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

Status
Not open for further replies.
But at least what I'm saying relies on the substance of Amanda's statements, and doesn't depend on repression and confusion (by both Amanda and Patrick, or did Patrick delete his own message?). That's not to say those things aren't possible, it's just that replying on them makes your theory sort of unfalsifiable.
In that case you must think her guilty of deliberately diverting blame onto Patrick since confusion and altered consciousness must be resorted to otherwise.

I explained this a couple times already. If they didn't have Patrick's incoming message, they can't have known for sure the message was from Patrick and that Amanda wasn't lying about that. Especially when, as far as they were concerned, she was lying about the content.
Then you must think that in the period 2nd - 5th November they had not tied Patrick to the exchange of texts.

On the other hand, it makes even less sense if they actually did have Patrick's message. How does this work in your scenario - why were they asking her who the message was from and who she was protecting if they already knew?
Have you got a tape? How do you know what they were asking her? Depending on which of her versions you want to choose, Amanda said various contradictory things about how Patrick's name came up. Because I think they were already onto Patrick I think they led her to name him.

Most of this is quite weak. Patrick's phone pinging and his phone calls to Amanda may only have assumed significance after he was arrested and his phone records were examined in detail.
In your opinion. But in your scenario the cops don't seem to do anything to actually investigate the case, despite all that cell phone information that De Felice mentioned at the press conference.

I'm sure Amanda met a lot of people in the four days after the murder and we have no confirmation the police saw that specific meeting.
How many of those people had she exchanged texts with on the night of the 1st?

We don't know that she never mentioned Patrick - in fact she did include him on a list of men she knew just before her interrogation that evening. If she'd mentioned him a lot you could argue the police suspected him because of that, too.
I dug this up before. I won a yacht from Grinder. IIRC it's in her trial transcript. She asked why she never mentioned Lumumba.

Prior to that night the police weren't focusing on a "black guy" so much as they were focusing on "North African men" (in fact they'd hauled one such man into the police station at 2 a.m. the night before they questioned Amanda and Raffaele). "North African" doesn't describe Patrick or Guede, but someone of lighter skin colour - see Formica's testimony where she uncomfortably explains why the man she saw being "North African" rules out Guede.
Noted.

I'll give you (6) and (12) as reasons they suspected Amanda and Raffaele, but those things don't implicate Patrick.
Very gracious.

All in all, this seems like confirmation bias: going through things which might have looked suspicious to police after they arrested Patrick and assuming they found those things suspicious before that time.
Do you think they hooked Patrick up with his cell phone number or not? If not, why did De Felice say cell phone records were crucial?


I don't know whether they passed the 'buona serata' part of the text message onto Matteini; I'd assume she had access to the raw phone information, but I don't know for sure. Yes, they did ignore that part of the message in their excitement over the 'see you later' part - of course, once they had the 'confession' they took that as confirmation they were right to do so anyway.
See if you can find it anywhere in her motivation. As far as I understand, that did not come out until a long time afterwards. You have to explain why it was suppressed.

As I said to Bill, what you suggest is possible, it's just I can't see anything to make that situation any more likely than one where the police are incompetent and under pressure, ignorant of coerced confessions, and where they rushed to a conclusion they've been trying to justify ever since.
A conclusion made of what though? What's missing in this theory is why the third degree on the night of the fifth, with numbers of officers drafted in for an all night tag team session, the whole thing shrouded in mystery.

Think about this: why does her 1.45 statement even refer at all to Lumumba's real message? Why is it there if the cops did not believe that's what it said? You think she forced them to put something true in the statement?
 
Arrest Warrant

Power of Attorney of the Republic
in the jurisdiction of the Court of Perugia

Declaration of Arrest issued by the Prosecutor
To the judge of the preliminary investigations of the Court of Perugia

The Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini sustains

Given the following procedural documents;

Seeing as there are serious clues of the crime of conspiracy in murder aggravated by sexual assault for which he proceeds against DIYA Lumumba, born in Kindu (Zaire) on 5 May 1969, KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele, in generalized terms, for the following reasons:

For that which concerns KNOX and DIYA, the former gave conspicuously contradictory and improbable deposition in the course of the investigation. In particular, KNOX affirmed to have spent the night between the 1st and 2nd of November in the company of SOLLECITO Raffaele, met by her only a few days before the fact, while he, after initially confirming KNOX's declarations, confessed to have lied according to KNOX's direction and clarified as having separated from KNOX at 9:30PM on the 1st of November 2007, remaining in his residence where he received a call on his land-line from his father at 11:30PM. Furthermore, by the data relative to the cell phone traffic of the number 3484673590, in use by KNOX, emerges a void of traffic from 8:35PM of the 1st of November to 12:00PM of the 2nd of November. There is an analogous void of cell phone traffic from 8:42PM of November 1st to 6:02AM of November 2nd found in the traffic for the number 3403574303 in use by SOLLECITO Raffaele. A text message was found to have been sent at 8:35PM of November 1st by KNOX's number 3484673590 to 3387195723, that of her co-defendant Patrick, in which she wrote "Ci vediamo dopo" ["See you later" or lit: "We'll see each other after"] thus confirming that in the following hours KNOX would find herself with Patrick in the apartment where the victim was.

KNOX, in the deposition of this date, finally confessed to the criminal action perpetrated against Kercher; the defendant, in fact, testified as having met with Patrick, as was communicated in the message found in the memory of her cell phone operating in Perugia, the message of 8:35PM, responding to a message from DIYA arrived at 8:18PM, identified thanks to the analysis of the cell phone traffic relative to the number in use by KNOX.

This last message was not present in the memory of the cell phone.

The same KNOX, in the deposition of this date, then confessed that, having met with Diya at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, she went with DIYA to Meredith's residence where Diya, after having sexual relations with the victim, killed her.

The sexual intercourse must be considered of a violent nature, considering the particularly intimidating context in which it occurred, of which KNOX must be considered to have contributed.

Furthermore, it must be added that KNOX, in the spontaneous depositions given on this same day, punctually confirmed to have contacted DIYA, to have met with him the night between the 1st and 2nd of November and to gone with him to the apartment of the victim. She then said to have stayed outside the bedroom of the victim while DIYA went inside with her and she added to have heard the scream of the young woman.

KNOX testified to particularities that confirmed hers and SOLLECITO Raffaele's involvement in the event, like the fact that she awoke after the fact in the latter's bed.

Regarding the elements against SOLLECITO, there are numerous incongruities verified in his first declarations in respect to his latest and the fact that, from preliminary observations, the shoe print of the shoe worn by SOLLECITO appears compatible in form with that found at the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the fact that KNOX declares to not remember what happened between the scream of the victim and her reawakening in the morning in Sollecito's bed who, furthermore, was found to have in his possession a pocket knife that could in the abstract be compatible, in type and dimensions (full length 18cm, of which 8.5cm being the blade), with the object that produced the most severe wound in the neck of the victim.

Having regarded all of the elements described and all of them convergent as a result of an intense and articulated investigation activated upon the discovery of Kercher's cadaver and culminating in the confession and the accusation of complicity of DIYA, called "Patrick" by KNOX, the serious clues of the crime must be considered fully valid and consenting the arrest, in consideration of the limits of the law.

The risk of DIYA's escape must be considered valid, seeing as he is foreign, and considering the particular gravity and cruelty of the crime, that of sexual violence, and the possibility of the imposition of particularly brutal punishment.
Regarding KNOX, she demonstrated a particular unscrupulousness in repeatedly lying to the investigators and in involving in such a grave matter the youth SOLLECITO.

ORDERS

The arrests of DIYA Lumumba, KNOX Amanda Marie and SOLLECITO Raffaele in generalized terms and their conduction to the Casa Circondariale [prison].
One proceeds with the request for the confirmation of the arrests in a separate action.

One sends to the Secretary to the extent applicable concerning the registration of Diya Lumumba and Knox Amanda Marie, born in Washington (USA) on 9 July 1987, residing in Perugia, Via della Pergola #7, as well as Sollecito Raffaele, he also in generalized terms.
Perugia, the 6th of November 2007, 8:40AM,

PROSECUTOR Dr. Giuliano Mignini

Per Amanda's Blog.

As you can see, without the doctored-up SMS story, there is no meeting with Lumumba and no objective evidence against Lumumba.

I question whether they would have been able to arrest Lumumba if Mignini hadn't lied by omitting the important half of the SMS (and maybe deleting the underlying SMS).
 
Regarding location analysis, incidentally, the only way of doing this in 2007 (without GPS) was via fairly crude cell-site (base station) triangulation. Such a method would only give very, very approximate location for the handset. Indeed, as you'll recall, they didn't even attempt triangulation when conducting location analysis on Knox's, Sollecito's and Meredith's phones: instead, all they did was note which base station the relative phones were connected to at various times. This, it goes without saying, is an extremely crude method of geographic location determination, with an accuracy - even in urban areas with high base station distribution - measured in mile-wide radii rather than metres.

And for that reason, it would have been extremely difficult (in fact, I'd argue that it would have been impossible) for the police to be able to identify Lumumba from conducting any sort of location analysis on that number.


The ability to locate precisely where a phone is at any specific moment in time varies greatly. That is because the equipment while designed to work together is still a mix of capabilities that vary not only from cell phone company to cell phone company but from cell antenna to cell antenna. This equipment is expensive and tends to become obsolete in only a few years with new model antennas and base stations and software revisions being introduced almost every 6 months. Each cell phone company is constantly evolving. Some portions of their network can be quite antiquated while other portions are constantly improved. It's absolutely impossible to know with any real certainty today just what the true capabilities were in Perugia in November 2007.

Most people assume that they can be tracked by GPS today all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. While your phone may have a GPS chip in it, that doesn't mean that the base station that is handling your call has the capabilities or software rev. to track it. There are essentially lots of holes in the network. They might be able to triangulate a call through records of multiple antennas, yet as we see in Perugia, they really only were keeping the record of the actual cell tower that connected the call. I wonder if their records would have shown a cell antenna handoff if that happened in the middle of a call or not?
 
Per Amanda's Blog.

As you can see, without the doctored-up SMS story, there is no meeting with Lumumba and no objective evidence against Lumumba.

I question whether they would have been able to arrest Lumumba if Mignini hadn't lied by omitting the important half of the SMS (and maybe deleting the underlying SMS).

Makes sense in a rather nefariously ominous way.
 
The ability to locate precisely where a phone is at any specific moment in time varies greatly. That is because the equipment while designed to work together is still a mix of capabilities that vary not only from cell phone company to cell phone company but from cell antenna to cell antenna. This equipment is expensive and tends to become obsolete in only a few years with new model antennas and base stations and software revisions being introduced almost every 6 months. Each cell phone company is constantly evolving. Some portions of their network can be quite antiquated while other portions are constantly improved. It's absolutely impossible to know with any real certainty today just what the true capabilities were in Perugia in November 2007.

Most people assume that they can be tracked by GPS today all the time. Nothing could be further from the truth. While your phone may have a GPS chip in it, that doesn't mean that the base station that is handling your call has the capabilities or software rev. to track it. There are essentially lots of holes in the network. They might be able to triangulate a call through records of multiple antennas, yet as we see in Perugia, they really only were keeping the record of the actual cell tower that connected the call. I wonder if their records would have shown a cell antenna handoff if that happened in the middle of a call or not?

I do know that with my Android, I can locate myself to likely within about 10 feet. Then again, that phone is probably a 2011 phone not 2007 or earlier phone.
 
I do know that with my Android, I can locate myself to likely within about 10 feet. Then again, that phone is probably a 2011 phone not 2007 or earlier phone.

There is a difference between you locating yourself with the GPS on your phone and the network tracking you.

GPS enabled phones started becoming available in 2002. People assume today that if they get in a car accident or need the police that if they call 911 on their cell phone, the dispatcher will know where they are. This is only sometimes true. Tell them where you are.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between you locating yourself with the GPS on your phone and the network tracking you.

GPS enabled phones started becoming available in 2002. People assume today that if they get in a car accident or need the police that if they call 911 on their cell phone, the dispatcher will know where they are. This is only sometimes true. Tell them where you are.

Not really trying to argue with you. . .More curious than anything else.

For hiking though, I prefer a portable GPS unit although I only have a real basic model. Newer ones have trails and terrain maps built int.
 
As I said to Bill, what you suggest is possible, it's just I can't see anything to make that situation any more likely than one where the police are incompetent and under pressure, ignorant of coerced confessions, and where they rushed to a conclusion they've been trying to justify ever since.

anglolawyer said:
A conclusion made of what though? What's missing in this theory is why the third degree on the night of the fifth, with numbers of officers drafted in for an all night tag team session, the whole thing shrouded in mystery.

Think about this: why does her 1.45 statement even refer at all to Lumumba's real message? Why is it there if the cops did not believe that's what it said? You think she forced them to put something true in the statement?

I seems I have a bout of the Grinder-flu.

If we are to critique Machiavelli for his infamous way of erecting things based upon "compatibilities", this also works both ways. Simply for the sake of consistency.

The business of the numbers of people in on the night of the 5th, may be simply that their list of candidates as suspects were drying up, and fast disappearing. All of Meredith's other friends had either left the country or had lawyered up.

The PLE was facing that next to disappear behind a judicial wall was Knox herself, a keyholder, when Edda arrived in a few hours. They simply could have brought in the heavies as a Hail Mary pass to get something out of someone before every lead went dry - passing note: at least until the forensics came back and an unknown fourth person was actually the only suspect... but that was unknown to the PLE on the 5th/6th.

Believe you me, I am not defending them, I'm only saying that the focus was on Knox that night literally because there was no one else. And she was soon to be judicially veiled, too.

So.... go after Raffaele; get something, ANYTHING out of him that can be used as leverage on Amanda. And then lean on Amanda to get something, ANYTHING.... and the SMS message comes up with (wrongly to them) suggested Amanda was meeting with someone; at the time Ficarra had thought she'd stumbled on the Rosetta Stone, particularly after warning Amanda a few hours earlier out in the hall that Amanda had been caught out lying about Meredith's marijuana use. To Ficarra - herself exhausted and suffering investigative myopia - this was yet another lie.

You see.... this thing I've just constructed from memory is "compatible with" the facts and has about as much evidentiary weight as your own.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between you locating yourself with the GPS on your phone and the network tracking you.

GPS enabled phones started becoming available in 2002. People assume today that if they get in a car accident or need the police that if they call 911 on their cell phone, the dispatcher will know where they are. This is only sometimes true. Tell them where you are.

Can you offer an opinion on whether it would have been difficult to tie up Patrick's cell phone number with Patrick himself?
 
Can you offer an opinion on whether it would have been difficult to tie up Patrick's cell phone number with Patrick himself?

huh???? I'm sorry anglo. I really don't understand this question. Can you elaborate or rephrase it?
 
huh???? I'm sorry anglo. I really don't understand this question. Can you elaborate or rephrase it?

Sorry AC. Say they spotted an unknown number while looking at Amanda's cell phone records. A number from which she got a text at 20:18 on 01 Nov and they wanted to know whose it was. What could they do?
 
Last edited:
I thought it had been fairly reliably documented somewhere (can't remember where) that the police had witnessed this meeting. I'll try and look up sources later this evening. Unless anyone else can remember off the top of their heads.....

I thought someone said something earlier this week about it being in Matteini (not her first report, a later one).
 
Mafia style, style not code :p.

I think you've done a great job on making this text issue. I'm trying to get into the PLE's shoes during that period. We have the Italian penchant* for thinking everything has double meanings and nothing is as it appears. It is obvious to me that they came to believe that Amanda and Patrick had made plans in advance for her aiding him in setting up or facilitating his desires for sex with Meredith.

Why didn't they just text and delete? Well Amanda claimed that she did delete all incoming messages and wasn't aware that outgoing messages were saved. But why worry at all? Why didn't Patrick just say let's meet in 15 minutes and you take me to the cottage?

Perhaps, as most of us here, they didn't know if the messages would be on the providers servers. We have gone over this many a time and it is clear that SMS can be retained. I would say that if someone was intending to commit some bad deed they would code their message using mafia style.

ETA -* Dietrology -It is, therefore, the study or analysis of the perceptually invisible, of what lies behind language, events, actions, processes, and behaviours.

Well, if they used mafia style (whatever the heck that is) her message should have said: cool, thanks. Goodnight!
 
Sorry AC. Say they spotted an unknown number while looking at Amanda's cell phone records. A number from which she got a text at 20:18 on 01 Nov and they wanted to know whose it was. What could they do?


As a hint, go back to where the police involvement started in this case. A resident brings into the station a cell phone that they found in their garden. What did they do and how long did it take them? As a follow up, the same resident later brings in a second phone but this one is not registered by an Italian provider. What do they say they need to wait for?
 
As a hint, go back to where the police involvement started in this case. A resident brings into the station a cell phone that they found in their garden. What did they do and how long did it take them? As a follow up, the same resident later brings in a second phone but this one is not registered by an Italian provider. What do they say they need to wait for?

I dunno Dan but reuniting a phone with its owner is a whole order of magnitude less important than solving a murder so I would expect to find the means and resources deployed in the two cases to be quite different. Put me out of my misery anyway.
 
Sorry AC. Say they spotted an unknown number while looking at Amanda's cell phone records. A number from which she got a text at 20:18 on 01 Nov and they wanted to know whose it was. What could they do?

A reverse lookup. If the Sim is registered to a specific user, that is easy. If it is a disposable phone where the customer bought the sim or phone and minutes with cash.....NOTHING.
 
Last edited:
A reverse lookup. If the Sim is registered to a specific use, that is easy. If it is a disposable phone where the customer bought the sim or phone and minutes with cash.....NOTHING.

Actually, this isn't true. They could cross reference any calls made to that specific number and call the people that called or received a call from that number and just ask those individuals..who's phone number is it?
 
Last edited:
I recall our discussion of when Mignini interviewed John Kercher and you doubted whether that was before the 6th. I eventually found a news paper article that showed it was before (Il Matino or something IIRC) and that Mignini was therefore particularly interested in Amanda at that interview. That's another piece in the jigsaw. Why wouldn't they be following her if she was the centre of their enquiry? Let's see if LJ can come up with a reference for that. The theory predicts he will.


I do not currently have access to the various print books, but have done a quick online search. Strangely, the most specific mention of police tailing Knox over those days that I can currently find comes courtesy of our friend The Machine over on TJMK (my bolding):


Rather than immediately arresting Knox and Sollecito, the police officers on the scene testified that they decided to tap Knox’s and Sollecito’s telephone calls, to record their conversations at the police station, and also to have them followed. This surveillance continued for a three-day period, up to Monday night. where they were invited in for further questioning.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...he_prosecution_4_amanda_knoxs_multiple_confl/


I am pretty confident that a primary source for this information exists somewhere, and that I have seen it. Certainly this commentary from The Machine would tend to support my level of confidence.
 
I do not currently have access to the various print books, but have done a quick online search. Strangely, the most specific mention of police tailing Knox over those days that I can currently find comes courtesy of our friend The Machine over on TJMK (my bolding):




http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index...he_prosecution_4_amanda_knoxs_multiple_confl/


I am pretty confident that a primary source for this information exists somewhere, and that I have seen it. Certainly this commentary from The Machine would tend to support my level of confidence.
LOL you'll get there. The theory says so. I will look at the books although nothing springs to mind from that source. The Machine's post is an example of the guilters conundrum: when discussing how suspicious they were its good to pile on stuff about the cops tailing them, bugging them etc but um .. that doesn't mean they were actual suspects. Oh no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom