Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

What I would like to know is why he found it necessary to climb onto the sill before opening the window. Granted, they couldn't throw a rock through that window with the bars in place but they could have inserted a simulation of the broken window to show that the latch was in fact reachable while standing on the lower window grate.

To be clear, Dan. O., the demonstration of the climb was at the actual cottage, not the simulated one. I'm sure the new residents would have had something to say about:

1) breaking the window
2) climbing in.​

The climber, though, give his interview while sitting on the sill. Take a look at the link about - the whole Channel 5 program is no there. The climbing sequence is at minute 8 or so.

 

[Bill Williams]

This climber climbs down from where (perhaps) Rudy had thrown the rock.

What this also shows is that the climber did not have to go up three times.... only once. He could manipulate the shutters, clean the glass out of the frame if necessary, and hoist himself up without even touching the bars - even as with the real-time bars being there in the way..... all by just standing on the top of the grate on the lower window.

The whole process took a couple of seconds.

 

[Mary_H]

Briars.... it's rather incredible that you keep repeating this business of "usual pattern" for two people who knew each other about a week.

Could you do us all a kindness and address this issue before proceeding.

Apparently Briars has me on ignore. I was wondering why she never replied to my posts; I thought she just wasn't up to the task. She must not be reading what I have posted at all or she would not keep going with this cellphone meme.

Bill, since Briar reads you, will you please post this for her to see?

Cell phone records do not show when phones are turned on or off. They only show calls. This is acknowledged in Massei, at the bottom of 320 (and in other locations):

"Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.

As is repeated through that whole section, the court "deduced," "inferred," and "concluded" that Raffaele turned his phone off, they did not prove it (page 321).

Also, on page 318, Item 4, the report says:

(it was ascertained from the printouts that Raffaele Sollecito normally used the mobile phone at night, thus it can be inferred that the phone was rarely turned off)

Those who believe in innocence will recognize this as an indication of the unlkelihood that Raffaele turned his phone off that night (I don't think he ever said he did).

Those who favor guilt, like Briars, will say, like Briars, that it was unusual that Raffaele would turn his phone off at night, therefore, it must have been an unusual night, perhaps one in which he committed murder. These people will have forgotten, of course, that it was never determined that Raffaele did indeed turn off his cell phone, and that even if he had, it would not have been a topic of conversation the night of the interrogation.

Thank you, Bill.

 

[Bill Williams]

Apparently Briars has me on ignore. I was wondering why she never replied to my posts; I thought she just wasn't up to the task. She must not be reading what I have posted at all or she would not keep going with this cellphone meme.

Bill, since Briar reads you, will you please post this for her to see?

Cell phone records do not show when phones are turned on or off. They only show calls. This is acknowledged in Massei, at the bottom of 320 (and in other locations):



As is repeated through that whole section, the court "deduced," "inferred," and "concluded" that Raffaele turned his phone off, they did not prove it (page 321).

Also, on page 318, Item 4, the report says:



Those who believe in innocence will recognize this as an indication of the unlkelihood that Raffaele turned his phone off that night (I don't think he ever said he did).

Those who favor guilt, like Briars, will say, like Briars, that it was unusual that Raffaele would turn his phone off at night, therefore, it must have been an unusual night, perhaps one in which he committed murder. These people will have forgotten, of course, that it was never determined that Raffaele did indeed turn off his cell phone, and that even if he had, it would not have been a topic of conversation the night of the interrogation.

Thank you, Bill.

Mary_H.... I think Dan O. addressed all this, including the fact that Massei also acknowledged that it is impossible to tell when or if phones are turned off or on with phone records.

On another matter - why anyone would ignore you is beyond me!

 

[JREF2010]

what will the defense do after watching the TV show?

1) the lone wolf attack...provide several cases of lone wolf attacks, and remind them Rudy often worked alone when he pulled a knife on the apartment couple, and he was alone when he broke into the daycare.
Rudy Guede was a lone wolf.
Anne Presely was murdered by a lone wolf, a similar situation.
Grade: important

2) the glass... ok the window was everywhere, Filomena and the cops ruffled through the pile of clothes... Grade: weak evidence.

3) the bra clasp wasn't gone over enough, they didn't mention in the show there were 4 other males DNA found on the clasp, if all peaks were counted at low RFU. Grade: Strongest

4) The bathmat footprint will probably get more attention.
I was impressed the expert mentioned wearing socks because this is what I believe happened. Wet socks would leave a different pattern, even more unclear. To prove this blob fits someone, I would try to prove its evidence based on guessing. And to do that I would have 10 random people make footprints and see if they can clearly pick that its Raffaeles footprint.

Rudy admits being in the bathroom, and Rudy admits his pant legs were soaked with blood, and so bad the tennis shoes were thrown away. I suspect due to the rotting stench of blood from the inside of the shoe. Others testified he stunk very badly at the club, which again was probably the blood rotting in the shoe. Theres no other reason he would throw away those Nike shoes. Grade: Prosecution will try harder on this than last time

5) the blind witnesses blaming feet noises and yells on someone they couldn't see... Grade: flop
I would also wonder why the polizia didn't investigate any of this over 7yrs time. It doesn't reflect well on them, imo.

Interesting is the knife is gone..... out of the spotlight, I guess no ones interested in Pasta Starch DNA.....

 

[Mary_H]

Mary_H.... I think Dan O. addressed all this, including the fact that Massei also acknowledged that it is impossible to tell when or if phones are turned off or on with phone records.

On another matter - why anyone would ignore you is beyond me!

Me too, Bill! Thanks. Briars may be from .ogre (thank you Supernaut), where I have a very bad reputation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Briars - Mary_H wanted you to see the actual quotes from Massei's motivations report.

Cell phone records do not show when phones are turned on or off. They only show calls. This is acknowledged in Massei, at the bottom of 320 (and in other locations):

"Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.

As is repeated through that whole section, the court "deduced," "inferred," and "concluded" that Raffaele turned his phone off, they did not prove it (page 321).

Also, on page 318, Item 4, the report says:

(it was ascertained from the printouts that Raffaele Sollecito normally used the mobile phone at night, thus it can be inferred that the phone was rarely turned off)

 

[RandyN]

But he never told this. I think you mean Griffin, not Graham; I quoted the Italian snippet that you misunderstood. Mignini never claimed he told (nor shouted) such statement to the police. He did not even enter the room, he was elsewhere, and was told about that after the interrogation was over. He phrases the statement 'Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!', to emphasize, to explain Griffin how it works with police interrogation, but he does NOT attribute the statementto himself. You are basically just getting the subject (the speaker) wrong! He is NOT saying that HE told that statement.
And he also says clearly that he was not there during Knox interrogation; when he entered the room and saw Knox first, the interrogation was already over; this means after the minutes had been already signed; and he describes in fact Knox already appearing relieved, with nobody interogating her any more.

Then why do you suppose Mignini needed another minutes almost exactly the same signed at 5:45? Something he perhaps needed changed slightly? Some word or phrase? Some thing that was illegal about the first police created and produced statement that was altered slightly in the second police created and produced minutes?

How can we get a look at the police reports of this interrogation? Certainly each officer is required to write a report right? That is standard police work the world over. Lets me guess...not in Italy.

 

[RWVBWL]

BEFORE the arrival of your Mother...

She wasn't asked to come in that night but chose to to accompany Sollecito. He when confronted with the conflicting phone evidence withdrew her alibi. This was the catalyst that resulted in her panic and naming of Lumumba. Up to that point they both could have gone home that night.

Hey Briars,
You do know that Amanda's Mother was arriving the next day, don't you?
I find it hard to believe that you have not read yet of what Judge Matteini wrote:

As for the flight risk, it is still present. Your family lives in the United States, so it would be extremely easy for you to leave the country. The fact that you did not do so before you were arrested is totally irrelevant. We must remind you that your arrest was made very early, and was effected purposely before the arrival of your mother in order to avoid just such a possibility.
Read more here from June 4+June 8, 2008 postings:
http://web.archive.org/web/20101015182653/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html


Why do you still believe that there was no plan to arrest Amanda Knox that night?

 

[RandyN]

The new bars WERE used in the assent. What's troubling is that Briars says this, though, while at the same time saying he'd not seen the Channel 5 documentary. The lawyer actually asks the feloow who'd made the climb, while he was still there sitting on the outer sill of Filomena's window, to speculate about this very thing.

The man says in his opinion the bars were not necessary, if there'd been other things to hold on to. Like shutters or what have you. Can we concede his is an "expert opinion" given that he's giving his testimony on Filomena's outer sill?

Well just watched the Ch 5 thing...pretty poor actually. It is sadly the best presentation and examination of a few of the absurd speculations of the prosecution but this show missed some very key points.

BTW the new bars were only used the first time...he actually hops up there again using only the sill...which was actually faster. Not only was this climb easy but I think any reasonably healthy person (even me) could have done this.

The show gets many many things wrong...the glass on top is a repeated theme and one they also make. But the photographic evidence shows no such thing...nor has it ever. People lie...crime scene photos usually do not. The photos I have closely examined show 0 zero pieces of glass on top.

They do have a clip of Mignini mislabeled as some other yahoo stating that the bloody footprint of RS proves his involvement. Id suggest everyone take another look at DanO footprint analysis and footprint poll to get a better idea about the bath mat print.

They have the bra clasp being cut off...it was clearly ripped off and no knife was used on the bra clasp....and they forgot to mention the 3 other unidentified guys also on that metal hook.

The karate kid errr guy didnt attack the girl like I would have and like Guede likely did...first the girl had short hair nothing like MK. I thing Guede controled MK by grabbing a hand full of hair and yanking her backwards so violently that she hit the floor breaking her fall only with her elbows...that is how they both got bruised. The knife has always been out and now it continues the work it started near the bed but now the game and stakes have been raised to all in...he decides he must kill her and he does so quite quickly.

They think it would be difficult for a man to control this tiny girl...they are wrong...this is a rather simple task that unfortunately happens daily at an alarmingly high rate...a three person attack OTOH is rather uncommon.

No need to list all the shortcomings... they at least made an effort.Bravo for someone to actually look at a few things...

BTW....they most conclusive bit was that what Nara claims was impossible for her to hear...and they only tested the loudest thing ...running up the nearby stairs...they should have run in the gravel driveway as well...the expert said it was impossible for her to hear what she claims according to what his instruments measured...no surprise for me...just a whack job who had no business being presented as a witness to anything in the first place which is actually additional evidence of prosecutorial misconduct...WAFS.

 

[Antony]

Well just watched the Ch 5 thing...pretty poor actually. It is sadly the best presentation and examination of a few of the absurd speculations of the prosecution but this show missed some very key points.

...

Agree with all that. I have the impression that the programme was made by people who know less about the crime and the investigation than most of the contributors here.

Before viewing it, I assumed that the 2 advocates were people actually familiar with the case and on the side of the respective legal teams but on reflection that would probably have been dodgy to arrange for a number of unconnected reasons. In the event, they appeared just to be 2 people with some legal background who had agreed to play "devil's advocate" for the purpose of the programme.

Having said that, the format brought out some worthwhile points. By the end, they were simply nodding in agreement and the "prosecution" lawyer's face was a picture of bafflement and distaste for her task. The "defence" lawyer's phrase "Mickey Mouse investigation" was a memorable one.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, if Mignini felt so strongly about how Knox shouldn't have a lawyer, then why did Mignini tell Bob Graham that Mignini shouted this after the 1:45 statement: "Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney!".

Absolutely EXCELLENT POINT Diocletus!!!! Quite interesting that Mignini demands that Amanda gets counsel and then immediately goes about denying here said counsel. The man is a lying scumbag.

 

[Dan O.]

Confronted with the evidence on the 5th Sollecito told them Amanda went out. He wrote to his father after the 5th that he had told a pack of lies about Amanda ,written when he was under no pressure..

Have you actually read what he said or are you just repeating the guilter talking points?

 

[Dan O.]

Apparently Briars has me on ignore. I was wondering why she never replied to my posts; I thought she just wasn't up to the task. She must not be reading what I have posted at all or she would not keep going with this cellphone meme.

Don't take it personally. Briars ignores everyone when she doesn't have the evidence to back up her claim. She's just cycling through the talking points trying to find something that sticks and apparently doesn't realize that we've already debunked all of these points long ago.

 

[Sergei Walankov]

What this also shows is that the climber did not have to go up three times.... only once. He could manipulate the shutters, clean the glass out of the frame if necessary, and hoist himself up without even touching the bars - even as with the real-time bars being there in the way..... all by just standing on the top of the grate on the lower window.

He also could have done a handstand and danced the hoochie-koo. That part of the documentary was quite stunning to see. I'd long regarded what looked like the difficulty of climbing up to and through that window as the biggest element of doubt surrounding the lone-wolf theory, and yearned for an opportunity to see someone attempt a re-creation. Now that I have, I am duly outraged that the jury in the initial trial was allowed to deliberate under the apprehension that it would have taken "Spiderman" to have climbed through that window (piled on top of all the other outrages, obviously).

 

[acbytesla]

I have to say that Briars and Machiavelli both prove my theory about this case. It is a sad reflection on human behavior. It is also a sad reflection the Italian psyche. That above all else, save face. They continue to insist on posting moronic arguments to support the unsupportable.

Briars argument that Raffaele or Amanda turning off their phones was unusual behavior when he doesn't actually have a clue what is usual or unusual for either one of them, separately or together. His unwillingness to budge even an inch on the obvious is a clear indication that he insists on making a stupid unsubstantiated argument. What does that say about him? Could Forest Gump be right? "Stupid is as stupid does?"

Machiavelli's twists and turns of the facts and the evidence in his feeble defense of denying Amanda and Raffaele counsel demonstrates that very essential code of the real Machiavelli, not the one who posts on JREF but the one who lived hundreds of years ago. That is the "the end justifies the means".

The willingness of the Italians, to break their own laws, destroy, suppress and most likely manufacture evidence, just to save face is disgraceful.

 

[LondonJohn]

He also could have done a handstand and danced the hoochie-koo. That part of the documentary was quite stunning to see. I'd long regarded what looked like the difficulty of climbing up to and through that window as the biggest element of doubt surrounding the lone-wolf theory, and yearned for an opportunity to see someone attempt a re-creation. Now that I have, I am duly outraged that the jury in the initial trial was allowed to deliberate under the apprehension that it would have taken "Spiderman" to have climbed through that window (piled on top of all the other outrages, obviously).

I have to smile wryly when I think back to the absurd claims made by a couple of notable pro-guilt commentators who'd paid their own way to Perugia to "honour Meredith's memory" (or something...).

The comments were always along the lines of: "Well I've visited Perugia and actually seen the cottage, and I can tell you that it's a long way up and a very difficult climb. You can't pass any sort of judgement on the climb unless you've actually been there yourself."

Chalk another one up to confirmation bias and utter lack of objectivity....

 

[CoulsdonUK]

So in the meantime on what basis does anyone have to say that it belongs to Raffaele.

Your comment is tacit admission that Massei erred in using this to convict Raffaele.

No, this “TV Show” made some bold statements as per what the appeal court should or shouldn’t do without any mention of the Italian Supreme Court ruling; we won’t know how this appeal will unfold until the judges decide the scope next week, hopefully.

 

[LondonJohn]

Mary_H.... I think Dan O. addressed all this, including the fact that Massei also acknowledged that it is impossible to tell when or if phones are turned off or on with phone records.

On another matter - why anyone would ignore you is beyond me!

It's worth being technically accurate on this point:

Billing records tell you nothing except for actual traffic patterns to and from a given handset (strictly speaking, a given IMSI). However, network software is capable of telling whether a given handset (IMSI) is connected to network or not at any given time, and is also in theory capable of creating an archive of connection over time.

The crucial point is that it's impossible for any network to determine with certainty whether or not a lost connection is due to a) the handset having been turned off, or b) the handset being situated in a place with no signal coverage.

When a GSM mobile handset is switched on, it performs a handshake protocol with the network (assuming it is within network coverage) known as the IMSI attach protocol, which essentially involves the handset (IMSI) identifying itself to the network as available, and announcing its location (i.e. its connectivity to certain base stations). Once the handset is on, it sends periodic location updates to the network (i.e. "I'm still on, and I'm still where I was the last time you checked", or "I'm still on, but I've now moved to the area covered by a different base station".)

If the phone is switched off, it will send an IMSI detach message to the network (i.e. "I'm turning myself off now, don't bother looking for me if someone calls or texts me etc").

Both of the above events are logged and stored by the network, and are capable of being stored for longer periods (depending on the network's software systems). It is therefore potentially possible to look back and see the IMSI attach/detach records for a given handset on a certain day.

But...... if a handset falls out of network coverage, what will happen is this: the network will recognise that the handset has failed to communicate (either via a location update or with an IMSI detach), and the network will then perform an implicit IMSI detach (i.e. it will to all intents treat the handset as if it were switched off). If the handset then starts to receive signal coverage again (having been powered on all the while), it will immediately send a location update message to the network, which will then cancel the implicit IMSI detach and accept the handset back onto the network.

Now, the important thing is this: the network has no way whatsoever of being able to distinguish between the following two scenarios:

1. Handset switched on and talking to network
2. Handset remains switched on but falls out of signal coverage.
3. Handset remains switched on but now regains signal coverage.

and

1. Handset switched on and talking to network
2. Handset remains switched on but falls out of signal coverage.
3. Handset now switched off.
4. Handset switched back on, but still out of signal coverage.
5. Handset remains switched on but now regains signal coverage.

There can therefore be no certainty attached to the opinion that Sollecito manually switched off his handset that night, if it had fallen out of signal coverage in any case.

 

[Antony]

Coulsdon, why should the TV programme (don't know why you think it needs quotes) focus on the SC ruling rather than on the so-called prosecution "evidence"? Personally I'd like to have seen them highlighting the illegal SC action.

Exactly right on your second point. When the court makes its first rulings it will be enough to know whether they intend to convict or acquit.