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

[anglolawyer]

That's only because Andi Vogt is too stupid to understand the SMS-deletion issue. If she did, then the screen would have translated "SMS sent to me" to mean "rape prank".

Oh I get that, don't worry. Nobody gets it.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh I get that, don't worry. Nobody gets it.

I get it. But I think the key is how did Matteini get so confused about the issue? Did the prosecution affirmatively represent to her that the SMS was missing and there was a discrepancy between Lumumba and Knox about what it said? Also, how exactly do we know that the SMS is "gone"?

 

[Strozzi]

What did you mean by "not a ripple" in your previous comment?

Did you mean "not a ripple" by commentators on this forum?

Or did you mean "nor a ripple" in terms of general public reaction?

Or did you mean something else (other than the two above possibilities)?

Maybe I can explain? LondonJohn, there could be another meaning to what Coulsdon meant. After watching Vogt's documentary, maybe what Coulsdon meant to say was "That was interesting. I"ll have some more Ripple.".

("Ripple" was the cheap American wine drunk in U.S. television comedy sketches.).

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, that was outrageous. There is no other word for it. Mixed blood, the call to the carabinieri, bloody footprints revealed by luminol, multiple attackers (karate) ... all the stupid, refuted guilter points.

But, according to their sub-titles, she did say she saw Lumumba's text. I will try to screen-cap that. The only thing of value in the whole prog. As I suspected, the date was given as 17 Dec not 17 Nov.

I think I was typing something on here when the interview tape was on. So the transcription on the screen really has Knox referring to a text that she had received from Lumumba, rather than (or in addition to) a text that she had sent him?

If so, then this is indeed potentially very interesting in terms of your theory. It does indeed suggest that Knox's phone still did contain the message from Lumumba telling her not to come into work because it was so quiet. And, of course, if that text was in existence, then it would make it undeniably clear that Knox's response to that text was not intended as an invitation to meet up later, but that rather it was nothing more than an acknowledgement of the instruction not to come into work, and a totally anodyne sign-off ("see you later").

So this new information now seems to add weight to your theory that the police deleted this "Don't come into work" text of Lumumba's from the inbox of Knox's handset, almost certainly for the very reason you suggest (which I summarise above). I wonder if Knox herself still has any clear recollection of the situation: can she remember whether there was indeed this received text from Lumumba sitting in her handset's inbox when she showed her phone to the police on the 5th November?

One other thing occurs to me (I think that I or someone else may have raised this point when you first proposed your theory): with handsets as they worked in 2007, if one received a text message and immediately chose to reply to it (by selecting "reply" from the menu), one would compose and send the reply (which would be auto-saved in one's "saved messages" folder on the handset), but once that reply had been sent (and saved), the phone would revert directly back to its home screen. The received message, in other words, would remain in the "inbox" folder on the handset.

By contrast, if one read a message and didn't want to reply to it, then one might habitually choose to delete it there and then. The point is, one could not reply to an incoming message and delete it in the same set of actions. If one wanted to reply to the message and then delete it, one would need to go through the "reply" protocol as outlined above, but then after the phone had reverted to the home screen (as above), one would need to go to the trouble of going back into the menu to select "messages" then "inbox", then finding the message in question, then deleting it.

I wonder, therefore, if - since Knox evidently replied to this incoming message from Lumumba rather than just reading and deleting it - she sent the reply as outlined above, but the Lumumba message then remained in her inbox (again, as explained above). This might explain why Knox told police that she usually tried to delete received messages (which indeed she might have done if she simply read then deleted a message), but why Lumumba's "Don't come into work" message might have remained on her handset.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You guys have more chance of ensuring UK folks use BBC iPlayer and actually watch the programme with the free advertising you are giving it, by all means complain to the BBC “Outrage of Oxshott” this programme was a travesty!!, make a fuss; who knows maybe a rerun on BBC 2 if enough of you complain, come on you can do it. Dare I say (in hushed tones, Panorama (BBC 1)), if and when the Italian Supreme Court ever confirm anything.

Go for it!

 

[anglolawyer]

I get it. But I think the key is how did Matteini get so confused about the issue? Did the prosecution affirmatively represent to her that the SMS was missing and there was a discrepancy between Lumumba and Knox about what it said? Also, how exactly do we know that the SMS is "gone"?

Yes, you do get it. You and me. And Frank (to whom it is no big deal, just SOP for the cops). That's it.

Matteini was not given the phones and asked to scroll through text messages. What follows is inference. She noted a discrepancy between Amanda's account of the message and Lumumba's. One said 'bar closed, don't come' while the other said 'no customers, don't come'. Big deal, but if you actually read the translation at PMF she thought it was a big deal. It follows the actual message was not before her. Further, those who were in a position and under a duty to clear up the confusion did not do so. They had to justify that. How? By claiming the message was deleted. That necessitated deleting it from Patrick's phone and getting him to testify that he deleted it.

Yes. It's a conspiracy theory. I don't give a damn. To diss every such theory is to claim people don't conspire. But they do.

ETA - a sub-theme, which supports my theory (it is mine now, since I have dug up all the evidence) is that the 'have a good evening' part of her text was also suppressed before Matteini. People need to wake up to these crooks.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Maybe I can explain? LondonJohn, there could be another meaning to what Coulsdon meant. After watching Vogt's documentary, maybe what Coulsdon meant to say was "That was interesting. I"ll have some more Ripple.".

("Ripple" was the cheap American wine drunk in U.S. television comedy sketches.).

Charming.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, you do get it. You and me. And Frank (to whom it is no big deal, just SOP for the cops). That's it.

Matteini was not given the phones and asked to scroll through text messages. What follows is inference. She noted a discrepancy between Amanda's account of the message and Lumumba's. One said 'bar closed, don't come' while the other said 'no customers, don't come'. Big deal, but if you actually read the translation at PMF she thought it was a big deal. It follows the actual message was not before her. Further, those who were in a position and under a duty to clear up the confusion did not do so. They had to justify that. How? By claiming the message was deleted. That necessitated deleting it from Patrick's phone and getting him to testify that he deleted it.

Yes. It's a conspiracy theory. I don't give a damn. To diss every such theory is to claim people don't conspire. But they do.

Matteini didn't just pick this up herself. Someone had to have suggested to her that she should make a big deal about it. And that would be a person who knew that Matteini wouldn't have access to the actual SMS.

And, that person would be Mignini. But, if the cops deleted the message, then that could mean that they also tricked Mignini, and he simply passed his ignorance on to Matteini like a case of the flu.

But, why would the cops have deleted the message before passing the goods on to Mignini the notary? Is the message really gone from Amanda's phone?

 

[anglolawyer]

I think I was typing something on here when the interview tape was on. So the transcription on the screen really has Knox referring to a text that she had received from Lumumba, rather than (or in addition to) a text that she had sent him?

If so, then this is indeed potentially very interesting in terms of your theory. It does indeed suggest that Knox's phone still did contain the message from Lumumba telling her not to come into work because it was so quiet. And, of course, if that text was in existence, then it would make it undeniably clear that Knox's response to that text was not intended as an invitation to meet up later, but that rather it was nothing more than an acknowledgement of the instruction not to come into work, and a totally anodyne sign-off ("see you later").

So this new information now seems to add weight to your theory that the police deleted this "Don't come into work" text of Lumumba's from the inbox of Knox's handset, almost certainly for the very reason you suggest (which I summarise above). I wonder if Knox herself still has any clear recollection of the situation: can she remember whether there was indeed this received text from Lumumba sitting in her handset's inbox when she showed her phone to the police on the 5th November?

One other thing occurs to me (I think that I or someone else may have raised this point when you first proposed your theory): with handsets as they worked in 2007, if one received a text message and immediately chose to reply to it (by selecting "reply" from the menu), one would compose and send the reply (which would be auto-saved in one's "saved messages" folder on the handset), but once that reply had been sent (and saved), the phone would revert directly back to its home screen. The received message, in other words, would remain in the "inbox" folder on the handset.

By contrast, if one read a message and didn't want to reply to it, then one might habitually choose to delete it there and then. The point is, one could not reply to an incoming message and delete it in the same set of actions. If one wanted to reply to the message and then delete it, one would need to go through the "reply" protocol as outlined above, but then after the phone had reverted to the home screen (as above), one would need to go to the trouble of going back into the menu to select "messages" then "inbox", then finding the message in question, then deleting it.

I wonder, therefore, if - since Knox evidently replied to this incoming message from Lumumba rather than just reading and deleting it - she sent the reply as outlined above, but the Lumumba message then remained in her inbox (again, as explained above). This might explain why Knox told police that she usually tried to delete received messages (which indeed she might have done if she simply read then deleted a message), but why Lumumba's "Don't come into work" message might have remained on her handset.

LJ - I remember your point and I got it at the time. What are the mechanical actions she would have to go through to delete this message? Good question. And when did she do it? Her account is she noticed the message and replied straightaway, no doubt delighted she did not have to go to work. She might have been sufficiently anal, I suppose, to have deleted the incoming text at once, but, if she didn't, then when did she? Did she habitually engage in deleting sessions, maybe first thing in the morning? When? Would the SIM card keep a trace of what happened to the message?

The other thing is that this was neither the first nor the last time she said she saw Patrick's message. She had already said so on 10 Nov when speaking to her mother and she said so again when giving evidence. She has been persuaded that she deleted the message but she is wrong. She is, even now, still trusting the cops. As are people on this forum.

 

[Grinder]

Just as well the BBC 3 programme didn’t take place during the Florence appeal, like the channel 5 programme!

What was wrong with that program in terms of accuracy?

 

[RoseMontague]

You guys have more chance of ensuring UK folks use BBC iPlayer and actually watch the programme with the free advertising you are giving it, by all means complain to the BBC “Outrage of Oxshott” this programme was a travesty!!, make a fuss; who knows maybe a rerun on BBC 2 if enough of you complain, come on you can do it. Dare I say (in hushed tones, Panorama (BBC 1)), if and when the Italian Supreme Court ever confirm anything.

Go for it!

I have a feeling more than a complaint is headed their way.

 

[platonov]

You guys have more chance of ensuring UK folks use BBC iPlayer and actually watch the programme with the free advertising you are giving it, by all means complain to the BBC “Outrage of Oxshott” this programme was a travesty!!, make a fuss; who knows maybe a rerun on BBC 2 if enough of you complain, come on you can do it. Dare I say (in hushed tones, Panorama (BBC 1)), if and when the Italian Supreme Court ever confirm anything.

Go for it!

Perhaps the groupies could hook up with the EDL or UKIP and have an anti BBC demo. Make some noise !

 

[Diocletus]

Matteini didn't just pick this up herself. Someone had to have suggested to her that she should make a big deal about it. And that would be a person who knew that Matteini wouldn't have access to the actual SMS.

And, that person would be Mignini. But, if the cops deleted the message, then that could mean that they also tricked Mignini, and he simply passed his ignorance on to Matteini like a case of the flu.

But, why would the cops have deleted the message before passing the goods on to Mignini the notary? Is the message really gone from Amanda's phone?

Maybe the cops didn't want Mignini to know that they had suggested Patrick's name to Knox, and so they got rid of Patrick's text to Amanda?

 

[anglolawyer]

Matteini didn't just pick this up herself. Someone had to have suggested to her that she should make a big deal about it. And that would be a person who knew that Matteini wouldn't have access to the actual SMS.

And, that person would be Mignini. But, if the cops deleted the message, then that could mean that they also tricked Mignini, and he simply passed his ignorance on to Matteini like a case of the flu.

But, why would the cops have deleted the message before passing the goods on to Mignini the notary? Is the message really gone from Amanda's phone?

I don't know the ins and outs of retrieval from SIM cards. What I am pretty sure of is that if anyone started seriously ferreting around on this point those SIMs would turn up at the bottom of the Hudson River about three hundred years from now with their feet encased in concrete.

1.45 to 5.45. Four hours. That's a lot of time. Sit up tonight for four hours and see how long it takes. A lot. Between those two times they were thinking. A comparison of the two statements, I believe, shows what they were thinking. One thing was the need to implicate Raffaele. That required some big changes. The lie she told him in the first statement (in which she claimed she was going to work) disappeared. Lumumba's message disappeared too.

I think Mignini was in on it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Maybe the cops didn't want Mignini to know that they had suggested Patrick's name to Knox, and so they got rid of Patrick's text to Amanda?

You are protecting Mig too much.

 

[Grinder]

If so, then this is indeed potentially very interesting in terms of your theory. It does indeed suggest that Knox's phone still did contain the message from Lumumba telling her not to come into work because it was so quiet. And, of course, if that text was in existence, then it would make it undeniably clear that Knox's response to that text was not intended as an invitation to meet up later, but that rather it was nothing more than an acknowledgement of the instruction not to come into work, and a totally anodyne sign-off ("see you later").

So this new information now seems to add weight to your theory that the police deleted this "Don't come into work" text of Lumumba's from the inbox of Knox's handset, almost certainly for the very reason you suggest (which I summarise above). I wonder if Knox herself still has any clear recollection of the situation: can she remember whether there was indeed this received text from Lumumba sitting in her handset's inbox when she showed her phone to the police on the 5th November?

You have obviously missed my stellar analysis of this. The police would have seen the message from PL as code that the caper was on and Amanda's response was a 10-4.

I've asked Charlie to ask her. I still think the most likely reason the text disappeared if in fact it was there when the police looked is that they messed up and deleted it by mistake.

 

[anglolawyer]

You have obviously missed my stellar analysis of this. The police would have seen the message from PL as code that the caper was on and Amanda's response was a 10-4.

Then why not run that with Matteini. It's a ludicrous theory.

I've asked Charlie to ask her. I still think the most likely reason the text disappeared if in fact it was there when the police looked is that they messed up and deleted it by mistake.

And they also deleted it from Lumumba's phone too? By accident, presumably. At what point does common sense intrude in your thinking?

 

[Diocletus]

You are protecting Mig too much.

Well, I say he hid the DNA results from Matteini. You know, the ones that said that Uomo No. 2 was the rapist/pooper, and that Uomo No. 2 was not Sollecito or Lumumba.

How's that for protection.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, I say he hid the DNA results from Matteini. You know, the ones that said that Uomo No. 2 was the rapist/pooper, and that Uomo No. 2 was not Sollecito or Lumumba.

How's that for protection.

As I do on many topics here, with other posters, I defer to you on this.

 

[Grinder]

Then why not run that with Matteini. It's a ludicrous theory.

Exactly. If they had this message from Patrick why not give Matteini the theory that this was Patrick saying that he wanted to start the caper, prank, sex game or whatever they were planning that went bad?

Why would they take PL's message at face value, meaning he really was saying don't come to work, and then go on with the line of accusation?

And they also deleted it from Lumumba's phone too? By accident, presumably. At what point does common sense intrude in your thinking?

I must have missed how it is known that he didn't delete it. He had a different phone by then and IIRC SMS messages were stored on phone memory not the sim card.

Btw, I do agree that conspiracies do happen but they also unravel when someone lets the cat out of the bag.