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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The information that I have is that this call was only recorded in the phones memory and not picked up by the cell network. If the network had picked up this call there would have been a cell tower noted in the call detail record.

From the timeline in the "one true wiki":



Yes, this call never connected to the network.

This means that one of only two things happened: either 1) Meredith dialled the number, but cancelled the call almost immediately before the phone started communicating the call request to the network, or 2) Meredith called the number, but had not noticed that she had no mobile signal coverage at that moment, and therefore the call was automatically dropped.

My best guess is that number (2) was what actually happened. I think it's probable that Meredith was walking down one of the narrow streets lined on both sides with tall, thick-stone buildings, and that she therefore had temporary signal drop-out. I suspect that Meredith intended to make the call properly once she had got home and got herself settled in. I suspect therefore that the reason why she never called her mother back was that she was interrupted before she had the chance to call - and this in turn supports the notion that she confronted her attacker (Guede) within minutes of arriving home.
 
I'm not sure that right, at least according to the defense guy. The message was deleted but when is unknown. I didn't see anything about cancelling the download. Either Guede deleted it or the postal police did.


To the best of my knowledge, it is correct.

In 2007, GSM phones used GPRS (packet switching protocols) to transmit and receive multimedia messages (usually photos or basic versions of internet sites). But GPRS was typically charged in addition to a user's normal tariff, so the protocol of receiving such a message was that the phone would alert the recipient to the availability of a new GPRS message - but the recipient would have to manually elect to download that message to his/her handset.

It is (IIRC) known that in this instance the transfer process started. This means that someone pressed a button on Meredith's handset to commence the download. It's further known that the transfer process was interrupted, such that the download was never completed. This too would have necessitated someone pressing the "cancel download" button on Meredith's phone while the download was in progress.

Therefore, I believe we can say with some clarity and certainty that someone firstly elected to start download of the GPRS data, then that same someone elected to stop the download shortly thereafter. That someone (in my opinion) was Rudy Guede.
 
The information that I have is that this call was only recorded in the phones memory and not picked up by the cell network. If the network had picked up this call there would have been a cell tower noted in the call detail record.

From the timeline in the "one true wiki":

I always liked the timelines on the One True Wiki
 
The term "Amanda Knox" is now being used as a term that you're about to be wrongfully accused of something:

http://ca.eonline.com/news/515840/lena-dunham-worried-tsa-was-going-to-amanda-knox-her-watch-now

It was used by "Girls" creator Lena Dunham when TSA found an unusual possession of hers....

Lena Dunham recalled how she was recently detained at the Los Angeles International Airport after security scanners detected she was in possession of a "self-defense keychain."

"It's shaped like a cat—it goes over your knuckles," the star and creator of the hit HBO series told Meyers about the item in question (aka a gift she had received from one of her colleagues). "But I guess the two ears could gut somebody."

She added, "I understood sort of intellectually it could be used as a weapon, but really all I thought was like, 'What a cute little cat!'"

...... "I was so scared. I was like, They're gonna Amanda Knox me. I'm gonna go away for a long time. The criminal justice system is broken in this country. They put away the good people and let the bad people go free."
 
Perhaps they never got a search warrant. Patrick knows his rights. Once they make him a suspect he has a right to a lawyer and the police cannot search his bar without going before a judge with the evidence they have which is a little girl told them. They had the palm print on the pillow that didn't match. They had shoe prints that probably didn't match. Add a defense lawyer in the hearing and the prosecution would be torn to shreads and coughed out of court like a hair ball. The law allow them to hold Patrick as a suspect without further judicial review but they cannot move forward. The get the one cell phone that is on his person at the time of arrest but they don't even get to fry his computer.

Raffaele's flat was searched without a warrant because Raffaele invited them in. Technically this was an illegal search since Raffaele at the time was required to have legal representation. But in Raffaele's case at least they had evidence they could take before a judge: they had his shoe prints in blood in the murder room, they had a bloody footprint on the bath mat that they claimed was compatible and they had his pocket knife which matched the characteristics of what the police had told the press the day before was the probable murder weapon.

Actually, there are three things they claim they can do before they get you a lawyer:

1) wiretap
2) arrest and hold a detainee for (2?) days
3) seize evidence and samples from the body of the arrested person

These items, and stuff from the actual crime scene, account for all of the evidence gathered before the matteini hearing.

After the matteini hearing the started in on the shoes and the knives seized in the "consensual" search off rafaeles place conducted after he became a suspect and before he had counsel. One of the items in this batch was the kitchen knife that was then repackaged and held at the police station for some period of time.

I will have to check the exhibits list, but I think it took them until the week if the 12th to obtain and execute actual search warrants, and of course the search warrants, executed under supervision of counsel, yielded nothing.

I smell a rat.
 
Last edited:
For me, I am not sure which is more interesting.... is it this UK media piece which casts serious doubt on the recent re-convictions of AK and RS, or is it the comments section below?

http://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/7014

For me, the comment's section has posts in it which display a serious (hopefully not intentional) desciption of where this case sits right now.

This is NOT the case anymore that Mignini presented to Massei's court in 2009. What is telling are the posts which simply regurgitate points made by Mignini back in 2009 which no one believes any more; not even Massei himself, not Cassazione, nor Crinini, or apparently Nencini'c court.

Example - Nencini is in trouble now for suggesting that Raffaele might have been cleared or at least "helped himself" by testifying, and not exercising his right to silence. Nencini seems to be saying that if Raffaele had allowed himself to be cross-examined, somehow that would have vindicated him - meaning, if Raffaele had thrown Knox under a bus, then mysteriously Raffaele would be proven innocent!

Even though people pointed out that Mingini probably DID offer such a deal to Raffele behind the scenes, not even Mingini dared bring that suggestion to court - that Raffaele was the key to getting at Amanda - Amanda being the real prize, and Raffaele only collateral damage.

But back to the article.

This is a straight forward case. Rudy Guede is the murderer. He murdered the poor girl, perhaps before Knox and Sollecito even had to chance to allegedly leave the apartment, and the evidence suggests they never left. The only reason this case is remotely "complicated" is when someone tried to shoe-horn Knox and Sollecito into it.

Alice Corr said:
We have read all about a beautiful young American with a seductive and sociopathic murderous bent, never mind that this is a story built on pure conjecture and ad hominem attacks, and a hypothesis which the prosecution subsequently dropped. Amanda – who, according to friends and family, was a kind but naïve honours student that worked three jobs to pay for her Italian adventure – has been guilty until proven innocent: I accuse Foxy Knoxy, in Meredith’s bedroom, with the lead piping.

With no priors nor background to suggest any criminal tendencies, her supposed overnight metamorphosis into cold-blooded murderer seems unlikely, though, of course, not impossible. But it also happens that the prosecution evidence is weak to non-existent, implausible and illogical. Their most powerful argument seems to amount to: ‘well if it wasn’t them, then who?’.

How then can we condone the upholding of their murder convictions, if we wish – as I would – to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm not sure the overturning of the acquittal offers any sort of justice to Meredith and the Kercher family, and I am certainly not comfortable that modern justice systems can condemn their suspects on the flimsiest of evidence, or be influenced by a media baying for blood.

I believe Knox has been judged and condemned by the kangaroo court of popular opinion: the odd pinch of evidence plus a good slug of hearsay, conjecture and insinuation.

Strikingly, some of the comments below simply prove Alice Corr right.....

And as such I will continue to use the word "psychopathology", and Massei's debunking of it, because it plays such a huge role in the guilters and haters who try to make something out of nothing.

Guilters and haters want to have their cake and eat it too. Claim psychopathology, then criticize someone for pointing out that's what they're doing.
 
Last edited:
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.

[/HILITE]
I don't think what you wrote and what I highlighted above is quite right. There are more factors to it. Meredith's door being locked was not by itself concerning, as Amanda had seen or heard Meredith lock her door before. If Meredith was out and had locked her door because nobody else was around - well, no concern.

It really was a combination of factors occurring together that caused Amanfa to be concerned. The 3 other indicators - open front door, tiny isolated drops of (possibly Amanda's) ear blood on the sink, and then the souvenir in the Italian women's toilet. Those 3 points made Amanfa concerned and suspicious. Add to that Meredith's door being locked and Meredith not answering her phones - that made Amanda quite concerned.

I didn't say the locked door was the only factor but rather responding to your repeated statements that Amanda found the door being locked as usual, she didn't.

If you watch this recent video of Amanda's she says at 5:33 that the door was not normally locked in agreement with what Filomena said on Nov. 2.

Rather than speculate on what made her suspicious why not listen to her tell exactly what made her suspicious?
 
Here's a blogger who seems to "get" it.

http://freedomandjustice4all.weebly.com/1/post/2014/01/giuliano-mignini-the-italian-drama-queen.html

There is however, one major difference in this case and most others, that being the brutal killing of Meredith Kercher is and has been solved for five years. Rudy Guede was charged and convicted October, 2008 based on DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, a confession and a mountain of other evidence but despite all of this was only given 16 years on appeal. For whatever reason, (pride an obvious factor) the investigator/prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini and his followers refuse to let Amanda and Raffaele be. And because Mignini won't let it be, and is quite the actor I might add, neither will media and public opinion in most of Italy and England.

It seems that these trials and public opinion as a whole in Italy resemble that of cases in American history but decades behind in some instances and centuries in others. The charges in this case and those of Mario Spezi can easily be compared to investigation and news reporting during the late 1980's- early 1990's 'Satanic Panic' here in America (as well as many other English speaking countries). Giuliano Mignini accused 20 suspects related to the Monster of Florence case, among those Mario Spezi of committing satanic rituals and being involved in a satanic cult. while in this case he accused the defendants of performing a ritualistic orgy on Halloween night. (when faced with criticism, he did however point out that Satan was never mentioned in the Knox case, by ritualistic orgy he meant that Meredith had refused group sex so they raped and killed her) (Hummmm? Very interesting and confusing term used to describe rape and murder.)
 
Of course this is right but all these indicators could still be overcome by stronger evidence going the other way. What do we have? The scream and Toto. Why did nobody conduct a sound test to see if it's even possible for a scream from inside the apartment to be heard at Nara's? I just don't believe it. But why not just settle it? Channel 5 showed she could not hear running feet which already undermines her evidence. And Toto was a clown whose evidence cannot be reconciled with anything out here in the world of common sense (making him a perfect candidate for showing up the ISC as a parcel of fools or knaves).

Like I said, it's all a question of weight. The early TOD evidence weighs more than the later stuff. The guilters then resort to 'all the other evidence' and around we go again.


The test of the scream should also include a station at the Curatolo's bench (I wonder if the PGP, SA in particular has added a plague to it in his memory) to see if the scream would need to be audible there as well as Nara's. Loud enough for Nara, then loud enough for Curatolo?

Other stations would be useful around the area to see how many people didn't hear it. Remember Rudi said the plaza had people there even playing basketball. So hard to believe that not one video camera is trained on the plaza.
 
*Gets ready to duck and cover*

Yes, that's exactly how they operate :D

I have personally witnessed, many many times, people in Italy doing exactly this: picking up their cellphone, removing the back cover, removing the battery, removing the SIM, reaching into their pocket or bag to retrieve another SIM, placing that other SIM into the same handset, reassembling the handset.

I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that this is standard practice in Italy, and has evolved to become a cultural norm. I will have a quick shufty for corroborating evidence, but I know for certain from my own first-hand observations that this has long been an entrenched practice in Italy.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that Lumumba did have two separate handsets - one for each SIM. But it's not reasonable to assume this, and in fact it's reasonable to err on the side of one-handset-many-SIMs, since this is such common behaviour in Italy.

Fire away :D

Do you enjoy the Chianti? :p Just kidding.
 
I will have to check the exhibits list, but I think it took them until the week if the 12th to obtain and execute actual search warrants, and of course the search warrants, executed under supervision of counsel, yielded nothing.

I smell a rat.


I have a note from the "One True Wiki”

Nov 8 (Thursday) said:
Raid on Raffaele's appartment, took away several articles of clothing, underware, t-shirts (Volturno's testimony)

Was there a warrent for this panty raid or was it just one of those pranks the boys of the flying squad like to pull?

I also have them returning to the flat on November 14 (no reference) and 16 (Volturno's testimony). The last was videotaped and where they find the two bottles of bleach and (OMFSM) the reciept from Quint's CONAD store!
 
Meredith's UK handset received notification of an incoming GPRS message - most probably a photo. The evidence shows that the handset began to download this message, but that the download was manually cancelled.

Massei "reasoned" that this was compatible with Meredith realising that she might have to pay cross-border data charges for receiving the message, and therefore cancelled its download. However, when placed alongside all the other evidence, the high probability is that whoever killed Meredith (erm... Guede) had taken her phones, and had already tried unsuccessfully to turn off the UK phone (the odd button pushes around 10pm)*. As he walked back around the city walls, the still-on UK phone gave a sound and light alert to show an incoming GPRS message. He then pushed some buttons to try to silence the phone, which initially succeeded in instigating the download, but then succeeded in cancelling the download.


* He successfully managed to turn off Meredith's Italian phone, possibly because he was more familiar with the handset type and because the menus on the phone display would all have been in Italian. To this day, many pro-guilt commentators do not understand that the Italian phone was switched off and the UK phone was switched on.

This is pretty cogent stuff. If I can corroborate it and the other evidence implicating TOD, I may have to lower my floor on the probability of guilt below 1%.

I am reading through the translation of Massei's report that is on truejustice.org, and I'm about halfway through. It's a textbook case of fallacious reasoning:

{Here's a few possible scenarios. I'll pick one that's plausible, but not the one that common sense would indicate is most likely, and then I'll assign a 100% probability to it. Then I'll move on to the next step which presents a few more scenarios and do the same thing. After only 5 steps, each depending on the prior steps having been resolved with certainty, I can then prove one element of the crime.}

I should probably repeat his reasoning from the point of view of innocence and see how it reads:

{One of Meredith's shoes was still tied. Clearly she had not removed that shoe voluntarily because only men would consider pulling off their shoes without untying them. Because she returned home early due to fatigue, the first thing she would have wanted to do is remove her shoes, especially after a long walk on hard cobblestone streets. Therefore, she was attacked immediately after returning home, which was shortly after 9pm.}
 
There is one question I would to ask and that is how much of an issue was made of the behavior of Amanda and Raffaele and when did the prosecution start making an issue out of behaviour. In a previous post I mentioned that I found it odd the prosecution never made an issue of the behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations. Did the prosecution make an issue out of behaviour in any of the preliminary hearings before the first trial and how much of an issue was made out of behaviour in the first trial.
 
I have a note from the "One True Wiki”


Was there a warrent for this panty raid or was it just one of those pranks the boys of the flying squad like to pull?

I also have them returning to the flat on November 14 (no reference) and 16 (Volturno's testimony). The last was videotaped and where they find the two bottles of bleach and (OMFSM) the reciept from Quint's CONAD store!

Interesting. Here are the search descriptions in the Exhibits Index:

Comparison of biological material acquired from the suspected persons (decree of corporal inspection and information of guarantee dated 11/06/2007 and reports of Initial Technical Operation dated 11/20/2007)

Exhibits referring to SOLLECITO Raffaele (evidence taken carried out by the Mobile Squad of Perugia report dated 11/06/2007, 11/07/2007 and 11/16,2007)

Sampling of presumed biological traces and exhibits acquired in the course of the technical investigation carried out on date 11/13/2007 on the car AUDI A3 registered DD661VG used by SOLLECITO Raffaele (report of the Initial Technical Investigation dated 11/13/2007

Samples of presumed biological traces and exhibits acquired in the course of the technical investigation carried out on date 11/13/2007 in the apartment in use by Raffaele SOLLECITO, situated in Corso Garibaldi 110, Perugia (report of Initial Technical Operation dated 11/13/2007

I think that there may be some overlap here. I think that I see the following search/seizures:

11/6 per decree of corporal inspection and information of guarantee (items taken off of the suspects after arrest)

11/7, I think, is a Mobile Squad evidentiary report referring to the search of the cottage on 11/5 and the cottage and Raffaele's place on 11/6 (when they tossed the place), and may include the items that Stefanoni collected prior to 11/6

11/13 Car search and apartment search

I see nothing about a search on 11/8.
 
Last edited:
Also interesting is this:

Rep.32 - Nb.1 Pair of brown and yellow shoes marked “NIKE” measure 42 ½ -page 174 A.F./66R.
Rep.33 - Nb. 1 Black compressible clasp knife marked “CRKT” with a blade length of 8.5 cm (3.3 inches), length in total 18.5cm (7.3 inches) - page 183 A.F. /71 R.;
Rep. 34 - Nb.1 Pair of men’s elastic boxer shorts marked “UOMO” (man) bearing trace of presumed blood substance - page 189 A.F./74 R.;

Rep. 35 - Nb. 1 Clasp knife complete length 18cm (7.1 inches) with a black handle, bearing the inscription “SPAIDERCO d’ELICA” page 193 A.F./75 R.;
Rep.36 - Large knife total length 31 cm (12.2 inches) with a blade length 17 cm (6.7inches), with a black handle –page 198 A.F./77R;

Rep.37 - Woman’s white skirt, marked “ZARA BASIC” page202 A.F. (not analyzed)
Rep.38 - Nb.1 White T-SHIRT in Scots yarn bearing the initial “RS” and the nb.167 – page 204 A.F. (not analyzed)
Rep.39 – Pair of women’s panties pink with white stripes - page 205 A.F.(not analyzed)
Rep. 40 - Nb. 1 Yellow polo marked “POLO BY RALPH LAUREN” - page 206 A.F.
Rep.41 - Nb.1 Yellow T shirt and black logo “NIKE” – page 207 A.F. (not analyzed)
Rep.42 - Nb.1 Long-sleeved purple polo marked “FRED PERRY” page 208 A.F. (not analyzed)
Rep.43 - Nb. 1 Short-sleeved green polo marked “CHEMISE LACOSTE” – page 210 (not analyzed)
Rep. 44 -Nb. 1 Woman’s purple long-sleeved sweater marked “DIVIDED” page 211 A.F. 80R.;
Rep.45 - Nb.1 White towel with vertical green lines with yellowish stains – page 212 A.F./81 R.;
Rep.46 - Nb.1 Bidet towel colored yellow, white, and salmon – page 214 A.F. (not analyzed )

This is from: "Exhibits referring to SOLLECITO Raffaele (evidence taken carried out by the Mobile Squad of Perugia report dated 11/06/2007, 11/07/2007 and 11/16,2007)"

I think that items 32-34 were taken off of Rafaelle's person upon arrest.

35 and 36 are the knives seized during the "consensual" search of 11/6

Note that most of the other items, Reps. 37-46, were "not analyzed." These items seem to match what Volturno described. Why would they not have been tested? I'm wondering if the search that Volturno described was illegal, and so they figured out that they shouldn't be tested.
 
Last edited:
Here is another question: If they had wiretapped Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba early on, then why does the arrest warrant only mention Knox's phone records in making the case for the "phone silence" on the night of the murder. You don't suppose that Lumumba's phone records, and maybe even Raf's, show some activity within the "phone silence" window as stated in the arrest warrant?
 
Notes

p72 the 8.56pm call went unanswered. If Arline Kercher had of answered, Meredith would have still been talking to her when she walked through the door.

p88 cops left one of the phones switched on till 7pm on nov 2

p89-93 is about the 10.13 mms and lana's garden. One of the phones hit a tree and fell. They were launched from the park. One landing 18 meters in.

p106-108 the phone was in park Sant'Angelo at 10.13pm

DOMANDA – Ora quello che a noi interessa, oltre tutta questa ricostruzione astratta che poi è il dato credo più importante a noi per gli accertamenti che interessano la Corte, è capire: secondo tutte queste ricostruzioni, celle e misurazioni e secondo la sua esperienza questo telefono cellulare quando è che è uscito dalla casa di Meredith? Siamo in grado di dirlo?
RISPOSTA – Vado alla sintesi del risultato e poi la posso spiegare. In base alla sintesi del risultato il telefono si sarebbe trovato nell'area per cui stabilito un orario che non è un orario di traffico particolare, anche la Polizia giudiziaria
ha fatto esami in relazione alla quantità di traffico e non ci dobbiamo preoccupare di quello, l'area in cui viene impegnata la
cella 30064 che si trova da questa parte e quindi escludendo un'area rurale da questa parte che non ci interessa, è l'area del parco Sant'Angelo. Allora dove? Che collegamento ci può essere? Non è l'area dove si trova la casa di Meredith e di
Amanda, perché dalle misure fatte vi spiegherò la situazione come è, e quindi si trovava comunque già distante dalla casa di via della Pergola. Quanto distante? Immaginiamo che alle 22.13...
DOMANDA – Allora prima, poi ci spiega le slide, però giusto per richiamare l'attenzione della Corte, perché poi tutta questa premessa serve per questa conclusione. Tutta questa sua ricostruzione sulla base degli atti della Polizia giudiziaria,
delle sue misurazioni a noi ci deve servire a qualcosa e non solo a sapere come funzionano le cose in astratto e ci deve servire a sapere come quando esce il telefonino. Siccome noi abbiamo un orario, 22.13, con una connessione GPRS, la domanda che a me alla quale mi interessa che lei risponde: premesso che esiste questo orario 22.13 con questa connessione secondo la sua ricostruzione e secondo le successive slide questa connessione è avvenuta quando il telefono era dentro casa di via della Pergola o fuori?
RISPOSTA – No, la connessione secondo me, e sono convinto quando lo dico, è avvenuta qua, mentre il telefono si trovava dentro parco Sant'Angelo, in prossimità del giardino di via della Pergola e verosimilmente è il motivo per cui il telefono è stato lanciato nel giardino di via della Pergola, diversamente non ci sarebbe neanche un motivo per lanciarlo lì. Secondo me è successo che il telefono ha ricevuto un messaggio MMS, il telefono è suonato, chi aveva il telefono si è ricordato in quel momento di avere un telefono che tra l'altro era la prova di un reato e ha pensato di liberarsene e se ne è liberato nel punto
in cui si trovava. Quindi alle 22.13 il telefono si trovava qua, si trovava più o meno qua, non può essere molto distante, ma il fatto che non potesse essere molto distante è dovuto alla compatibilità della copertura radio elettrica con quella cella, e la vedrete nel dettaglio dopo, e alla compatibilità con il lancio che non può essere 200 metri più là, ma deve essere nell'arco di pochi metri o pochissime decine di metri. A questo punto quando può essere uscito? Io posso retrodatare l'uscita dalla casa limitatamente al tempo di percorrenza, stiamo parlando di una percorrenza che può essere fatta, io l'ho fatta per via stradale, per di qui sono 800 metri circa, può essere fatta per via pedonale per di qui e ritornando sulla strada oppure può essere fatta per via pedonale tagliando per il prato. Giusto perché sia chiaro e poi dalle immagini delle foto si capisce meglio, passando per il centro di Perugia, soprattutto se dopo un evento del genere, quindi verosimilmente trafelato, magari insanguinato e quanto altro chi portava il telefonino che era di Meredith e quindi glielo ha tolto nel momento o nei momenti immediatamente prima o dopo l'omicidio di Meredith verosimilmente non voleva farsi vedere. A questo punto non sarebbe passato per il centro, sarebbe passato per l'esterno, potendo scegliere e conoscendo Perugia verosimilmente non lungo la strada che è il percorso più lungo ma magari lungo il parco Sant'Angelo che è il percorso più breve. Combinazione in questo percorso la cella che si riceve meglio di gran lunga di tutte le altre è la cella 30064 ed è quella a cui corrisponde il maggior valore del parametro C2 che è quello che causa la decisione per. Lungo parco Sant'Angelo il motivo per cui la persona sia arrivata qua, non sono e non voglio essere io a dirlo, ma in questo momento è successo qualche cosa, che il telefono che poteva essere abbandonato nel prato, in una siepe di parco Sant'Angelo, buttato giù da una ripa lungo la strada è finita in un'area ristretta che è il giardino. Alle 22.00 circa quando o dopo le 22.00 a novembre completamente buio il giardino non si distingue come una entità assestante, si distingue come una macchia, magari la macchia più grande della riva scoscesa che è dopo via Andrea da Perugia. Quindi verosimilmente l'intento di liberarsi dal telefono è corrisposto con un lancio che voleva farlo andare più lontano possibile e che l'ha portato in mezzo agli alberi senza sapere che al di là degli alberi c'era il giardino. Questa è la conclusione a cui sono giunto.

p124-127 30064 signal strength at the cottage.

p131

DOMANDA – Ma l'ipotesi più probabile è che il telefono era uscito?
RISPOSTA – Al 99 per cento la cella 30064 sarebbe stata scelta come cella servente tra i punti misurati nel parco Sant'Angelo, esiste una residuale possibilità nella casa di Meredith che può essere un punto percentuale, due, tre.
DOMANDA – La cella 30064 non si può dire che sia oggettivamente incompatibile con via della Pergola, in base a questi calculi che tengono conto del fattore C2 si può dire che è più probabile che si trovi al parco Sant'Angelo, come probabilità abbiamo il 99 per cento?
RISPOSTA – Guardi la probabilità si può misurare in questi termini e la cosa che vi potrei dire che a parco Sant'Angelo il divario con la cella più vicina è notevole, è notevolissimo,
quindi avrebbe impegnato quella senza andarne a cercare un'altra. Questo anche perché ovviamente ho tenuto nel debito conto i risultati delle misure che sono state fatte dalla
Procura e questo mi consente certamente di escludere che la cella 30064 fosse incompatibile con via Sperandio, cosa che emergeva all'altra parte.
DOMANDA – Ci sono altre precisazioni che vuole fare adesso?
RISPOSTA – No.
DOMANDA – Perché io avrei finito.
RISPOSTA – Ritengo da no.

Here is the best I can do with this. I do not stand by its accuracy :eek:

QUESTION: Now we are interested, beyond all this abstract reconstruction, which is the most important I think to us for investigations involving the Court, you understand: according to all these reconstructions, cells, and measurements and according to your experience, when did this cell phone come out of Meredith’s house? Are we able to say?

REPLY: I refer to the summary of the results and then I can explain. According to the summary of result the phone would be found in the area established at a time that is not a particular traffic time, here the judicial police examination in relation to the amount of traffic and we should not worry about that, the area in which it is committed to the 30064 cell that is located on this part, and then excluding a rural area on this side that does not interest us, it is the area of Sant'Angelo. Then where? That connection can be there? It is not the area where the home of Meredith and Amanda is located, because the measures taken will explain this situation, and it was however already far from the house on via della Pergola. How far? Let’s say at 22.13…

QUESTION: Then first, then explains the slide, however just to draw the attention of the Court, because then this whole premise is used to this end. All this reconstruction on the basis of the acts of the judicial police,
its measurements should serve us to something and not just to know how things work in the abstract and should serve us to know how the phone when it comes out. Since we have a timetable, 22.13, with a GPRS connection, the question to me that I care that she responds: as long as there is this time 22.13 with this connection according to its reconstruction and subsequent slide this connection has occurred when the phone was in the House on via della Pergola or out?

REPLY: No, in my opinion, and I'm confident when I say, what took place here, while the phone was located inside Sant'Angelo Park, near the garden of via della Pergola and possibly is the reason why the phone was thrown in via della Pergola, otherwise there would be no reason to throw it there. I think it happened that the phone received an MMS message, the phone rang, who had the phone remembers at that moment to have a phone which is evidence of a crime and decided to get rid of it and it is released at the point where he was. Therefore at 22.13 the phone was here, he was more or less here, may not be far away, but the fact that he could not be very far is due to the compatibility of electric radio coverage with that cell, and you will see in detail later, and compatibility with where it was thrown cannot be 200 meters further from there, but must be within a few feet or a few tens of meters. At this point when can he be gone from there? I can backdate the leaving of the house within given limits, we are talking about a trip that can be done, I have done it by road, for it is 800 meters, can be made to the pedestrian street to here and back on the road, or it can be made to the pedestrian street cutting across the lawn. Just because it is clear and then by images of photos we understand better, passing through the Centre of Perugia, especially if after such an event, then likely to be breathless, bloody and maybe because others carried Meredith’s phone and then took him in the moment or in the moments immediately before or after Meredith's murder likely did not want to be seen. At this point he would not have passed through the Centre, he would pass to the outside, and choosing and probably not knowing Perugia along the road is the longest path but perhaps Sant'Angelo Park which is the shortest path. Combination in this location the cell that you get better by far than any other is 30064 cell and is the one that has the highest value of the parameter C2 which is what causes the decision. Sant'Angelo Park along why the person has arrived here, are not and do not want to be me to say, but at this time something happened, that the phone could be left on the lawn, in a Sant'Angelo Park hedge, thrown down a ??? and along the way ended up in a restricted area which is the garden. At approximately 22.00 or after 22.00 in November [it is] completely dark, no garden stands out as an [arranged area?], stands out like a spot, perhaps the biggest spot of bluff that is after via Andrea da Perugia. Then probably the intent to get rid of the phone corresponds with a launch that would make it go as far as possible and that landed in the middle of the trees without knowing that beyond the trees there was the garden. This is the conclusion to which I have come.

QUESTION: But the most likely hypothesis is that the phone was released?

REPLY: 99% that cell 30064 was chosen as the cell serving among measured points in Sant'Angelo, there is a residual chance of it being in Meredith's house, which may be one percentage point, two, three.

QUESTION: the cell 30064, you can't tell that it is objectively incompatible with via della Pergola, on the basis of these calculations which take into account of the factor C2 can it be said that it is more likely that you are here [compared] to Sant'Angelo, as a probability we are 99 percent?

REPLY: the probability can be measured in these terms, and the thing that I could say that in Sant'Angelo the gap with the closest cell is notable, is notable. Then he engaged that without attempting another. This also because obviously I gave due regard to the results of measurements that have been made by the Procura and this certainly allows me to exclude that the cell is 30064 incompatible with via Sperandio, which emerged at the other direction.

QUESTION: there are other details that you want to address now?

REPLY: No.

QUESTION: Because I would be finished.

REPLY: I believe no.
 
Here is the best I can do with this. I do not stand by its accuracy :eek:

QUESTION: Now we are interested, beyond all this abstract reconstruction, which is the most important I think to us for investigations involving the Court, you understand: according to all these reconstructions, cells, and measurements and according to your experience, when did this cell phone come out of Meredith’s house? Are we able to say?

REPLY: I refer to the summary of the results and then I can explain. According to the summary of result the phone would be found in the area established at a time that is not a particular traffic time, here the judicial police examination in relation to the amount of traffic and we should not worry about that, the area in which it is committed to the 30064 cell that is located on this part, and then excluding a rural area on this side that does not interest us, it is the area of Sant'Angelo. Then where? That connection can be there? It is not the area where the home of Meredith and Amanda is located, because the measures taken will explain this situation, and it was however already far from the house on via della Pergola. How far? Let’s say at 22.13…

QUESTION: Then first, then explains the slide, however just to draw the attention of the Court, because then this whole premise is used to this end. All this reconstruction on the basis of the acts of the judicial police,
its measurements should serve us to something and not just to know how things work in the abstract and should serve us to know how the phone when it comes out. Since we have a timetable, 22.13, with a GPRS connection, the question to me that I care that she responds: as long as there is this time 22.13 with this connection according to its reconstruction and subsequent slide this connection has occurred when the phone was in the House on via della Pergola or out?

REPLY: No, in my opinion, and I'm confident when I say, what took place here, while the phone was located inside Sant'Angelo Park, near the garden of via della Pergola and possibly is the reason why the phone was thrown in via della Pergola, otherwise there would be no reason to throw it there. I think it happened that the phone received an MMS message, the phone rang, who had the phone remembers at that moment to have a phone which is evidence of a crime and decided to get rid of it and it is released at the point where he was. Therefore at 22.13 the phone was here, he was more or less here, may not be far away, but the fact that he could not be very far is due to the compatibility of electric radio coverage with that cell, and you will see in detail later, and compatibility with where it was thrown cannot be 200 meters further from there, but must be within a few feet or a few tens of meters. At this point when can he be gone from there? I can backdate the leaving of the house within given limits, we are talking about a trip that can be done, I have done it by road, for it is 800 meters, can be made to the pedestrian street to here and back on the road, or it can be made to the pedestrian street cutting across the lawn. Just because it is clear and then by images of photos we understand better, passing through the Centre of Perugia, especially if after such an event, then likely to be breathless, bloody and maybe because others carried Meredith’s phone and then took him in the moment or in the moments immediately before or after Meredith's murder likely did not want to be seen. At this point he would not have passed through the Centre, he would pass to the outside, and choosing and probably not knowing Perugia along the road is the longest path but perhaps Sant'Angelo Park which is the shortest path. Combination in this location the cell that you get better by far than any other is 30064 cell and is the one that has the highest value of the parameter C2 which is what causes the decision. Sant'Angelo Park along why the person has arrived here, are not and do not want to be me to say, but at this time something happened, that the phone could be left on the lawn, in a Sant'Angelo Park hedge, thrown down a ??? and along the way ended up in a restricted area which is the garden. At approximately 22.00 or after 22.00 in November [it is] completely dark, no garden stands out as an [arranged area?], stands out like a spot, perhaps the biggest spot of bluff that is after via Andrea da Perugia. Then probably the intent to get rid of the phone corresponds with a launch that would make it go as far as possible and that landed in the middle of the trees without knowing that beyond the trees there was the garden. This is the conclusion to which I have come.

QUESTION: But the most likely hypothesis is that the phone was released?

REPLY: 99% that cell 30064 was chosen as the cell serving among measured points in Sant'Angelo, there is a residual chance of it being in Meredith's house, which may be one percentage point, two, three.

QUESTION: the cell 30064, you can't tell that it is objectively incompatible with via della Pergola, on the basis of these calculations which take into account of the factor C2 can it be said that it is more likely that you are here [compared] to Sant'Angelo, as a probability we are 99 percent?

REPLY: the probability can be measured in these terms, and the thing that I could say that in Sant'Angelo the gap with the closest cell is notable, is notable. Then he engaged that without attempting another. This also because obviously I gave due regard to the results of measurements that have been made by the Procura and this certainly allows me to exclude that the cell is 30064 incompatible with via Sperandio, which emerged at the other direction.

QUESTION: there are other details that you want to address now?

REPLY: No.

QUESTION: Because I would be finished.

REPLY: I believe no.

I think the questioning at pg 171 is a better indicator on this (human translation)

Pellero, Starts p171
COMODI: To me it is, we also examined the last few days, for example the 3rd October on 6 occasions Meredith’s telephone, especially when calling abroad connects the famous cell repeater 30064, the 4th October connects one, two, three, four times, the 5th October once, but of course one would have to see what is the overall traffic, no?
A: In particular one needs to see where Meredith was.
Judge Massei: In particular where?
A: Where Meredith was when she made these calls.
COMODI: Where she was. Well, where do you think she was?
A: I’m not able to know, the point is this: we have to compare apples to apples and pears to pears. I can compare against objective data, measure the values, I look at the values and seeing as they automatically place themselves on a scale, I respond that it would have chosen the one with the highest value. To go on and imagine from the communications Meredith did that day using cell repeater 30064 at a certain time and at that time she was at home rather than sitting in the arena of Sant’Angelo Park, I’m not in a position to say.
COMODI: So your alternative is that, either she was at home, or she was in the area of Sant’Angelo Park? Sant’Angelo or sant’Antonio?
A: Sant’Angelo. The alternative is simpler, the cell repeaters offer coverage to an area and to the extent that is possible in areas in the immediate vicinity, the possibility depends on the factors that we discussed earlier which I won’t repeat. So it couldn’t have been in an area that is absolutely not covered by cell repeater 30064. So with it established that there is a residual probability in via della Pergola I’ve already said that I cannot exclude via della Pergola, but there also isn’t this probability clearly shown in the reading of the logs which tells me yes, it was certainly in via della Pergola at that time. That is to say, without having information that tells me that at that time it was certainly there, at this point I could evaluate a compatibility between the fact that it was certainly there and it used that cell repeater where I have already said that in via della Pergola there is a marginal probability as much as we want, but there was, there is, while at Sant’Angelo park I would say it’s a significant probability, it’s the most significant probability, in the sense that in most cases, unless there is some specific reason, it would always use that one.
COMODI: Good, so all the times that Meredith’s telephone used cell repeater 30064 you maintain that it is more likely that Meredith was in the park rather than at home, correct?
A: She could also have been at Ponte Rio, should could have been in any area covered by that cell repeater.
COMODI: Also at home?
A: With a marginal probability she could also have been at home, but marginally, that is to say the probability of being at home could have been due to the nearest cell repeaters being busy and in order of priority that we have established it could have used that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom