't know for sure that Patrick didn't have it or that the carrier didn't have it. They took the 5:45 before checking PL's phone. They must have thought it was code. I refuse to believe at that stage they decided to frame Amanda and thought the text from Patrick would help her. The body of the text was totally public when Matteini held her GIP or GUP or GAP or whatever it was, hearing. Another anglo attorney had a few of these eureka moments - maybe just in the blood .

I was looking for the Kate Mansey story and found this - you know how TM keeps saying Mignini never said certain things?

If someone has a link to Raf interview with her please provide by PM or here.

State prosecutor Giuliano Mignini told the trial Meredith had her throat cut in a "sect-like ritual" the day after a Halloween party where she had been pictured dressed in a vampire-like costume.

Rudy Guede, 21, American Amanda Knox, 21, and Raffaele Sollecito, 24, are accused of her murder.

Ivory Coast-born drifter Guede's DNA was found on Meredith's body, but he denies involvement in her killing.

Mignini told the court: "There was a sect-like aspect with cultural connections to Halloween and All Saints Day playing a part. The killing actually happened the next day. Japanese comics found in Raffaele Sollecito's possession had pictures of murdered female vampires which were eerily similar to the scene of the crime."

The court heard Sollecito was a fan of goth rocker Marilyn Manson which was seen as a contributing factor to his personality. Lawyers acting for Sollecito and Knox denied the claims, describing them as "a huge fantasy".

 

[Grinder]

I do not wish to appear finicky but the case and court proceedings were nullified not moved. Turin’s prosecutors start point will be an investigation then assuming there were charges the next stage would be a first level trial.

The court ordered the case moved to Turin or do you believe that Turin bid for it?. The case wasn't nullified the convicted was set aside because of venue. The starting point for Turin will be to take the information provided them and decide whether to charge him again.

If I may say what happens in my country or your country is irrelevant; the question is whether in the context of Italy are Mignini actions unusual.

I beg to differ, but yes I believe that it is not usual for prosecutors to threaten family members and newspaper reporters 9,000 miles away.

Did Amanda’s legal team raise a formal complaint with the court or the police regarding her treatment? Yes it does appear if someone defames a public official (police in this case) in Italy it is possible to be charged with a criminal offence.

There a problem with the system and the individual in this case. The defense lawyers were very aware that they could be sent to jail for honestly made statements in court. That is just plain wrong.

A post on PMF outlined that officials tend to sue not just because of personal reasons but also because of the office they hold. One of statements mentioned elsewhere relates to Raffaele stating the Mignini was willing to make a deal if Raffaele incriminated Amanda.

Did he say Mignini and did he say he was told that? Since he was locked up, I doubt he heard the offer directly. It seems very one-sided that the cops have their costs borne by the taxpayer while the defendants must pony up themselves often after bankrupting themselves defending themselves on the underlining charge.

The article makes the point that the head of the Italian ex intelligence chief was recently sentenced to 10 years because of his involvement or knowledge of an extraordinary rendition case. A quote from the article “Such accountability for high-level government officials is inconceivable in the US, highlighting its culture of impunity”

US bad so what? Let's see if Mignini has the high level accountability.

It is not a question of my personal opinion, an Italian court nullified the investigation and first level trial held against Mignini, it is a matter of public record.

Please produce the public record.

No. I am not aware of anyone involved in the case against Mignini being charged for corruption,

So part of the wonderful independent judiciary system found him guilty and that means nothing to you because the supreme court agreed it was held in the wrong jurisdiction. If they find that the Italian involved with CIA was tried in the wrong jurisdiction then he really wasn't guilty? Really, be honest.

ETA - read the article but don't see anything of interest. Mignini's lawyer says it was an attack against the system blah, blah, blah. So what, just a lawyer making noise. I think these charges were brought now for a reason. I think Mignini is worried sick that the ruling will hold and after the acquittal is final he's next in line. No news of this suit should have been allowed as it is a blatant attempt to influence the final verdict.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes I admit that you produced what looks like a statement from Mignini that she hadn't used PL's name in earlier declarations (not exactly clear what the term means as I said earlier - does she sign these things - who writes them out? or were they recorded )

Well, they are definitely in the record somewhere because when Mignini asked her this question no one jumped up to demand that he produce them.

I am resistant to the idea because I see no gain and only risk for the PLE. They would generally want to preserve evidence and they could easily say it was code. At the time they erased it they wouldn't know for sure that Patrick didn't have it or that the carrier didn't have it. They took the 5:45 before checking PL's phone.

They knew they would have his phone(s) soon enough. The 5.45 confession neatly kept all options open by referring only to her reply. Maybe they deleted the texts only once they had all phones/sims in their posession. They would not want to preserve evidence that crossed their theory. What happened to the hard drives and the telephone recordings? Didn't they want to preserve those too?

They must have thought it was code. I refuse to believe at that stage they decided to frame Amanda and thought the text from Patrick would help her. The body of the text was totally public when Matteini held her GIP or GUP or GAP or whatever it was, hearing. Another anglo attorney had a few of these eureka moments - maybe just in the blood .

Your reference to the body of the text distresses me. You aren't following. The body of the text was not before Matteini. Instead she had divergent versions of what it said. In fact she found that the message 'obviously' fixed a meeting. Now I have to find the darn thing again!

And as regards the relevance of the text of the message that the investigatee [=Patrick] had sent around 20.30 to Amanda, there are discordances between what was referred to by the ragazza and what was affirmed by the aforesaid [=Patrick]; in fact, while the ragazza spoke of a message by which she was advised that the locale would have remained shut and therefore she would not have needed to go to work, Patrick makes reference to having written to her that for that night there was no need of her attendance owing to so few customers.

This may appear to be a circumstance of little value when in reality it is not, being of itself a substantial difference between the two messages; it is probable that Patrick had had the intention, effectively, of not opening the locale thinking that he might be able to spend the night with Meredith, and then, seeing how events unfolded, considered it opportune to open the pub to create an apposite alibi for himself.

For what reason Amanda would have needed to lie about the why of her not having to go to work, the closure of the locale or the presence of few patrons, there is nothing known, nor are there logical reasons for it, while a motivation much more consistent is to be found as regards the investigatee [=Patrick], the which, with the opening of the locale, created for himself an alibi for the evening.

Such disgrasie [?] raise doubts about the actual text of the message even more when this is placed against the response that Amanda sent Patrick of the tenor “meet you soon”, a reply logically in reference to a closure of the locale in order to have a free night and a succeeding appointment.

The use to which Mig put Lumumba's message shows how its disappearance was exploited.

Funnily enough, by the time she gave evidence at trial, her memory had fallen once more into line with Lumumba's and she thought he had texted 'no customers don't come'.

 

[Grinder]

Quote:
I am resistant to the idea because I see no gain and only risk for the PLE. They would generally want to preserve evidence and they could easily say it was code. At the time they erased it they wouldn't know for sure that Patrick didn't have it or that the carrier didn't have it. They took the 5:45 before checking PL's phone.

They knew they would have his phone(s) soon enough. The 5.45 confession neatly kept all options open by referring only to her reply. Maybe they deleted the texts only once they had all phones/sims in their posession. They would not want to preserve evidence that crossed their theory. What happened to the hard drives and the telephone recordings? Didn't they want to preserve those too?

You say that it is vitally significant that the incoming PL text is missing from the 5:45 a time at which they didn't know they would get his phone(s) and sim(s) for sure. he could easily have hidden them. The contents of the message just isn't that important. The police looked at it (according to your theory) and it didn't stop them an instant. They could and did argue to Matteini that he told her the bar was closed but so what? Closed or no customers don't see much difference.

Don't know about telephone recording that went missing. Hard-drives not in my wheelhouse.

 

[anglolawyer]

You say that it is vitally significant that the incoming PL text is missing from the 5:45 a time at which they didn't know they would get his phone(s) and sim(s) for sure. he could easily have hidden them. The contents of the message just isn't that important. The police looked at it (according to your theory) and it didn't stop them an instant. They could and did argue to Matteini that he told her the bar was closed but so what? Closed or no customers don't see much difference.

Don't know about telephone recording that went missing. Hard-drives not in my wheelhouse.

Well, Grinder, the fact you have to address is the disappearance of the text of the message from the 5.45 statement. In fact, since you mock the idea that that statement resulted from Amanda pleading to make it (rightly IMO) why do you think that statement was taken?

 

[Grinder]

Well, Grinder, the fact you have to address is the disappearance of the text of the message from the 5.45 statement. In fact, since you mock the idea that that statement resulted from Amanda pleading to make it (rightly IMO) why do you think that statement was taken?

I didn't mock the idea that the 5:45 was made at Amanda's request. I haven't found a definitive answer to that from her of FOA/IIP. In fact, I pointed out that strangely neither one seemed to deal with that statement.
IIRC they went directly from 1:45 to the note of the 6th.

I believe that the statement was taken because he could. He probably knew that it wouldn't work, but what was there to lose. He knew for certain that the 1:45 wouldn't be allowed in because of the witness thingy and also he may have reviewed the recording and saw the techniques used and had that destroyed asap. If she volunteered to talk and he warned her that it could be used against, then why not try? Even if he asked her to come chat and she started talking why not note it down?

As it turned out the two sessions were in fact let in through a back door, in my opinion something that should have been appealed if it wasn't.

There seemed to be no negative fallout within the system for the 5:45 session. Was Mignini sanctioned? Nope.

Funny that. In a system that punishes a defendant for saying she was mistreated in an unrecorded session with no hope to prove it happened, a prosecutor can do a clearly improper and illegal interview and suffer only the loss of that interview.

 

[acbytesla]

I am going through the evidence step by step on Facebook and it just happens I have the cell phone information handy from Raffaele's appeal. There is a big technical difference between the prosecution expert and the defense expert, imo. I do believe the appeal is not quite accurate on the call in question, however. Attached. (katy_did translation)

Thank you very much Rose, this helps a lot. But it is missing the one key ingredient that would help me with my theory.

the report says the following: 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 orography7 of the territory, or any model of a scientific propagation, or the interaction of the neighbouring cells;

This is what I think that happened. Cell phone companies create maps that can be referenced by the technicians for the various companies. These were made available for reference for the police. They show the direction of the radiation from specific antennas. Think of a pie shape. These are used to plan and manage cell phone service. On the other hand your individual cell phone uses a more omnidirectional antenna. think of a circle. By referencing these maps, they thought they determined that Amanda WAS not where she said she was when she received the text from her boss. I'm more convinced than ever that this single piece of information confirmed in their mind that Amanda was lying to them.

The problem with the cell phone coverage maps is that they are for general reference only and radio communication is not that simple. Topography can adversely effect both radio raves and weather. btw weather greatly effects radio waves as well. You see radio waves BOUNCE as well as are absorbed into the hillside and the houses. Note that virtually every house in Perugia is not wood, but stone and stucco. If this had been say like Kansas, flat in every direction for miles on end, and the homes were all wood, this has less of an effect.

I believe that the police having only a mild understanding of radio communications used a telephone planning map and came to the conclusion that Amanda's assertion that she was at Raffaele's when she received Patrick SMS message was a lie. The police thought this was concrete evidence that Amanda was lying and this is why they coerced a false statement out of her.

I am still looking for the antenna coverage maps that the Police used.

 

[Dan O.]

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

I have not seen the cell coverage map. The defense created one so it may be in the case file somewhere.

I had suggested earlier that there are public cell tower mapping projects. All you need is a supported cell phone and the willingness to travel through the area to contribute to the maps. One such with is: http://www.cellmapper.net/

Unfortunately, nobody has contributed to the maps around Perugia.

 

[acbytesla]

I have not seen the cell coverage map. The defense created one so it may be in the case file somewhere.

I had suggested earlier that there are public cell tower mapping projects. All you need is a supported cell phone and the willingness to travel through the area to contribute to the maps. One such with is: http://www.cellmapper.net/

Unfortunately, nobody has contributed to the maps around Perugia.

Well since I live in Seattle, not Perugia, I'm dead in the water.. What do you think of my theory? Am I way out of bounds?

 

[codyjuneau]

A thought that occurred to me while following the current discussion.

There are differing opinions about when R & A became suspects. In my opinion, it was when the police stopped believing R & A stayed home, the night Meredith was murdered. The indication of that change in belief, would be when the police started questioning R & A about what they did that night, rather than asking them questions about Meredith, her friends and acquaintances, visitors to the cottage etc..

 

[anglolawyer]

A thought that occurred to me while following the current discussion.

There are differing opinions about when R & A became suspects. In my opinion, it was when the police stopped believing R & A stayed home, the night Meredith was murdered. The indication of that change in belief, would be when the police started questioning R & A about what they did that night, rather than asking them questions about Meredith, her friends and acquaintances, visitors to the cottage etc..

Not sure I agree Cody. I think the cops kept their cards close to their chests right up to the night of the 5th-6th but that they already knew most of facts that made their theory some days before.

 

[RoseMontague]

Not sure I agree Cody. I think the cops kept their cards close to their chests right up to the night of the 5th-6th but that they already knew most of facts that made their theory some days before.

It is more clear to me than ever that what makes this confusing is that there were two separate lines of investigation, one based on reality and one based on fantasy. Unfortunately, the fantasy theory won out.

 

[RandyN]

Well since I live in Seattle, not Perugia, I'm dead in the water.. What do you think of my theory? Am I way out of bounds?

Well, I was hoping that DanO had those maps...I will put on my thinking cap because although I have some of that data it is in hand written notes... maybe even from my "questions about Massei" pages...unfortunately during the middle of the case I had an unlucky meltdown of my own hard-drives and also my backup drive which had (still has) me scratching my head. I lost most of my data some of which was attributable to a virus and others to simple defective hardware. Just damn odd that my external backup drive was also flashed blank...I was beginning to feel like a Perugia police computer data expert...burning every damn thing up.

Perhaps it is LJ who has this cell map data stuff. He is/was a technical expert on that data...and we had PilotP as expert on all Farm data as I recall.

The police may have used maps but I recall an expert with signal meters walking about. I feel certain he also helped show that RS never turned his phone off and it was a simple matter of blank spots of reception inside his flat.

I dont think enough can be said about the fact that Mignini ...after getting his pal Matteni to hold the three in custody without charge for up to a year if necessary... then took that whole year leaking and building and tossing and refining as he saw fit. It was comical at some points...ridiculous at others and just plain corrupt at others...as in charging the parents, the defendant into submission. Making the defense lawyers sit like muted statues almost. Certainly during the first trial. I don't think they objected to Lumumbas case running along with the regular case even when they understood that "fully that banned by the SC data" would enter into the trial. A total violation of the right to a fair trial the mandates watched over carefully by the European Court Of Human Rights. And to which Italy has the most violations of any country...btw...far more violations than places like Russia! They are running neck and neck with Turkey IIRC.

So it would hard to speculate about a misplaced word or memory for AK or RS. Mignini changed it to how he wanted it. Don't like the TOD? Fire the pathologist. Don't like the motive? Change it 3 or more times and eventually ask for life in prison because there was no motive! And nobody calls this buffoons bluff. Why? Comodi threatens a witness in court on the stand. Hello! Nothing. The defense sits there mute. The judge dozes off.

Stefanoni refuses to turn over EDF to independent experts twice...and after direct demands from the judge... twice...she still delays until the last day...if she ever turned all of it over is still in debate. But nothing from the judge. And this was Hellmann who they later called unfair...huh...most judges I know would have put Stefanoni and Comodi in jail for their tricks. They would have blocked and mocked Mignini at almost every ridiculous point after point...cartoons as evidence. Guede brought into court and questioned and allowed to read a letter that accuses the defendants but somehow does not allow cross examination???

Right to a fair trial Italy!!! Ever hear of the concept? Apparently not!

 

[acbytesla]

The police may have used maps but I recall an expert with signal meters walking about. I feel certain he also helped show that RS never turned his phone off and it was a simple matter of blank spots of reception inside his flat.

According to the report that Rose provided, the scientific police used a map, as well as performed field tests. The defense also employed a cellular communications expert that performed field test so I'm confident that there are both police and defense exhibits regarding cellular communications in the case file.

I find it curious that the day of the press conference that the police said that Amanda "buckled" and cellular communications were instrumental or something to that effect. I believe that the police believed two things on November 5th going into the interrogation.
1. That Amanda lied where she was when she received the text from Patrick at 20:18.
2. The cell event on Meredith Kercher's phone at 22.13.29 occurred at the cottage at Via della Pergola.

Both of these conclusions are part of Massei's motivation.
I'm convinced that the police thought this ON November 5.

In the trial, there were competing "experts" see below.

• the scientific police indicated an area of approximate coverage and carried out measurements devoid of the elements necessary to contextualize them with respect to the criterion applied by the mobile phones for the choice of the serving cell, limiting the surveys to instantaneous measurements in the vicinity of, but not coincident with, the places of investigative interest (for example, only outside of Meredith’s room and Raffaele’s building);

• Dr. Pellero (defense expert) displayed a detailed representation of the area of coverage, based on objective data acquired directly at the source from the cell phone operators; he made complete, exhaustive and repeatable measurements at the places of investigative interest (e.g. inside Meredith’s room and Raffaele’s building), extending the measurements also to other places of direct investigative interest (for example, Parco Sant’Angelo, in the area from which Meredith’s cell phones were thrown into the garden of Lana’s house in Via Sperandio 5 bis).

I can't help but to believe that until the scientific police had this information, they only had strong hunches about Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt, nothing even remotely close to a smoking gun. Nothing that would justify an all-night interrogation utilizing a dozen detectives.

I'm convinced that this was in the police's mind, the smoking gun. Prove me wrong, please. Show me that police found out all of this about the cell phones after November 5th.

 

[anglolawyer]

According to the report that Rose provided, the scientific police used a map, as well as performed field tests. The defense also employed a cellular communications expert that performed field test so I'm confident that there are both police and defense exhibits regarding cellular communications in the case file.

I find it curious that the day of the press conference that the police said that Amanda "buckled" and cellular communications were instrumental or something to that effect. I believe that the police believed on November 5th two things.
1. That Amanda lied where she was when she received the text from Patrick at 20:18.
2. The cell event on Meredith Kercher's phone at 22.13.29 occurred at the cottage at Via della Pergola.

Both of these conclusions are part of Massei's motivation.
I'm convinced that the police thought this ON November 5.

In the trial, there were competing "experts" see below.

• the scientific police indicated an area of approximate coverage and carried out measurements devoid of the elements necessary to contextualize them with respect to the criterion applied by the mobile phones for the choice of the serving cell, limiting the surveys to instantaneous measurements in the vicinity of, but not coincident with, the places of investigative interest (for example, only outside of Meredith’s room and Raffaele’s building);

• Dr. Pellero (defense expert) displayed a detailed representation of the area of coverage, based on objective data acquired directly at the source from the cell phone operators; he made complete, exhaustive and repeatable measurements at the places of investigative interest (e.g. inside Meredith’s room and Raffaele’s building), extending the measurements also to other places of direct investigative interest (for example, Parco Sant’Angelo, in the area from which Meredith’s cell phones were thrown into the garden of Lana’s house in Via Sperandio 5 bis).

I can't help but to believe that until the scientific police had this information, they only had strong hunches about Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt, nothing even remotely close to a smoking gun. Nothing that would justify an all-night interrogation utilizing a dozen detectives.

I'm convinced that this was in the police's mind, the smoking gun. Prove me wrong, please. Show me that police found out all of this about the cell phones after November 5th.

AC I am on the same page. Actually, the next page. Not only did they solve the case using telephone surveillance and records but IMO they believed A, R and P were using counter-surveillance techniques. Ridiculous, isn't it? But turning off the phones the night of the crime was seriously advanced as one such. Patrick switching sims is another, R and A never admitting anything in their monitored calls a third and Patrick meeting Amanda on the steps of the church on 05 Nov a fourth. Thanks to Grinder, now a full-blown conspiracy theorist, we can add a fifth - they treated Patrick's 'bar closed' text as a pre-arranged code meaning 'meet me right now'.

Actually, I don't buy Grinder's ridiculous, childish and over-excited idea since the numbskulls deleted that one because it didn't compute.