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

[Diocletus]

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.

The whole thing is very simple, really. He knew right away that she was entitled to counsel, as he admitted in his interview with Griffin. But then, he decided that maybe they could get a useable statement out of her if they could only trick her into signing a statement that they could claim was "sponaneous." It worked (5:45)! Then, to try to impart some legitimacy to the illegal 1:45-5:45 interview, he directed that she should be held without a lawyer for three days. You see, that way, not only were her statements "spontaneous," but she wasn't even entitled to a lawyer, anyway, so what's the harm?

The wheels fell off of this little scheme, though, when the supreme court decided that the 5:45 statement was non-spontaneous, i.e., it was affirmatively elicited by Mignini. Further, Mignini broke Italian law by failing to give written reasons for the denial of counsel, and also broke Italian and international law by unreasonably delaying access to counsel to the prejudice of the accused.

The whole thing is really very deceitful, and frankly pretty shocking.

 

[JREF2010]

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.

I agree, but in a way its another example of how this case can be viewed with such miniscule detail. I suspect the ISC did the same. Probably a brief overview of reading papers and made a decision then on to the other pile of cases.

For example, my brother who doesnt read about this case, other than me, watched the new ch 5 thing...i sent him the link.

his response was "they didnt do them self any good by hanging out with a drug peddler."

this is how grossly misunderstood this case is to a general public, uninterested party might see this case.

the prosecution is relying on ignorance and uninterested Judges and jurors its seems, is that whats going on?

 

[JREF2010]

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.

Briars at least goes with the 10:15 ish...ToD.

I dont see other PGP ever answering anything clearly or having a theory to stand by.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

This isn't fair, though. Look at the muscles in the guys fingertips! They're like mini biceps.

Also, he was the wrong guy. He was a rockclimber, and not an experienced second-story cat burglar.

Jeese.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

What we can be certain of is that ILE doesn't have a time for when Raffaele's phone was switched off. If they had recovered the sign off message from the cell tower records or even the ping exchanges they would have had a much better fix on when the phone was out of touch with the network. They apparently only have the extended call detail records that reports the tower used when a call is made. Either the periodic ping information is unavailable to them or they are unaware of it or they do have it but are keeping it as a very closely guarded secret lest the public know that they are tracking their every movement.

 

[JREF2010]

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.

It was the best part, the window climbing. imo, it was even simpler and faster than I would have imagined.

Because the window wooden shutter wasnt closed, couldnt be closed fully....I would think a trained burglar like Rudy Guede would spot something like this detail.

When I think of Rudys burglaries, the bartenders place, the daycare, the lawyers laptop...and in the daycare he had many stolen things probably from other burglarys where he wasnt caught, his expertise as a career thief was taking off.

Its too bad the show couldnt go into more detail, but TV time is expensive probably. They built the cottage, they did all these tests for a short tv show.

The ability for that guy to get up to the window still amazes me, it took him seconds. I recall Judge Micheli saying it would be nothing to do that too.

 

[Grinder]

Foot analysis like everything else in this “TV show” is only relevant if the court decides on further analysis. I am disappointed not because of some of the conclusions but it is so sloppy and lacking in detail.

Relevant in what context? Since I haven't seen the show I can't argue the details, but if experts say that the prints should not be used because they are only compatible and tested negative for blood, then that adds "evidence" for those of us that argue the beyond a reasonable doubt standard was not met.

If the court denies further opinions from court appointed neutral experts, the results from the show will impact some world public opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

What we can be certain of is that ILE doesn't have a time for when Raffaele's phone was switched off. If they had recovered the sign off message from the cell tower records or even the ping exchanges they would have had a much better fix on when the phone was out of touch with the network. They apparently only have the extended call detail records that reports the tower used when a call is made. Either the periodic ping information is unavailable to them or they are unaware of it or they do have it but are keeping it as a very closely guarded secret lest the public know that they are tracking their every movement.

Yes, I agree. It is clear they only have a sent or received record.

 

[Dan O.]

We might just have to do our own show if we want it done right.

I'd have liked to see the alternate access to that window demonstrated by steping acros from the base of the planter to the lower window thus avoiding any wet grass that may be below. I'd also like to see the complete timeline for the lone wolf played out.

 

[Supernaut]

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?

Actually, he did the climb twice, the 2nd time without using the new bars.

If anything, these bars were a hinderence to getting elbows/forearms onto the ledge for the last part of the climb.

 

[Grinder]

Cell phone records do not show when phones are turned on or off. This is acknowledged in Massei.

In Raffaele's description of his interrogation in Honor Bound, there is no mention of phones or of the police asking him about his. We know Amanda told the police during her interrogation that she had turned off her phone on Nov. 1.

It's been so long since this controversy was put to rest that I can't even remember how they learned Raffaele turned off his phone, but I assume he told them.

As I noted above, they can determine when a phone picks up again. In the Raf's case IIRC he received a message in the morning that had been sent late the night before. I think when one turns on their phone it sends out a signal - someone else will surely correct me

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually, he did the climb twice, the 2nd time without using the new bars.

If anything, these bars were a hinderence to getting elbows/forearms onto the ledge for the last part of the climb.

I agree.

 

[Bill Williams]

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).

It's also telling that Judge Massei substitutes his own imaginings in the motivations report - one that imagined that Rudy would have had to have gone up and don three time (not very hard in and of itself) - while having it within his power to order the same sort of test Channel 5 had just done.

If nothing else, this Channel 5 documentary exposes this about Judge Massei - he's rather imagine than prove.

 

[Dan O.]

As I noted above, they can determine when a phone picks up again. In the Raf's case IIRC he received a message in the morning that had been sent late the night before. I think when one turns on their phone it sends out a signal - someone else will surely correct me

The phone must maintain a perfect time synchronization with the local tower group. The phone saves energy by only turning on it's receiver for a very short time and listens in this time slot for a transmission indicating that a message is available for the particular phone.

When the phone detects the network and knows that it has been out of touch for some time it needs to reestablish synchronization and this process will announce to the network that the phone is back and able to receive any waiting messages.

Althought the phone would know if it had been turned off, it's not an operational requirement for the network to know.

The on/off times are something I would expect to find in the phone's internal log and one more indication that the phone may have never been off in that period.

 

[christianahannah]

It's also telling that Judge Massei substitutes his own imaginings in the motivations report - one that imagined that Rudy would have had to have gone up and don three time (not very hard in and of itself) - while having it within his power to order the same sort of test Channel 5 had just done.

If nothing else, this Channel 5 documentary exposes this about Judge Massei - he's rather imagine than prove.

That is true what was written by Massei but didn't he write two rather than three times to climb the wall?

I think that neither Micheli nor Massei stated that the wall couldn't be climbed just that they didn't believe this is what Rudy did. Of course, one can find reasonings for and against their decisions to believe he did not (nor anyone else) climbed the wall.

I would have liked to have seen the same climb done at night viewed in natural light/darkness. Not because I don't think it couldn't have been done but rather to see if one could detect anyone climbing the wall from the road, etc.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Relevant in what context? Since I haven't seen the show I can't argue the details, but if experts say that the prints should not be used because they are only compatible and tested negative for blood, then that adds "evidence" for those of us that argue the beyond a reasonable doubt standard was not met.

If the court denies further opinions from court appointed neutral experts, the results from the show will impact some world public opinion.

The context will be the judges decisions next week not what media experts or pundits on either side of this case say should be happening.

 

[Grinder]

The point is the police were interested in the lack of phone and web search activity which was not their usual pattern . Amanda said she switched off her phone after Patrick's call. 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..

They had no usual pattern. Did you answer whether it was Meredith's usual pattern to play with her phone a night and make calls to her bank as Massei speculated?

You think sitting in jail in solitary for a murder isn't under pressure?

 

[christianahannah]

As I noted above, they can determine when a phone picks up again. In the Raf's case IIRC he received a message in the morning that had been sent late the night before. I think when one turns on their phone it sends out a signal - someone else will surely correct me

For those interested in more details about Raffaele's phone, they can be found on pages 317-321 of Massei. The investigators were never able to determine whether Raffaele's phone was actually turned off, so I have to take back what I said about Raffaele telling them he switched it off. He may have said something in his book: I don't remember. The police certainly had no knowledge of that information on the night of the interrogation.

Wasn't the whole thing about the phone traffic on the night of interrogation - November 5 - not to do about switching on or switching off of cell phones but that Raffaele had said his father called him at 11 pm the night of the murder - November 1 - when the call from his father was actually between 8-9 pm? His father did send an SMS to Raffaele's cell around 11 pm that night but it wasn't received until the next morning.

 

[RoseMontague]

The phone must maintain a perfect time synchronization with the local tower group. The phone saves energy by only turning on it's receiver for a very short time and listens in this time slot for a transmission indicating that a message is available for the particular phone.

When the phone detects the network and knows that it has been out of touch for some time it needs to reestablish synchronization and this process will announce to the network that the phone is back and able to receive any waiting messages.

Althought the phone would know if it had been turned off, it's not an operational requirement for the network to know.

The on/off times are something I would expect to find in the phone's internal log and one more indication that the phone may have never been off in that period.

This is yet another example of the incompetence of the Italian investigators.

 

[Grinder]

The context will be the judges decisions next week not what media experts or pundits on either side of this case say should be happening.

So unless the court does something facts are not relevant?

Of course experts' opinions are relevant. The fact that Massei wouldn't allow independent experts look at the DNA "evidence" doesn't make that evidence irrelevant except for the verdict of that court.

You continue to put too much faith in the Italian courts.

If there was a photograph of Rudy killing Meredith alone in the cottage but the court wouldn't let it be shown to the judges would that too be irrelevant?

It may be the case that the Italians won't let in relevant expert opinions but doesn't mean they aren't relevant.