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

[RoseMontague]

Hey, no spoilers. I haven't gotten to Laura's testimony yet.

Was Laura there when the door was broken open?

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, well, at that point, all that the SMS exchange needed to do was free up Amanda for the night. And that's where we are today--Nencini's comments already indicate that he will use it in that way.

Chance occurrences and coincidences. Fair enough from that point of view.

What it completely ignores is that the PLE acted on vapourous clues. There is a strong possibility that Mignini himself tampered with the SMS messages after Lumumba was set free, just to massage this all the more.

It is stunning to think that guilters can following this through like this not suspecting misconduct on the part of the PLE.

They need to have it both ways. The PLE were justified in suspecting Knox and Sollecito, right from the moment Raffaele seemed TOO intent on pointing out the pooh to Napoleoni...... yet all that suspicion needs to evapourate by the time of the SMS message early after midnight on the 6th..... so that the PLE can be caught by surprise with a non-spontaneous spontaneous blurting of Lumumba's name.

 

[Dan O.]

But while that is a demonstrable fact, nobody believes me about Patrick's SMS which was simply made to disappear. I say that knowing that anyone can prove me wrong by referring to the evidence showing they found his phone and checked it, or that they looked for his phone but did not find it and that they had a good reason not to find it (Patrick would have wanted them to as it proved what he said was true, so no problems there). This means I can make another prediction: no such testimony will be found. It's that dog again. The one that doesn't bark in the night.

I thought I already covered this. The tech from Rome examined the phones. Here is the translation of the relevant section starting on page 35 of the transcript of 2009-03-20:

Deposition of witness - Tacconi Simone
Prosecutor - Doctor Comfortable

QUESTION - As for the phone to her Amanda Knox what was extracted with regard to night 1 November?
ANSWER - In regard to this point, I was put a
QUESTION by the Flying Squad in Perugia who asked me to see say what messages were exchanged in the Goddess night between Amanda and Patrick Lumumba, therefore we say in addition to providing transcripts of messages the Flying Squad, we prepared a technical report say that describing an aspect that seemed salient for the purposes of the exhaustion of the
QUESTION of Flying Squad. We say what we found is that say resulted from phone of Patrick a Amanda resulted phone sent a message, this message there was, let's say there was no trace sending on the phone Patrick, but there was the text of the message as the phone does not had set say saving messages in Page 36 output, however, say that cell phone software, Keep in mind that cell phones have behaviors quite different between them, which depend on the software the phone itself, say the behaviors are very different change much between the brand and model, then that phone had the distinction of saving while not say the messages sent because the user did not we say that we have chosen to set this up, it had the peculiarity of having a register of recipients of messages sent, so let's say from the analysis of this register, as it is written in my report technique, revealing that at 20.15 on November 1, was 3484673590 sent message to the user that I think, I considered was that of Amanda on the basis of the reading phonebook of the phone itself.QUESTION - But then he could have done ...
ANSWER - Yes, yes, yes, then they were ...
QUESTION - It has been confirmed by examining the phone Amanda I guess?
ANSWER - Yes, in fact now I wanted to get to this point. In the phone to Amanda this message is not among those received, because ... So you need to check on the records that actually started this post Patrick came by the user and the users of Amanda however on phone not there no message. So let's say this first message I track a phone by sending Patrick to the Amanda, but I have not reflected on the phone with Amanda. Instead, what I found on the phone of Amanda ...QUESTION - I beg your pardon, has no counterpart in the sense that is reached or ...
ANSWER - There are traces of the message so it may be state deleted admitted that both arrived in short.QUESTION - If it had been deleted, there would still be
Page 37
track?
ANSWER - then deleted messages can be recovered in some cases, not always, depends on a number of exigent circumstances and also depends on the type of phone model, then we say the cancellation of A message from the memory of a phone can be recovered or less depending on a number of factors quotas that are not classifiable say so systematic in general.
QUESTION - I understand, but would you be able to tell if the phone, phone Amanda would have been possible recover this ...
ANSWER - At the time we were not able to retrieve it, he does not instruments that we had at the time, that was not no trace of this message to your phone Amanda.
QUESTION - So there is no trace of an outgoing message from phone Lumumba ...
ANSWER - That's right.
QUESTION - At 20:15.
ANSWER - Yes, this first message, there are two messages on which we have drawn attention, in this first message will explain the two mentioned, there is no trace of a sending to the destination on the phone Patrick but there is no trace on the phone Amanda. Conversely, on the phone, both on the phone Amanda and Patrick is on the phone is present, Amanda on your phone as a message sent in phone of Patrick as message received, a message that should be left around the 20:32, I say approximately because now I find is local time on the phone, not the time of the operator, then also this must cross it with the given of printouts, this message has the following text, I quote say quote "Of course - with the C capital
Page 38
Home - Punto space. We'll see - with C capital - later. Good evening. " This message Patrick came on the phone at 20.35 approximately.
QUESTION - In what language did he arrive?
ANSWER - In the language in which I told you, in Italian.
QUESTION - In Italian.
ANSWER - This message is present on two phones is present this message on the phone that he sent, Amanda, both on the phone and who has received Patrick, the two are perfectly identical messages.

My reading of this (with key parts highlighted) is that Patricks phone is set to not keep outgoing messages but there was a return receipt indicating that the message was delivered. On Amanda's phone there was indication that a message was received but had been deleted. The text that Amanda sent to Patrick was on both phones and was identical. Rome did not have the tools needed to analyze any deeper.

If you don't like the google-fish translation you can go the the original document and have it hand translated. The only evidence we have for your position is one or two slips where someone said message from patrick when they could have meant message to patrick. Fiona was the first to post that in the original thread and I used it as my sig line for quite some time but nobody even noticed.

I regard it as simply a slip. The other view requires an active conspiracy between multiple players to first delete the message on Amanda's phone and cover it up before they even know if they will be able to delete the message on Patrick's phone. And of course nobody would remember the flashy thing they used to erase Amanda's memory of seeing Patrick's message during the interrogation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Renato Balestra box and the knife

What do we know about the cardboard box used to transport the knife? I seem to recall it was a Renato Balestra calendar box. Where did it come from? Was the box used to transport the knife from Perugia to Rome? How was the knife transported from Raffaele's flat to the station?

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought I already covered this. The tech from Rome examined the phones. Here is the translation of the relevant section starting on page 35 of the transcript of 2009-03-20:

Deposition of witness - Tacconi Simone
Prosecutor - Doctor Comfortable
​

My reading of this (with key parts highlighted) is that Patricks phone is set to not keep outgoing messages but there was a return receipt indicating that the message was delivered. On Amanda's phone there was indication that a message was received but had been deleted. The text that Amanda sent to Patrick was on both phones and was identical. Rome did not have the tools needed to analyze any deeper.

If you don't like the google-fish translation you can go the the original document and have it hand translated. The only evidence we have for your position is one or two slips where someone said message from patrick when they could have meant message to patrick. Fiona was the first to post that in the original thread and I used it as my sig line for quite some time but nobody even noticed.

I regard it as simply a slip. The other view requires an active conspiracy between multiple players to first delete the message on Amanda's phone and cover it up before they even know if they will be able to delete the message on Patrick's phone. And of course nobody would remember the flashy thing they used to erase Amanda's memory of seeing Patrick's message during the interrogation.

Thanks for the google translation. It is far less clear to me than it seems to be to you. I will return to it but I highlighted and bolded part of your post because they already knew from interrogating her that she had almost completely forgotten the exchange of texts and could thus be pretty easily confused about it disappearing form her phone and, even if she claimed otherwise, so what? They would just slap her with another defamation suit for alleging destruction of evidence. They hit her, didn't they? How were they going to make her forget that?

As for Patrick's phone, what's the problem? Why would they not expect to come across it when they arrested him? Where is your cell phone right now? Mine is about four feet away. If the police unexpectedly burst into my office to arrest me right now they could reasonably expect to recover my phone and, if they had to, do what they wanted with it.

Try explaining why Amanda had forgotten all about the deleted text by 5.45 a.m. Given that at the very least Mignini was prompting her along with her story how come he did not prompt her to recall this crucial message.

And please bear in mind the enormous probative value of this message had the cops really believed it to have been sent. 'I'm ready. Come over now' 'Remember our arrangement' 'I'm waiting outside now, why aren't you here?' All absolute killers and supposedly what the cops believed had been sent. Please find the evidence proving the cops' made a fevered search for this devastating evidence.

Why was it deleted? How suspicious! Where is the evidence they tried to retrieve the message from Amanda's phone? Nowhere. Why not? Or what about the date and time she supposedly deleted it. Also relevant and important. When did they try to find that out? Never, right? Why not? There is software for it.

 

[NancyS]

This is a great point. Given the geography of the apartment, how the hell would Filomena know that Meredith never locked her door? It almost makes me think that Filomena's demonstration of urgency to break down the door was feigned and that she is the real murderer.

The only way she would definitely know, is if she was the kind of crazy person that likes to look through her flatmates rooms when they are out for the day.

 

[anglolawyer]

My reading of this (with key parts highlighted) is that Patricks phone is set to not keep outgoing messages but there was a return receipt indicating that the message was delivered. On Amanda's phone there was indication that a message was received but had been deleted. The text that Amanda sent to Patrick was on both phones and was identical. Rome did not have the tools needed to analyze any deeper.

Right I have read that gibberish again and I fail to see any problems for me there. Nor in your summary above, which may or may not be accurate. On the contrary, what we are not told is when this message was deleted. It would have been very easy for Comfortable to ask him about that but she doesn't. I call bull ****. Try not to hand wave when answering the questions I posed. They are serious questions which anyone contesting my theory must address. Here they are again:

And please bear in mind the enormous probative value of this message had the cops really believed it to have been sent. 'I'm ready. Come over now' 'Remember our arrangement' 'I'm waiting outside now, why aren't you here?' All absolute killers and supposedly what the cops believed had been sent. Please find the evidence proving the cops' made a fevered search for this devastating evidence.

Why was it deleted? How suspicious! Where is the evidence they tried to retrieve the message from Amanda's phone? Nowhere. Why not? Or what about the date and time she supposedly deleted it. Also relevant and important. When did they try to find that out? Never, right? Why not? There is software for it.

The testimony you have quoted proves they were interested but unsuccessful. How unlucky! Was it or was it not possible to get this information off the sim card? Luckily, that's your department not mine

 

[Desert Fox]

Perhaps I'm eccentric, but I don't find any of Knox's behavior out of the ordinary, even before I discount the reports of said behavior for intentional and unintentional (e.g. selection bias) exaggeration. People can't stay in a state of grief or shock for hours on end, let alone days. Even the most tragic funerals I've attended have contained light-hearted moments where there is laughter. No doubt this is an evolved trait. It is not very helpful from an evolutionary perspective to shutdown completely when confronted by tragedy. Tragedy must have been pretty commonplace for our caveman ancestors as they were being tormented by dinosaurs.

Anyway, arguably the worst thing Knox did (which she admits) is responding inappropriately to a query from one of Meredith's friends about whether Meredith suffered. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have said what she said, but at the same time I can also imagine that some of the maudlin and histrionic behavior of her friends had begun to grate. Personally, demonstrative grief is not my bag, and I find it annoying in others who I suspect are no closer to the object of that grief than I am. Perhaps that is unfair of me, but at least I am not a killer (at least so far).

You are right but I hear / read people who constantly argue how strange her actions are. I am sure that (while I was hundreds of miles away), I am sure looking at when my brother died, some strange activities by me could be found if somebody cold scrutinize enough. I was not really hysteric but more like I had a numb dull ache.

 

[Desert Fox]

Guede will likely do it again, but what are the odds he'll get caught? He has had years to familiarize himself with DNA, fingerprints, witness claims, security cameras, police procedures, etc., etc. He knows what put him in prison, and he won't make the same mistakes. When he does it again he'll be wearing gloves, a mask and a condom, and he won't stop in the bathroom on the way out.

While he may try, it is much harder than one might think. Few actually ever succeed completely.

 

[Strozzi]

The only way she would definitely know, is if she was the kind of crazy person that likes to look through her flatmates rooms when they are out for the day.

Filomena and Laura, both about 27 in Nov 2007, worked at the same Perugia law firm. They presumably had normal office hours. They presumably both left home at a silimar time each morning and got off work very late afternoon - and may have then met friends or possibly worked late the way junior lawyers often do.

Meredith and Amanda were exchange students with varied class schedules. They could come home during the day between classes or activities. I believe their daily presence in the house overlapped with each other's more than they overlapped with the daily comings and goings of the two junior lawyers.

I trust Amanda's Knowledge of Meredith's door habits more than Filomena's.

 

[Desert Fox]

Filomena and Laura, both about 27 in Nov 2007, worked at the same Perugia law firm. They presumably had normal office hours. They presumably both left home at a silimar time each morning and got off work very late afternoon - and may have then met friends or possibly worked late the way junior lawyers often do.

And that is why they new to "Lawyer Up"
Couldn't they have warned Amanda?

On a side note, I was reading that the lab was not certified?
We have an uncertified lab doing difficult experimental procedures without the right equipment

 

[Grinder]

Filomena and Laura, both about 27 in Nov 2007, worked at the same Perugia law firm. They presumably had normal office hours. They presumably both left home at a silimar time each morning and got off work very late afternoon - and may have then met friends or possibly worked late the way junior lawyers often do.

Meredith and Amanda were exchange students with varied class schedules. They could come home during the day between classes or activities. I believe their daily presence in the house overlapped with each other's more than they overlapped with the daily comings and goings of the two junior lawyers.

I trust Amanda's Knowledge of Meredith's door habits more than Filomena's.

Sorry but if you watch her most recent interview on Youtube, the one done by The Daily, she says that the door wasn't normally locked.

While it has always been puzzling how Filomena could know unless she tried doors when people weren't home, it is the case that the door being locked did cause Amanda concern.

 

[Grinder]

And that is why they new to "Lawyer Up"
Couldn't they have warned Amanda?

On a side note, I was reading that the lab was not certified?
We have an uncertified lab doing difficult experimental procedures without the right equipment

IIRC they didn't "lawyer up" so much over the murder but rather the lease and how to get possessions back. They may also have had a concern over the drugs, which probably were in the cosmetics box that was "stolen".

They certainly weren't set up for LCN DNA work by US standards.

 

[Grinder]

You are right but I hear / read people who constantly argue how strange her actions are. I am sure that (while I was hundreds of miles away), I am sure looking at when my brother died, some strange activities by me could be found if somebody cold scrutinize enough. I was not really hysteric but more like I had a numb dull ache.

What was it in The Stranger (Outsider in the UK IIRC) the main character was charged with murder partly because he didn't cry at his mom's funeral.

 

[Strozzi]

Sorry but if you watch her most recent interview on Youtube, the one done by The Daily, she says that the door wasn't normally locked.

While it has always been puzzling how Filomena could know unless she tried doors when people weren't home, it is the case that the door being locked did cause Amanda concern.

The fact that Amanda and Filomena have a different understanding of how often Meredith locked her door is understandable and really without probative value. Filomena believes Meredith did not lock her door because she, Filomena, is not aware of Meredith locking her door. Amanda is aware that Meredith occasionally or often locked her door.

It is possible that Meredith locked her door in some situations and not in others. Perhaps she locked her door when men were in the flat. Perhaps she locked her door when she had just come back from the ATM and leaving her purse in her room while going into the bathroom. Perhaps she locked her door when leaving the flat for half-a-day or all day, but not if going out for just an hour or two. Perhaps she locked her door when getting up from her laptop (conscious of it as an item if value) and heading out, but not when heading out when she had not immediately been using it.

 

[Strozzi]

The fact that Amanda and Filomena have a different understanding of how often Meredith locked her door is understandable and really without probative value. Filomena believes Meredith did not lock her door because she, Filomena, is not aware of Meredith locking her door. Amanda is aware that Meredith occasionally or often locked her door.

It is possible that Meredith locked her door in some situations and not in others. Perhaps she locked her door when men were in the flat. Perhaps she locked her door when she had just come back from the ATM and leaving her purse in her room while going into the bathroom. Perhaps she locked her door when leaving the flat for half-a-day or all day, but not if going out for just an hour or two. Perhaps she locked her door when getting up from her laptop (conscious of it as an item if value) and heading out, but not when heading out when she had not immediately been using it.

There is no significance in this for the murder case, unless you are trying to give probative value based on pre-determining that Knox is guilty.

 

[kwill]

CUL8R

It's such a ubiquitous American term that it even gets abbreviated and slang'd itself as in "see you" or "later dude" <google later>. The ”good evening" part isn't needed to point out how stupid it was to build a case from that text. That Massei includes it in his motivation after knowing that Patrick wasn't involved makes it even stupider.

Mignini in the arrest warrant:

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.

Remarkable. He had her interrogated on the strength of an innocent text that his own editing made suspicious. Then he had her arrested on the strength of an illegally coerced statement designed to validate that suspicion.

And then -- instead of admitting that this exchange was meaningless with respect to the murder once PL's alibi was confirmed -- he continued to pursue her and Raffaele, even in the absence of forensics that pointed toward their involvement.

Just amazing.

 

[anglolawyer]

Dan

I am totally confused about Patrick and his phone(s). Did he have one or two? If two, did the cops find them both or not? If not, why not (rhetorical - unless you happen to know)? I bet that second phone was hidden together with the knife in his kitchen drawer where nobody would ever think to look.

 

[Grinder]

The fact that Amanda and Filomena have a different understanding of how often Meredith locked her door is understandable and really without probative value. Filomena believes Meredith did not lock her door because she, Filomena, is not aware of Meredith locking her door. Amanda is aware that Meredith occasionally or often locked her door.

It is possible that Meredith locked her door in some situations and not in others. Perhaps she locked her door when men were in the flat. Perhaps she locked her door when she had just come back from the ATM and leaving her purse in her room while going into the bathroom. Perhaps she locked her door when leaving the flat for half-a-day or all day, but not if going out for just an hour or two. Perhaps she locked her door when getting up from her laptop (conscious of it as an item if value) and heading out, but not when heading out when she had not immediately been using it.

Amanda says that Meredith DIDN'T normally lock her door and that the locked door caused her concern as soon as she knew it was locked.

You may speculate all you want but no one is saying that Meredith locked her door in any frequent manner and everyone is saying that the door being locked that morning was a concern.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

low template labs and air handling

IIRC they didn't "lawyer up" so much over the murder but rather the lease and how to get possessions back. They may also have had a concern over the drugs, which probably were in the cosmetics box that was "stolen".

They certainly weren't set up for LCN DNA work by US standards.

I don't think that they were certified for even standard DNA profiling, but I have found this point to be a little bit tricky to document. They were definitely not set up for proper LCN work as done in the UK or in New Zealand: "Back at the laboratory, there are a range of measures from sticky mats to remove material from footwear to special fluids and ultra-violet light for cleaning the sparse examination area which has separate air conditioning to avoid contamination from air elsewhere in the building." link

Of course in Italy there is no such thing as airborne DNA contamination, so their buildings don't have to be designed to take this potential problem into account.