Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Once again, the thread has grown lengthy, so this is a continuation from Part 11. For further reference, see also Part 10, Part 9, Part 8, Part 7, Part 6, Part 5, Part 4, Part 3, Part 2, and Part 1.

Posted By: LashL

The checksum works on the IMEI number (based on Wikipedia article on Luhn's checksum). What information do the police obtain when they look at phone company records of someone's mobile phone? Do both phone number and IMEI show up, as well as connect duration and connect antenna locations? And could text message content be stored for some time and be accessible?

The IMEI number is tied to the actual handset, not the SIM. If you have a handset and you replace one SIM with another, your phone number (and SIM number) will change, but your IMEI number will not change.

Therefore it's erroneous to say that just because Lumumba's IMEI number remained the same, his phone number (and SIM number) remained the same. He could easily have been using the same handset (hence same IMEI) but changed the SIM card (hence new phone number). Of course it could be the case that his entire setup - handset and SIM - remained constant, but one cannot automatically infer that from the fact that only his IMEI remained constant.

(In a properly-functioning network/operator market, phones (by way of their IMEI) are meant to only work with certain SIMs, in order to prevent theft and misuse. But, particularly in countries with thriving grey/black markets such as Italy, it's easy to get a handset "unlocked" such that it can be used with any SIM.)

 

[Kauffer]

The checksum works on the IMEI number (based on Wikipedia article on Luhn's checksum). What information do the police obtain when they look at phone company records of someone's mobile phone? Do both phone number and IMEI show up, as well as connect duration and connect antenna locations? And could text message content be stored for some time and be accessible?

We know the cops had Ms Knox's records. These show Lumumba's phone number for the 8:18/8:35 texts but not his IMEI. They only show Ms Knox's IMEI. But could the cops have got more information directly from the phone company about Lumumba's identity or even the content of the messages?

I think this is rather crucial. Using Ms Knox's records as a starting point, what, reasonably, could the police have discovered about Lumumba in order to give them prior knowledge - that is, before the interrogation of Ms Knox on the 5th?

This is a technological assessment. The information is discoverable. Without wishing to over egg the pudding, it can be demonstrated how much the police knew and, if they knew as much as I am suggesting they probably did, give a very convincing lie indeed to the contention that there could be any real possibility that Lumumba's name was put forward by Ms Knox in connection with the murder.

Indeed, it may well be that the conduct of the police in the interrogation as far as this issue is concerned was even worse than Ms Knox herself remembered it - that the police had clear knowledge, belief, preparation and strategy, and carried out their plan exactly as they had intended to - that they deliberately incited or compelled Ms Knox to name Lumumba and that it was irrelevant to them whether she actually believed it because they already "knew". But it was essential to their plan that she name him.

 

[Numbers]

The IMEI number is tied to the actual handset, not the SIM. If you have a handset and you replace one SIM with another, your phone number (and SIM number) will change, but your IMEI number will not change.

Therefore it's erroneous to say that just because Lumumba's IMEI number remained the same, his phone number (and SIM number) remained the same. He could easily have been using the same handset (hence same IMEI) but changed the SIM card (hence new phone number). Of course it could be the case that his entire setup - handset and SIM - remained constant, but one cannot automatically infer that from the fact that only his IMEI remained constant.

(In a properly-functioning network/operator market, phones (by way of their IMEI) are meant to only work with certain SIMs, in order to prevent theft and misuse. But, particularly in countries with thriving grey/black markets such as Italy, it's easy to get a handset "unlocked" such that it can be used with any SIM.)

http://www.maketecheasier.com/imei-number/

IMEI numbers have one principal purpose: to identify mobile devices. Their secondary purpose, or intention, is to prevent theft. If a mobile device can be universally identified, a thief cannot change the SIM card on a phone and expect to keep the phone. IMEI numbers are hard-coded into device hardware, making it nearly impossible to change them without somehow damaging the device.

When a carrier knows that a device has been stolen, it can blacklist the IMEI code and lock it out of the network. Later on, it tells other cellular networks to do the same.
________
If the police can obtain the IMEI as well as the phone number from the teleco. then they would know that the SIM card had been swapped, and the same handset was in use.

If the police see a different IMEI, they would think it's a different handset. If the checksum at the end is different, and the police don't understand that it's a checksum and that somehow it's not getting calculated or displayed properly, then they may falsely believe that a different handset is in use. But the phone number (SIM) would probably stay the same. So why would the police be confused by the checksum issue? Or would they pretend to be confused to create an issue - the manufacture of "reasonable suspicion" for a judge?

 

[Numbers]

We know the cops had Ms Knox's records. These show Lumumba's phone number for the 8:18/8:35 texts but not his IMEI. They only show Ms Knox's IMEI. But could the cops have got more information directly from the phone company about Lumumba's identity or even the content of the messages?

I think this is rather crucial. Using Ms Knox's records as a starting point, what, reasonably, could the police have discovered about Lumumba in order to give them prior knowledge - that is, before the interrogation of Ms Knox on the 5th?

This is a technological assessment. The information is discoverable. Without wishing to over egg the pudding, it can be demonstrated how much the police knew and, if they knew as much as I am suggesting they probably did, give a very convincing lie indeed to the contention that there could be any real possibility that Lumumba's name was put forward by Ms Knox in connection with the murder.

Indeed, it may well be that the conduct of the police in the interrogation as far as this issue is concerned was even worse than Ms Knox herself remembered it - that the police had clear knowledge, belief, preparation and strategy, and carried out their plan exactly as they had intended to - that they deliberately incited or compelled Ms Knox to name Lumumba and that it was irrelevant to them whether she actually believed it because they already "knew". But it was essential to their plan that she name him.

Yes. I think that's what happened. The Nov. 5/6 interrogation was an ambush by the police. Why did the police do it? The Italian police working on a case must follow the general direction of the prosecutor; in this case PM Mignini.

To my thinking, the whole point of the police exercise of Nov. 5/6 was to obtain or manufacture "reasonable suspicion" (or the appearance of the same) in order to arrest Amanda Knox, and with her Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba. And why?

No doubt Mignini's fantasies played a major role. But the timing was probably critical, because Amanda Knox's mother was on her way to Italy from Seattle, and expected to arrive Nov. 6. That's why the police could not wait another few days in order to fully analyze the DNA forensic results that were issuing from Stefanoni's lab on or about Nov. 6. Those results would show, for example, that neither Raffaele Sollecito nor Patrick Lumumba had any DNA signature in the murder room or in/on Meredith Kercher.

 

[carbonjam72]

There are technical problems with testing for Guede's DNA in this situation. You are looking for a small amount of his DNA amongst copious amounts of the victim's. The latter will actually suppress the amplification of the former. The way round this is to look for the Y chromosome alleles, as there will be none from the victim and the primers are Y specific. At some point Stephanoni was asked why she did not do this and I think responded that it was financial. Although pro guilt posters will not admit this the scene was not well processed.

That's a great point. Do you happen to know where stef said this?

 

[Numbers]

There are technical problems with testing for Guede's DNA in this situation. You are looking for a small amount of his DNA amongst copious amounts of the victim's. The latter will actually suppress the amplification of the former. The way round this is to look for the Y chromosome alleles, as there will be none from the victim and the primers are Y specific. At some point Stephanoni was asked why she did not do this and I think responded that it was financial. Although pro guilt posters will not admit this the scene was not well processed.

That's a great point. Do you happen to know where stef said this?

Should we believe that it wasn't tested for financial (budgetary) reasons? Could the testing have been done and the results suppressed?

 

[carbonjam72]

Yes. I think that's what happened. The Nov. 5/6 interrogation was an ambush by the police. Why did the police do it? The Italian police working on a case must follow the general direction of the prosecutor; in this case PM Mignini.

To my thinking, the whole point of the police exercise of Nov. 5/6 was to obtain or manufacture "reasonable suspicion" (or the appearance of the same) in order to arrest Amanda Knox, and with her Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba. And why?

No doubt Mignini's fantasies played a major role. But the timing was probably critical, because Amanda Knox's mother was on her way to Italy from Seattle, and expected to arrive Nov. 6. That's why the police could not wait another few days in order to fully analyze the DNA forensic results that were issuing from Stefanoni's lab on or about Nov. 6. Those results would show, for example, that neither Raffaele Sollecito nor Patrick Lumumba had any DNA signature in the murder room or in/on Meredith Kercher.

This explains what the police/Mignini did. It still doesn't explain why.

Why are the police so hell bent on overlooking Bonassi's story of their new non-flushing friend? Unless they think Patrick is the basketball friend, they know they have another viable suspect.

Why does Mignini so want Amanda, and so not want Rudy?

You know my views.

 

[carbonjam72]

Should we believe that it wasn't tested for financial (budgetary) reasons? Could the testing have been done and the results suppressed?

Yes, also a great point.

Are there records where such a test might be spotted as having been performed, yet not turned over?

 

[Numbers]

This explains what the police/Mignini did. It still doesn't explain why.
Why are the police so hell bent on overlooking Bonassi's story of their new non-flushing friend? Unless they think Patrick is the basketball friend, they know they have another viable suspect.

Why does Mignini so want Amanda, and so not want Rudy?

You know my views.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

"Why" can be the most difficult question. I can't supply a sensible answer.

If one considers the Monster of Florence cases as reported in Preston and Spezi's book, there are two "whys":

1. Why did the MOF kill those people, and mutilate those women?
People will respond - some kind of psychopathology.

2. Why were innocent persons prosecuted/persecuted by Mignini et al.?

 

[Kauffer]

This explains what the police/Mignini did. It still doesn't explain why.

Why are the police so hell bent on overlooking Bonassi's story of their new non-flushing friend? Unless they think Patrick is the basketball friend, they know they have another viable suspect.

Why does Mignini so want Amanda, and so not want Rudy?

You know my views.

I think they were just incompetent. And as time went on it was all about saving face - a prime cultural imperative as in many other countries. I'm not persuaded by other arguments - the Guede informant hypothesis or an anti American hypothesis, although a certain misogyny came into play culturally. But this all happened because the police and the prosecutor were idiots and the prosecutor's reputation was more important to him than Amanda Knox. Prosecutors are a damned odd breed wherever you find them. Over here, our former prosecutor in chief, Keir Starmer was odd - a background in human rights would you believe, before and now, he's standing for Parliament - big ego - very ambitious, very odd - wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA under fingernails

I would be cautious about that actually. . . .Like to see tests of DNA samples found under fingernails and what the relationships are. For example, if one often finds friend's DNA under other friend's fingernails, not really useful evidence. One cannot otherwise just speculate.

While reasonably new to this forum, I was a skeptic before I became interested in this case.

Non-self DNA under fingernails is uncommon. It is seen about 5% of the time, if I understand correctly. Peter Gill's book covers this on about p. 44.

 

[Dan O.]

Here ya go,
seen in full view of the public, that is some scratch!
And look, she is not even hiding it!
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=480&pictureid=9345[/qimg]

There is a photo of this "scratch" taken by police on the morning when she was detained. I don't have that photo handy but I had once posted a cropped image from here with the caption saying this was what the scratch looked like. It was convincingly similar enough that a guilter copied my clipping to PMF where they put it on display.

 

[carbonjam72]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

"Why" can be the most difficult question. I can't supply a sensible answer.

If one considers the Monster of Florence cases as reported in Preston and Spezi's book, there are two "whys":

1. Why did the MOF kill those people, and mutilate those women?
People will respond - some kind of psychopathology.

2. Why were innocent persons prosecuted/persecuted by Mignini et al.?

If the police/Mignini felt responsible for allowing Rudy Guede to remain free to kill Meredith, because they didn't prosecute him for burglaries in Perugia and instead employed him as an informant, and helped free him from Milan police just five days before he killed Meredith, then protecting Rudy is protecting themselves.

That's a coherent theory that answers the question; why protect Rudy?
In addition, using an young attractive female in yet one more satanic conspiracy, which Mignini at first tried to do, would help salvage Mignini's then collapsing career.

Plus Amanda knew Patrick and they had a "playable text message" that could be spun. And in the police/Mignini's thinking, perhaps any black man would do. If they had biological evidence (or knew they needed to cover for Rudy), and knew they needed a black man. (Just like Raf's kitchen knife).

That's a coherent reason as to the question; why to ensnare Amanda? Raf only got pulled in because he wouldn't abandon Amanda.

 

[carbonjam72]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

"Why" can be the most difficult question. I can't supply a sensible answer.

If one considers the Monster of Florence cases as reported in Preston and Spezi's book, there are two "whys":

1. Why did the MOF kill those people, and mutilate those women?
People will respond - some kind of psychopathology.

2. Why were innocent persons prosecuted/persecuted by Mignini et al.?

My belief, which Preston and Spezi allude to, is that Giutarri and Mignini hoped to use the Monster of Florence cases as a vehicle to career advancement. The two previous investigators who obtained a discredited conviction against Pietro Pacciani (reversed on appeal when the prosecutor argued for acquittal), both received high profile career promotions.

Mignini/Giutarri's 'Narducci trail' cases, were an effort to insinuate themselves into the Monster of Florence cases. Spezi ridiculing Mignini & Giutarri for these efforts is what got Spezi arrested and imprisoned. Preston's PR campaign helped get Spezi released after just 3 weeks in prison, and that embarrassment is what led to the charges against Mignini and Giutarri.

Well Mignini has his promotion, and the Narducci trail claims have been finally dismissed this year, as have the criminal charges against Mignini.

That's why I believe the judiciary is finally able once again to let Amanda and Raf go free.

I'm actually optimistic.

 

[Diocletus]

Should we believe that it wasn't tested for financial (budgetary) reasons? Could the testing have been done and the results suppressed?

Well, it's interesting that you ask, because I had started to examine this, but due to the paucity of Y-results, wasn't able to get too far. I did notice, though, that the Y tests have their own numbering system.

Thus, in the first week of testing, we have Y nos. 200-204, all processed in plate no. 358.

Then, the Flick Knife is no. 363, the Bra is no. 453, the Bra Clasp is no. 485, Kercher's Sweatshirt is no. 488, and the purse is no. 520.

Curiously, the Y profile for Guede's toothbrush is no. 802, although testing of this item followed the first batch, so the true number should be between 204 and 363. No. 802 is far too late to be the genuine test for this item.

So, I have two observations:

1) the numbering scheme for the Y tests shows huge gaps (unlike the autosomal tests), leaving open the possibility that many Y results were performed and not been produced, and

2) the profile for Guede's toothbrush is not the original profile (for some reason, this profile was re-run and the original result was suppressed).

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, it's interesting that you ask, because I had started to examine this, but due to the paucity of Y-results, wasn't able to get too far. I did notice, though, that the Y tests have their own numbering system.

Thus, in the first week of testing, we have Y nos. 200-204, all processed in plate no. 358.

Then, the Flick Knife is no. 363, the Bra is no. 453, the Bra Clasp is no. 485, Kercher's Sweatshirt is no. 488, and the purse is no. 520.

Curiously, the Y profile for Guede's toothbrush is no. 802, although testing of this item followed the first batch, so the true number should be between 204 and 363. No. 802 is far too late to be the genuine test for this item.

So, I have two observations:

1) the numbering scheme for the Y tests shows huge gaps (unlike the autosomal tests), leaving open the possibility that many Y results were performed and not been produced, and

2) the profile for Guede's toothbrush is not the original profile (for some reason, this profile was re-run and the original result was suppressed).

Just great.

 

[Dan O.]

On the subject of what the police knew and when they knew it, I have already gone over that the police had Amanda's phone records from the evening of the 2nd. They will see the text exchange with Patrick's number being the last activity on Amanda's phone before Mererdith's murder. Earlier that day and discussed in the trial on day 2 we learn what the police can do with phone numbers:

2009-02-07: Trial day 2 http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/amanda-diabolic-or-lost-in-translation.html

In the evening of November 1 Lana is about to go to the toilet, before going to bed, and right in that moment a stranger calls her, saying that under her toilet there's a bomb. A joke which couldn't be more timed. She calls the Police who arrive immediately, it was urgent,
Rather than the toilet the police checks the garden, but it's okay, Lana feels relaxed. And good night.
Next morning, November 2, in the middle of a lawn of Lana's garden, about 15-20 meters from the street, her son Alessandro finds the Motorola cellphone, turned off.
Postal Police station, 10:58: Lana Elisabetta starts dictating her lawsuit against unknown and delivers the Motorola, thinking that the police lost it the night before.
11:31, commissioner Bartolozzi closes the record and queries the Vodafone database for that number: Romanelli Filomena, via della Pergola 7, Perugia.Right after, before 12:00, a patrol leaves, Bartolozzi states, destination via della Pergola.
Lana goes shopping. But her daughter Giannetta calls her. She found another cellphone that was ringing in the bushes of the property, 5-6 meters from the street. Someone is calling again that Ericson cellphone: AMANDA.
12:46, Lana is again in front of Bartolozzi with the new cellphone. But the number doesn't appear this time, it must be a foreign sim.Bartolozzi writes in the second record that a patrol leaves for via della Pergola after he sized both cellphones, so it must be at around 13:00.
Did the patrol leave before 12 or around 13? Where is the mistake?
Bartolozzi explains that he made a mistake in the written record, and that the patrol was sent out around 12:00 rather than after 12:46.​

So, the postal police have direct access to the database for providers operating within their country. If Patrick's phone is Italian, the police could know his name as early as November 2.

Frank interviews Patrick at his home: Perugia-Shock 2008-03-03

"I have a Vodafone SIM. It doesn't "work" in the bar and I always leave it here, you see, just here. It's the only place where it "works" a little bit. That evening my cellphone was here. I don't know how it could have hooked the cell of via S.Antonio. Now that you ask me, I have to remember to ask my lawyers because it's really a mystery for me.
The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...​

ETA: I had earlier presumed that this interview had taken place at Patrick's bar because the Swiss professor asserts that is where Patrick was at the time when the text messages were exchanged. But I believe the bar would still be closed at the time this interview took place.

 

[lonepinealex]

If the police/Mignini felt responsible for allowing Rudy Guede to remain free to kill Meredith, because they didn't prosecute him for burglaries in Perugia and instead employed him as an informant, and helped free him from Milan police just five days before he killed Meredith, then protecting Rudy is protecting themselves.

That's a coherent theory that answers the question; why protect Rudy?

I know we've been through this before, but for me it's not a coherent theory, for the simple reason that Guede is the only one in jail. If they really wanted to protect him, they could have suppressed all the evidence of his presence, since they'd already begun the railroading process on three others.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of Guede being an informant.

 

[Dan O.]

I know we've been through this before, but for me it's not a coherent theory, for the simple reason that Guede is the only one in jail. If they really wanted to protect him, they could have suppressed all the evidence of his presence, since they'd already begun the railroading process on three others.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of Guede being an informant.

Except it is not Guede that is being protected. Guede is nobody. Why would anybody protect him. If there is a conspiracy going on here it would be to protect the sorry little asses of certain authorities. Rudy would be protected only so far as insuring that he didn't take the entire blame for Meredith's murder in order to keep the false prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele alive. Rudy would also need to be controlled so he doesn't talk to anybody that would be believed.

 

[lonepinealex]

Except it is not Guede that is being protected. Guede is nobody. Why would anybody protect him. If there is a conspiracy going on here it would be to protect the sorry little asses of certain authorities. Rudy would be protected only so far as insuring that he didn't take the entire blame for Meredith's murder in order to keep the false prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele alive. Rudy would also need to be controlled so he doesn't talk to anybody that would be believed.

Exactly. I cannot buy the idea that anyone was interested in protecting Guede, especially without any evidence.

 

[katy_did]

I only used you as a convienient example. But the result is the same for anyone. Unless they use that sink they are unlikely to leave their own DNA behind.

Finding dilute blood drips from the rim down to the drain of the wash basin is to the contrary evidence that the basin was not used that evening. Try to imagin that you are washing your bloody hands in that basin (Don't worry, I won't pull an ILE and have you arrested for murder). Imagin the point where the blood on your hands has mixed with the water from the tap and this diluted blood drips from your hand onto the rim of the basin and down into the drain thus producing the condemning evidence. But then, your hands are still covered with this diluted blood so you aren't finished washing. By the time you have washed the blood off of your hands, the drip by the drain has washed away. In order to leave the diluted drop in the basin. Diluted blood must drip into that basin at a time after it was last used.

I could even possibly go further and state that the basin could not even have been recently used because if the bowl is even wet it will change the character of the drip. But I would need detailed photographs of that drip to make such a determination.

I think it could also be explained by someone in a rush washing most of the blood off but not doing so completely, so there would still be some dilute blood left on his hands after he switched the tap off (as with the footprints in dilute blood on the bathmat - he washed his foot but enough blood remained to leave the print).

 

[Desert Fox]

Non-self DNA under fingernails is uncommon. It is seen about 5% of the time, if I understand correctly. Peter Gill's book covers this on about p. 44.

Thank you for the information . . . . .If I was a defense attorney, I would want to verify however. LCN DNA would also effect how I would look at it because LCN is so prone to contamination.

 

[Numbers]

Well, it's interesting that you ask, because I had started to examine this, but due to the paucity of Y-results, wasn't able to get too far. I did notice, though, that the Y tests have their own numbering system.

Thus, in the first week of testing, we have Y nos. 200-204, all processed in plate no. 358.

Then, the Flick Knife is no. 363, the Bra is no. 453, the Bra Clasp is no. 485, Kercher's Sweatshirt is no. 488, and the purse is no. 520.

Curiously, the Y profile for Guede's toothbrush is no. 802, although testing of this item followed the first batch, so the true number should be between 204 and 363. No. 802 is far too late to be the genuine test for this item.

So, I have two observations:

1) the numbering scheme for the Y tests shows huge gaps (unlike the autosomal tests), leaving open the possibility that many Y results were performed and not been produced, and

2) the profile for Guede's toothbrush is not the original profile (for some reason, this profile was re-run and the original result was suppressed).

{Highlighting added to quote.}

What are some of the reasons one could hypothesize for suppressing the original profile of Guede's toothbrush (assuming that profile was indeed suppressed)?

Here are some guesses:
1. First profile had artifacts due to low template count on toothbrush.
2. First profile showed DNA contamination.

 

[Desert Fox]

My belief, which Preston and Spezi allude to, is that Giutarri and Mignini hoped to use the Monster of Florence cases as a vehicle to career advancement. The two previous investigators who obtained a discredited conviction against Pietro Pacciani (reversed on appeal when the prosecutor argued for acquittal), both received high profile career promotions.

Career advancement is not an unknown reason for getting conviction in the United States. This is likely the motivation with the West Memphis Three case.

 

[Numbers]

Except it is not Guede that is being protected. Guede is nobody. Why would anybody protect him. If there is a conspiracy going on here it would be to protect the sorry little asses of certain authorities. Rudy would be protected only so far as insuring that he didn't take the entire blame for Meredith's murder in order to keep the false prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele alive. Rudy would also need to be controlled so he doesn't talk to anybody that would be believed.

There is are mutual benefits to the prosecutor and police on one hand and to Guede on the other to maintain that Guede did not act alone to murder/rape Meredith Kercher.

1. Police and prosecutor are spared the embarrassment and potential criminal responsibility for the false prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
2. Guede gets a reduction in sentence for being part of a conspiracy where he is the "hapless follower" of Amanda, rather than the sole perp. This may be why certain evidence, such as the purported semen stain on the pillow, must be suppressed.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is are mutual benefits to the prosecutor and police on one hand and to Guede on the other to maintain that Guede did not act alone to murder/rape Meredith Kercher.

1. Police and prosecutor are spared the embarrassment and potential criminal responsibility for the false prosecution of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.2. Guede gets a reduction in sentence for being part of a conspiracy where he is the "hapless follower" of Amanda, rather than the sole perp. This may be why certain evidence, such as the purported semen stain on the pillow, must be suppressed.

I have also seen examples of this in the United States with the Norfolk Four Case (in my opinion)

 

[Planigale]

I have already answered time ago. No.
I also pointed out that the location of Amanda Knox during the murder is legally irrelevant. She doesn't need to be in the room in order to be guilty by the law.
However I do think she was in the room at a certain point an took part to the stabbing.



To summarize, because all the evidence is against her and proves she is involved.

This is simply false. Most of the evidence is against Guede. There is minimal physical evidence against Knox and none that proves her involvement.

The most massive evidence is the evidence of cleanup

So the lack of evidence is turned round to be claimed as evidence of a clean up. So anyone who for whom there is a lack of evidence can be thought to be guilty. I would look to your own safety Mach. So what is the evidence of a clean up by Knox? Where are the dirty rags? The used bleach bottles? The washed clothes, the contaminated mop? All those were claimed at one point and proved false. The towels in the bedroom, Guede admits to placing them there. There is no evidence of a clean up by Knox or Sollecito. The longer they would have been engaged in a clean up the more opportunity for their clothes etc. to be contaminated by blood glass etc. So the lack of evidence of a clean up is evidence Sollecito and Knox did not engage in a clean up.

and staging (luminol prints, alteration of the scene),

So what is the evidence of staging? I have heard it said that it was staged to look like a sex crime. So if it was not a sex crime. but was staged to look like one then you must think that Sollecito and Knox were in part wrongly convicted? Or it was a sex crime and it was staged tools like what it was? Or do you mean the 'break in'. We know from interviews that this conclusion was jumped to immediately without evidence. We know that the evidence of the glass distribution from the broken window proves the prosecution hypothesis wrong. We know that claims the climb to the window was impossible is wrong. We know haits were found on the window, but they were never tested for mitochondrial DNA because Stephanoni lacked the resources or competent to do so. The police say that the glass was on top of things, but this is exactly where glass should be following a break in. It is said it is staged because nothing was stolen, (apart from money and phones), but that was because the robbery was interrupted by the arrival home of MK. Most of the identifiable Luminol prints are of Guede's shoe. There is one foot print possibly of Guede on the bath mat. These were confirmed with TMB. Other Luminol marks have no clear nature as they are TMB negative, of no clear date, and give no identity. There is an entirely innocent explanation even if assumed to be highly dilute blood in that Knox gad a shower the next day and stood on the blood stained bathmat. So no proof of guilt. We also have the bizarre notion that solicit and Knox are somehow supposed to be able to simulate the style of breaking favoured by Guede. Do you realise how fantastic that is? Nankin argues that because this is the style of break in that Guede does he would not do this because it would lead to him being identified! So on this occasion he decided to do something different, but why change his style unless he was planning more than theft?

and the evidence of her massive lying, starting from before her interrogation, her story being a mass of inconsistencies. Then her calunnia, a repeated and prolonged behavior, followed by further lies.

So what are these massive lies? List the lies told by Knox? The only two you will come up with are 1) Knox was in the flat when the murder occurred, and that Patrick Lumumba was there. This was in a specific request to try to recall events for which she said she had no knowledge, and she was lied to by the police who said she was there and an interpreter suggested she had suppressed memories. all in the middle of the night, and without legal counsel. Anyone reading the exact words will note how she emphasised her doubt of whether this was real. One of the issues with induced memories is that they are hard to distinguish from real ones. They can last years. There are cases of proven false convictions with false confessions where the exonerated people remain uncertain whether they did or did not commit the crime because they remember doing it!

But leaving aside the trail of evidence, that would go on, Amanda Knox is also physically connected to the murder scene, since her DNA is on the murder weapon, and the weapon was placed in her boyfriend's apartment. In other words her DNA is on the only part of the murder room - the murder weapon - that she would need to actually touch.

Mach even you have previously agreed that Knox DNA on the handle of the knife, even if the murder weapon cannot originate from the murder. Any cleaning of the knife that removed any trace of the victims blood, all but the smallest trace of DNA must remove all the wielders DNA which would be present in far smaller amounts. Cleaning cannot selectively remove victim's DNA and leave the welder's. (Although I know Knox is attributed miraculous cleaning skills in removing all her traces apart from ambiguous Luminol smudges whilst leaving Giede's in place.) She admits to using the knife to cut bread (supported by the presence of starch grains on the knife).So her DNA says nothing. The presence of the knife in Sollecito's flat may be evidence against him but not against her.

Let's also recall other clues: long blond hair found in Meredith's hand, that doesn't belong to her.

So where is the forensics on this? Telling the colour of individual hairs is difficult.

Knox's own blood in the bathroom, located in a time frame where the murder was committed, and in the same context with Meredith's blood.

So her own blood in her own bathroom? The amount was small. Knox had no injuries that could be related to a struggle and relate the blood to a crime. Even the prosecution case involves MK being restrained so there is no struggle with Knox. There is no date stamp on the blood so the time frame is presumably between Knox arriving in Italy and her arrest? It is not in context with MK blood.

The presence of double DNA on blood spots of luminol spots related with the murder (such as the deleted shoe track of Guede close to the victim's door), also on spots in Filomena's room.

Luminol positive spots may not be blood if blood may not be human, if human may not be MK. If MK there is an innocent explanation, all in all no proof on anything.

And the fact that Knox had a scratch on her neck (not a hickey) and that

Not true. Provide any testimony to this.

her DNA was found on the knife not only on the handle, but on the blade at the handle insertion.
These things are some of the elements, not all; they should be taken together, not just in isolation.

As previously said Knox DNA wherever it is on the knife can not be related to wielding the knife, so is irrelevant. Even you have admitted this previously.

This should be also be coupled with other physical evidence, such as the fact that - contrarily to what the innocentisti assert, just by citing the number opinions of medical experts - the autopsy findings and physical findings in the room lead to conclude that there was more than one assailant.
And the fact that there is dependant evidence against Sollecito also brings its logical consequence.

All but one of the medical experts felt that the findings did not exclude a single assailant. The physical findings in the room are of a single assailant Guede.

 

[Kauffer]

On the subject of what the police knew and when they knew it, I have already gone over that the police had Amanda's phone records from the evening of the 2nd. They will see the text exchange with Patrick's number being the last activity on Amanda's phone before Mererdith's murder. Earlier that day and discussed in the trial on day 2 we learn what the police can do with phone numbers:

2009-02-07: Trial day 2 http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/amanda-diabolic-or-lost-in-translation.html

In the evening of November 1 Lana is about to go to the toilet, before going to bed, and right in that moment a stranger calls her, saying that under her toilet there's a bomb. A joke which couldn't be more timed. She calls the Police who arrive immediately, it was urgent,
Rather than the toilet the police checks the garden, but it's okay, Lana feels relaxed. And good night.
Next morning, November 2, in the middle of a lawn of Lana's garden, about 15-20 meters from the street, her son Alessandro finds the Motorola cellphone, turned off.
Postal Police station, 10:58: Lana Elisabetta starts dictating her lawsuit against unknown and delivers the Motorola, thinking that the police lost it the night before.
11:31, commissioner Bartolozzi closes the record and queries the Vodafone database for that number: Romanelli Filomena, via della Pergola 7, Perugia.Right after, before 12:00, a patrol leaves, Bartolozzi states, destination via della Pergola.
Lana goes shopping. But her daughter Giannetta calls her. She found another cellphone that was ringing in the bushes of the property, 5-6 meters from the street. Someone is calling again that Ericson cellphone: AMANDA.
12:46, Lana is again in front of Bartolozzi with the new cellphone. But the number doesn't appear this time, it must be a foreign sim.Bartolozzi writes in the second record that a patrol leaves for via della Pergola after he sized both cellphones, so it must be at around 13:00.
Did the patrol leave before 12 or around 13? Where is the mistake?
Bartolozzi explains that he made a mistake in the written record, and that the patrol was sent out around 12:00 rather than after 12:46.​

So, the postal police have direct access to the database for providers operating within their country. If Patrick's phone is Italian, the police could know his name as early as November 2.

Frank interviews Patrick at his home: Perugia-Shock 2008-03-03

"I have a Vodafone SIM. It doesn't "work" in the bar and I always leave it here, you see, just here. It's the only place where it "works" a little bit. That evening my cellphone was here. I don't know how it could have hooked the cell of via S.Antonio. Now that you ask me, I have to remember to ask my lawyers because it's really a mystery for me.
The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...​

ETA: I had earlier presumed that this interview had taken place at Patrick's bar because the Swiss professor asserts that is where Patrick was at the time when the text messages were exchanged. But I believe the bar would still be closed at the time this interview took place.

This is detailed and extensive. So, what you would argue in summary from this evidence is that the police had Lumumba's number from Ms Knox's phone records and from this are able to identify Lumumba from it? Does the possibility still remain, however, that Lumumba's sim was of the kind alluded to by LJ and possibly unregistered and untraceable despite the police access to the database, because it's not on the database?

Also, if Lumumba's phone was at his home and not his bar, he was at home when the texts are sent and received? Really?

 

[Numbers]

On the subject of what the police knew and when they knew it, I have already gone over that the police had Amanda's phone records from the evening of the 2nd. They will see the text exchange with Patrick's number being the last activity on Amanda's phone before Mererdith's murder. Earlier that day and discussed in the trial on day 2 we learn what the police can do with phone numbers:

2009-02-07: Trial day 2 http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/amanda-diabolic-or-lost-in-translation.html

In the evening of November 1 Lana is about to go to the toilet, before going to bed, and right in that moment a stranger calls her, saying that under her toilet there's a bomb. A joke which couldn't be more timed. She calls the Police who arrive immediately, it was urgent,
Rather than the toilet the police checks the garden, but it's okay, Lana feels relaxed. And good night.
Next morning, November 2, in the middle of a lawn of Lana's garden, about 15-20 meters from the street, her son Alessandro finds the Motorola cellphone, turned off.
Postal Police station, 10:58: Lana Elisabetta starts dictating her lawsuit against unknown and delivers the Motorola, thinking that the police lost it the night before.
11:31, commissioner Bartolozzi closes the record and queries the Vodafone database for that number: Romanelli Filomena, via della Pergola 7, Perugia.Right after, before 12:00, a patrol leaves, Bartolozzi states, destination via della Pergola.
Lana goes shopping. But her daughter Giannetta calls her. She found another cellphone that was ringing in the bushes of the property, 5-6 meters from the street. Someone is calling again that Ericson cellphone: AMANDA.
12:46, Lana is again in front of Bartolozzi with the new cellphone. But the number doesn't appear this time, it must be a foreign sim.Bartolozzi writes in the second record that a patrol leaves for via della Pergola after he sized both cellphones, so it must be at around 13:00.
Did the patrol leave before 12 or around 13? Where is the mistake?
Bartolozzi explains that he made a mistake in the written record, and that the patrol was sent out around 12:00 rather than after 12:46.​

So, the postal police have direct access to the database for providers operating within their country. If Patrick's phone is Italian, the police could know his name as early as November 2.

Frank interviews Patrick at his home: Perugia-Shock 2008-03-03

"I have a Vodafone SIM. {1} It doesn't "work" in the bar and I always leave it here, you see, just here. It's the only place where it "works" a little bit. {2} That evening my cellphone was here. I don't know how it could have hooked the cell of via S.Antonio. Now that you ask me, I have to remember to ask my lawyers because it's really a mystery for me.
{3} The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...​

ETA: I had earlier presumed that this interview had taken place at Patrick's bar because the Swiss professor asserts that is where Patrick was at the time when the text messages were exchanged. But I believe the bar would still be closed at the time this interview took place.

{Numbering added to quote.}
Questions:
1. Is this statement that the phone was always at Patrick Lumumba's home true? Was there a different phone in the bar?
2. What is the significance of the presumed cell tower reference? Is that the cell tower closest to the bar?
3. Did Lumumba tell the police he had a second cell phone? Was it a false statement? Was it a coerced statement? What is its relevance?

 

[Diocletus]

{Highlighting added to quote.}

What are some of the reasons one could hypothesize for suppressing the original profile of Guede's toothbrush (assuming that profile was indeed suppressed)?

Here are some guesses:
1. First profile had artifacts due to low template count on toothbrush.
2. First profile showed DNA contamination.

Or maybe they didn't want the date of the test to be known.

 

[Dan O.]

This is detailed and extensive. So, what you would argue in summary from this evidence is that the police had Lumumba's number from Ms Knox's phone records and from this are able to identify Lumumba from it? Does the possibility still remain, however, that Lumumba's sim was of the kind alluded to by LJ and possibly unregistered and untraceable despite the police access to the database, because it's not on the database?

Prepaid sims are common. But can they be sold by an Italian cellular provider after the Pisanu act?

Also, if Lumumba's phone was at his home and not his bar, he was at home when the texts are sent and received? Really?

A phone can receive a text on it's own. But it is necessary to be with the phone when the outgoing message is initiated. Does Lumumba testify where he was and when he sent the text? Patrick says he has marginal cell coverage at his home. It is possible that he entered the text earlier before leaving for work. The message could be trapped in the phone until his wife moves the phone to a more receptive location.

 

[Dan O.]

{Numbering added to quote.}
Questions:
1. Is this statement that the phone was always at Patrick Lumumba's home true? Was there a different phone in the bar?

That's what Patrick told Frank.

2. What is the significance of the presumed cell tower reference? Is that the cell tower closest to the bar?

An examination of Patrick's home and the surrounding cell towers may be able to answer that question.

3. Did Lumumba tell the police he had a second cell phone? Was it a false statement? Was it a coerced statement? What is its relevance?

Don't you have to actually answer the first question befor the subsequent questions can be asked?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Thank you for the information . . . . .If I was a defense attorney, I would want to verify however. LCN DNA would also effect how I would look at it because LCN is so prone to contamination.

-

I agree, and it's always a good idea to verify as much as you can.

When I say DNA under the fingernails, I'm not talking about LCN. I'm talking about a bunch of DNA.

I, of course, would rather not have Steffy check it out though. She doesn't have a good history there, in my opinion. But I still wonder, if they supposedly fabricated evidence before, why not just say Raffaele and Amanda's DNA was found under Meredith's fingernails and give the same runaround they gave for the bra-clasp. I think because Steffy actually believes her own bs and she would never intentionally fabricate evidence, but that's just my opinion.

I've seen the photo of the "scratch" (thanx RW), and I have to say, in that photo, it looks more like a scratch than a hickey. If it's a scratch, it's right where I would expect to find it, if she were restraining Meredith by the elbows, but a scratch like that looks like she would have gotten a good chunk of DNA under her fingernails, but of course forensics didn't find anything or they would have revealed it by now.

Is that part of the clean-up now too? Cleaning under the fingernails as well as all the selective evidence of them being in the room, leaving Rudy's behind?

After a second look at the "scratch", I have to say that it looks more like a bruise then a scratch,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

Prepaid sims are common. But can they be sold by an Italian cellular provider after the Pisanu act?





A phone can receive a text on it's own. But it is necessary to be with the phone when the outgoing message is initiated. Does Lumumba testify where he was and when he sent the text? Patrick says he has marginal cell coverage at his home. It is possible that he entered the text earlier before leaving for work. The message could be trapped in the phone until his wife moves the phone to a more receptive location.

Ok, so we aren't absolutely sure whether Lumumba's phone was registered or not.

As far as the location of the phone and Lumumba, I've checked his testimony again and he states:

1) He arrived at the bar between 5:30pm and 6pm
2) He sent the message to Ms Knox from the bar
3) He received the reply from Ms Knox, he thinks, about 10 or 15 minutes later.
4) He sent other text messages that evening after the one he sent to Ms Knox
5) He returned home in the early hours of the 2nd.

Lumumba's cellphone was with him in the bar, not at his home.

There is some contradiction between what Lumumba says in the Sfarzo interview and his testimony. It is not clear why or how this might be relevant, if at all.

I am merely trying to demonstrate whether the police had identified Lumumba as a suspect in the murder prior to the interrogation of the 5th/6th. If true, then it is devastatating for the prosecution case.

The police, it would appear, did not question Ms Knox about the text messages prior to the 5th nor examine or access her handset - it would be equally devastating to the prosecution case if they had. Yet as part of a normal police investigation, one would have expected them to address this matter routinely and in a timely manner and make such enquiries as were necessary to rule Lumumba in or out as a suspect.

Either the police really had no clue about Lumumba prior to the 5th or they sat on their information, following an aberrant procedure designed not to acquire the truth, but the means to make arrests.

 

[LondonJohn]

Prepaid sims are common. But can they be sold by an Italian cellular provider after the Pisanu act?

Doesn't the Pisanu act only deal with the requirement to register and show official identification when connecting to a public wifi network or using an internet cafe? In any case, in Italy there usually tends to be a rather large difference between what is required by law and what actually happens in practice........

A phone can receive a text on it's own. But it is necessary to be with the phone when the outgoing message is initiated. Does Lumumba testify where he was and when he sent the text? Patrick says he has marginal cell coverage at his home. It is possible that he entered the text earlier before leaving for work. The message could be trapped in the phone until his wife moves the phone to a more receptive location.

True

 

[Kauffer]

Doesn't the Pisanu act only deal with the requirement to register and show official identification when connecting to a public wifi network or using an internet cafe? In any case, in Italy there usually tends to be a rather large difference between what is required by law and what actually happens in practice........

"Access to the Internet from any public place in Italy is strictly regulated by the Italian Law 155/2005 (also known as the "Pisanu Act").

Briefly, it states that:

any access to the Internet must be logged (the access, not the traffic) and kept for 4 years
any access must be identifiable
a copy of the photo ID of any person connecting to the Internet must be kept together with the logs."

http://www.epac08.org/Main.Pisanu.html

 

[Dan O.]

Giuseppe Pisanu proposed, for example, that security forces be allowed to hold terrorism suspects for 24 hours without charges, instead of the current 12 hours, and that the government be allowed to archive e-mail communications for prolonged periods.He suggested that people buying prepaid phone cards for cellphones be required to register and provide identification. He asked that the police be allowed to question terrorism suspects without a lawyer in attendance, and he requested expanded powers to expel illegal immigrants suspected of connections with terrorist groups.​

 

[Kauffer]

Giuseppe Pisanu proposed, for example, that security forces be allowed to hold terrorism suspects for 24 hours without charges, instead of the current 12 hours, and that the government be allowed to archive e-mail communications for prolonged periods.He suggested that people buying prepaid phone cards for cellphones be required to register and provide identification. He asked that the police be allowed to question terrorism suspects without a lawyer in attendance, and he requested expanded powers to expel illegal immigrants suspected of connections with terrorist groups.​

Well, that's what he proposed. This is what became law:

From art 6:

"It will be compulsory for telecommunication service providers to acquire personal data contained in an official identity document presented by a customer before issuing a SIM card."

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/aug/italy-new-terror-laws.pdf

Good shout Dan!

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, that's what he proposed. This is what became law:

From art 6:

"It will be compulsory for telecommunication service providers to acquire personal data contained in an official identity document presented by a customer before issuing a SIM card."

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/aug/italy-new-terror-laws.pdf

Good shout Dan!

Yes, but as I said, what the Italian law says on the one hand, versus what most of the Italian grey-market pre-paid SIM dealers actually do on the other hand, are far from necessarily the same thing......

 

[Dan O.]

Yes, but as I said, what the Italian law says on the one hand, versus what most of the Italian grey-market pre-paid SIM dealers actually do on the other hand, are far from necessarily the same thing......

Why would patrick need a grey market pre-paid SIM? Even Rudy used a SIM registered in his own name in the phones he stole. Do the police ever claim that they were not able to trace Patrick's phone number back to him?