Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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?

Well I think we have the answer to the most important question, from Ms Knox:

Page 88 WTBH -

3rd November interview at the Questura

"I scrolled through my Italian phone and gave him (unnamed detective) the names and numbers of every contact I had."

There really is no longer any doubt that the police had Lumumba's name matched with his number, no later than the afternoon of 3rd November. From Ms Knox's phone records they will have seen the instances of the two text messages - the last communications Ms Knox had the night of the murder.

What we don't know is whether the police were able to access the content of the messages before the interrogations of the 5th/6th.

Interestingly, Lumumba's message was deleted by Lumumba from his handset and by Ms Knox from hers. When Ficarra snatched Ms Knox's phone from her at the questura, all she could read was Ms Knox's reply.

 

[carbonjam72]

Evidence pointing to Lumumba and Guede should be viewed in tandem

Well I think we have the answer to the most important question, from Ms Knox:

Page 88 WTBH -

3rd November interview at the Questura

"I scrolled through my Italian phone and gave him (unnamed detective) the names and numbers of every contact I had."

There really is no longer any doubt that the police had Lumumba's name matched with his number, no later than the afternoon of 3rd November. From Ms Knox's phone records they will have seen the instances of the two text messages - the last communications Ms Knox had the night of the murder.

What we don't know is whether the police were able to access the content of the messages before the interrogations of the 5th/6th.

Interestingly, Lumumba's message was deleted by Lumumba from his handset and by Ms Knox from hers. When Ficarra snatched Ms Knox's phone from her at the questura, all she could read was Ms Knox's reply.

Placed side by side with the info they had on Guede -
Stefan Bonasso's non-flushing friend also on Nov 3rd (C. Dempsey), signed witness statement Nov 4?

And the possibility that they reciognized Guede's MO from Day 1 at the crime scene (Napoleone only seems to have acknowledged the police were familiar with Guede from his burglaries in Perugia - but is silent so far as I can tell on whether they recognized his MO at the crime scene; -

(whereas Nencini includes in his motivations report that the police would absolutely have recognized Guede's MO, and used that as a reason to show Guede did not 'stage the break-in', in a way that would incriminate himself. Very strage that Nencini doesn't acknowledge that Guede must therefore logically be incriminated to the police on Day 1 by the nature of the break-in, but let's not disturb Nencini from his purificating legalensical gibberations.)

And they MAY have had sub-saharan african DNA profile, or hair at the crime scene from Filomena's window, subsequently lost - that would have also indicated they need to find a black man if they were looking to hide or minimize the role of Senor Guede.

And the possible suppression of 'Y' DNA profile data, plus the profiles from downstairs.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Once again, part of the pro-guilt lobby advances Mignini's case against AK and RS, and completely ignores any of the judges' decision on various topics, as expressed in their motivations report.

Added to what Planigale says, one needs to read what Judge Massei said in his 2010 motivations report regarding clean-ups.

Does Massei discuss a clean-up in Meredith's room? Not at all.

The clean-up Judge Massei discusses is his quandary that there is a lone bloody foottrack on the bathroom mat, with no intervening foottracks from Meredith's bedroom to it.

Does Massei point to evidence, like Luminol hits in the corridor? No. All Massei says is:

after Meredith’s murder, it is
clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly
carried out. In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the
sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps
which should have left other footprints on the floor, also marked out in blood just
like (in fact, most likely, with even more [blood], since they were created before the
footprint printed on the mat) the one found on the mat itself. Of such other very
visible footprints of a bloody bare foot, on the contrary, there is no trace​

One must read that whole section of Massei to "get" that even Massei is grasping at straws, admitting that unless there had been a clean, he's then at a loss to explain is overall scenario.

But the point is - his reasoning is not based on evidence of a clean-up. It is based on Massei's own confirmation bias that if there had not been a clean-up, then his overall scenario does not hold.

To this, Machiavelli just says: The most massive evidence is the evidence of cleanup.

There is no evidence of a cleanup. There's a though experiment of a clean-up, that if not true means the whole conviction goes up in flames.

 

[Kauffer]

Placed side by side with the info they had on Guede -
Stefan Bonasso's non-flushing friend also on Nov 3rd (C. Dempsey), signed witness statement Nov 4?

And the possibility that they reciognized Guede's MO from Day 1 at the crime scene (Napoleone only seems to have acknowledged the police were familiar with Guede from his burglaries in Perugia - but is silent so far as I can tell on whether they recognized his MO at the crime scene; -

(whereas Nencini includes in his motivations report that the police would absolutely have recognized Guede's MO, and used that as a reason to show Guede did not 'stage the break-in', in a way that would incriminate himself. Very strage that Nencini doesn't acknowledge that Guede must therefore logically be incriminated to the police on Day 1 by the nature of the break-in, but let's not disturb Nencini from his purificating legalensical gibberations.)

And they MAY have had sub-saharan african DNA profile, or hair at the crime scene from Filomena's window, subsequently lost - that would have also indicated they need to find a black man if they were looking to hide or minimize the role of Senor Guede.

And the possible suppression of 'Y' DNA profile data, plus the profiles from downstairs.

Seems to me that while Guede was brought to the attention of the police, there is no evidence to suggest that he was a person of interest to them in connection with the murder. The police were daft of course on this point, but not conspiratorial. Not before the 5th/6th interrogations, anyway.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't know if anybody else listened to the podcast Serial but there is the potential suggestion that Ronald Lee Moore was the murderer of Hae

You notice though with him a similar pattern to Guede, he broken into houses and became a murderer and rapist.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-co-cold-cases-20140718-story.html
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20..._1_arundel-county-anne-arundel-sexual-assault
http://heavy.com/news/2014/12/ronal...ee-adnan-syed-serial-podcast-murder-dna-info/

 

[LondonJohn]

Well I think we have the answer to the most important question, from Ms Knox:

Page 88 WTBH -

3rd November interview at the Questura

"I scrolled through my Italian phone and gave him (unnamed detective) the names and numbers of every contact I had."

There really is no longer any doubt that the police had Lumumba's name matched with his number, no later than the afternoon of 3rd November. From Ms Knox's phone records they will have seen the instances of the two text messages - the last communications Ms Knox had the night of the murder.

What we don't know is whether the police were able to access the content of the messages before the interrogations of the 5th/6th.

Interestingly, Lumumba's message was deleted by Lumumba from his handset and by Ms Knox from hers. When Ficarra snatched Ms Knox's phone from her at the questura, all she could read was Ms Knox's reply.

Ah well then, if this is accurate, the police would of course have been able - from 3rd November onwards - to match the number shown in Knox's phone records for the text exchange on the night of the murder with Lumumba, but only if Lumumba's number was stored in Knox's phone's contacts list.

Regarding the actual content of the message(s), I am very confident that the police would not have been able to "read" the messages unless and until they were stored on either of the sending or receiving handset, and the police were able to access and view the messages on the handsets themselves. I don't, in other words, believe the police would have been able to remotely access the content (e.g. by interrogating the network's systems). So they would have had to physically look at either Knox's or Lumumba's handset (or possibly the SIM itself) in order to read the stored messages.

And regarding the deletion of the messages, in my opinion it was very common practice in 2007 to delete incoming messages that were of little consequence (i.e. almost all of them) as soon as one had read them, in order to avoid clogging up one's inbox. I therefore see nothing sinister whatsoever about Knox having deleted Lumumba's incoming message. Regarding sent messages, less technically-savvy people would likely not realise that most phones (including Knox's) were set up by default to save all sent texts in the "sent messages" folder, since one would rarely (if ever) have cause to access that folder. So I again see why she would have saved (without probably even knowing it) her outgoing reply to Lumumba (the "see you later" text).

 

[carbonjam72]

Seems to me that while Guede was brought to the attention of the police, there is no evidence to suggest that he was a person of interest to them in connection with the murder. The police were daft of course on this point, but not conspiratorial. Not before the 5th/6th interrogations, anyway.

Seems to me if you accept the police were conspiratorial on the Nov 5/6 interview, then you've already bought into they're being conspiratorial in advance of that interview, because it takes time to set up the scheduling of additional detectives from Rome for a pre-planned tag team, over night, illegal, unrecorded interrogation session.

So how far in advance do you go for "conspiratorial", and what would motivate the police to move in the direction of conspiracy?

As for being simply "daft", I have to ask again, is not flushing feces in the toilet a rather common Italian thing?

Or is it absolutely inconceivable this new unflushing black basketball playing friend of Stefan's they heard about on Nov 3, would have gone off like a siren in their heads, as a possible connection to the unflushed feces upstairs?

Well kauf, you know I'm a fan of your posts, but reluctance to stay fixed and focused on certain key issues I do find frustrating. Hand waving is not enough to set these issues aside, IMO. I'm all for being shown I'm wrong, but these kinds of assumptions don't work for me. It's ok to disagree, but I'd rather press the argument until it gives up its secrets.

 

[Bill Williams]

Seems to me if you accept the police were conspiratorial on the Nov 5/6 interview, then you've already bought into they're being conspiratorial in advance of that interview, because it takes time to set up the scheduling of additional detectives from Rome for a pre-planned tag team, over night, illegal, unrecorded interrogation session.

So how far in advance do you go for "conspiratorial", and what would motivate the police to move in the direction of conspiracy?

As for being simply "daft", I have to ask again, is not flushing feces in the toilet a rather common Italian thing?

Or is it absolutely inconceivable this new unflushing black basketball playing friend of Stefan's they heard about on Nov 3, would have gone off like a siren in their heads, as a possible connection to the unflushed feces upstairs?

Well kauf, you know I'm a fan of your posts, but reluctance to stay fixed and focused on certain key issues I do find frustrating. Hand waving is not enough to set these issues aside, IMO. I'm all for being shown I'm wrong, but these kinds of assumptions don't work for me. It's ok to disagree, but I'd rather press the argument until it gives up its secrets.

All of us would do well to find and read early versions of Perugia Shock.

As chronicled in Winterbottom's "The Face of an Angel", Frank Sfarzo was in with the other journalists initially, but eventually split with them because he unabashedly started criticizing the PLE. He did not criticize them for conspiracy, he criticized them for being incompetent, up-country yokels who were in over their heads.

Indeed, the very first entry in P.S. where Sfarzo criticized the PLE was when he wandered down to the cottage a few days/weeks after the arrests. He asked one of the cops why they weren't searching the woods below the place. The answer he got was something like, "We've already got the knife," presumably meaning the knife from Raffaele's.

Lo and behold, because the large kitchen knife did not match forensics in the bedroom, Mignini tried to slip a "two-knife theory" into the trial, making Sfarzo's original question all the more potent: "Why aren't you searching the woods?"

Late-comers to the specifics of the case like Winterbottom tend to take Sfarzo seriously - as an explanation for why the Law Enforcement agency of a major, first-world country could go so wrong. The continual refrain in TFOAA from Sfarzo's character is: You believe those things because you are stupid and do not read my blog.

That's the assessment of some high-powered late-comers to this. None of it speaks to conspiracy, really. The cops/PM were not that smart.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's the assessment of some high-powered late-comers to this. None of it speaks to conspiracy, really. The cops/PM were not that smart.

Usually incompetence is a better explanation and I am sure it is a large part.
I suspect that there is at least some deliberate deceit involved in this case as well. Not sure anybody, including those involved, know exactly where the dividing lines are however. I think we will always be struggling for the motives of the police and the courts in this case.

 

[Numbers]

How long were sms saved in Italian telecom centers?

Ah well then, if this is accurate, the police would of course have been able - from 3rd November onwards - to match the number shown in Knox's phone records for the text exchange on the night of the murder with Lumumba, but only if Lumumba's number was stored in Knox's phone's contacts list.

Regarding the actual content of the message(s), I am very confident that the police would not have been able to "read" the messages unless and until they were stored on either of the sending or receiving handset, and the police were able to access and view the messages on the handsets themselves. I don't, in other words, believe the police would have been able to remotely access the content (e.g. by interrogating the network's systems). So they would have had to physically look at either Knox's or Lumumba's handset (or possibly the SIM itself) in order to read the stored messages.

And regarding the deletion of the messages, in my opinion it was very common practice in 2007 to delete incoming messages that were of little consequence (i.e. almost all of them) as soon as one had read them, in order to avoid clogging up one's inbox. I therefore see nothing sinister whatsoever about Knox having deleted Lumumba's incoming message. Regarding sent messages, less technically-savvy people would likely not realise that most phones (including Knox's) were set up by default to save all sent texts in the "sent messages" folder, since one would rarely (if ever) have cause to access that folder. So I again see why she would have saved (without probably even knowing it) her outgoing reply to Lumumba (the "see you later" text).

{Highlighting added to quote.}
There are technical, legal, and procedural questions that can be addressed to the issue of whether or not the Italian police were able to find out the content of the Nov. 1 text messages between Patrick Lumumba and Amanda Knox.

I believe that a text message must be stored at a central service between its origination by the sender and its receipt at the target phone. There are generally "store and forward" functions at sms central servers. And I suspect that in Italy, where phone intercepts are an important part of police work, and I suspect may even be carried out broadly, that phone companies may save messages for some time. But I have absolutely no evidence of that.

I tend to believe that the police targeted Amanda Knox as a "vulnerable suspect" probably from Nov. 3, 2007. That is, I don't believe the police were as concerned with finding a guilty person, but one who could be made to appear guilty. In part, I think they were motivated by perceived needs for efficiency and convenience and appearing to solve a horrible murder quickly.

There would be no need for the police to conduct the Nov. 5/6 interrogation without first reviewing the initial DNA profiles from the crime scene or other forensic data, unless an arbitrary "solution" of the crime was being sought. The driving event for initiating the Nov. 5 interrogation was, IMO, the expected arrival of Amanda's mother in Italy from Seattle on Nov. 6.

 

[Planigale]

Mach and others sometimes try to defend Stefanoni we are warned we may be subject to defamation proceedings. Stefanoni states that the location of the DNA of the knife ex Sollecito means that she held it in a way that you would if stabbing someone. Nencini has extended this expert opinion to conclude that Knox struck the fatal wound.

Stefanoni has gone beyond any reasonable expert interpretation of evidence. There is no literature to support that there is a unique pattern of DNA associated with stabbing a human with a knife versus routine kitchen duties. Whilst I hesitate to say she lied, as she may have believed this, to state this as an expert opinion betrays bias and incompetence.

If she had been impartial as she was supposed to be and competent as she was supposed to be she would have said that the DNA of Knox cannot relate to the use of the knife in the murder of MK (if it was), as any cleaning that removed the copious amounts of DNA and blood there would have been on the knife from the victim (remember all traces of blood were absent), would certainly have removed the lesser amounts of DNA of the wielder.

I reiterate this as it is an excellent example of the bias and incompetence of Stefanoni and the failure of logical thought by Nencini. I wonder if any pro guilt proponents would care to dispute this?

 

[carbonjam72]

{Highlighting added to quote.}
There are technical, legal, and procedural questions that can be addressed to the issue of whether or not the Italian police were able to find out the content of the Nov. 1 text messages between Patrick Lumumba and Amanda Knox.

I believe that a text message must be stored at a central service between its origination by the sender and its receipt at the target phone. There are generally "store and forward" functions at sms central servers. And I suspect that in Italy, where phone intercepts are an important part of police work, and I suspect may even be carried out broadly, that phone companies may save messages for some time. But I have absolutely no evidence of that.

I tend to believe that the police targeted Amanda Knox as a "vulnerable suspect" probably from Nov. 3, 2007. That is, I don't believe the police were as concerned with finding a guilty person, but one who could be made to appear guilty. In part, I think they were motivated by perceived needs for efficiency and convenience and appearing to solve a horrible murder quickly.

There would be no need for the police to conduct the Nov. 5/6 interrogation without first reviewing the initial DNA profiles from the crime scene or other forensic data, unless an arbitrary "solution" of the crime was being sought. The driving event for initiating the Nov. 5 interrogation was, IMO, the expected arrival of Amanda's mother in Italy from Seattle on Nov. 6.

Which raises another interesting question.

Was the first DNA lab work performed on Nov 6th? (IIRC)?

Stef is on video demanding results for a presumed semen stain on Nov 3, I believe, just outside the downstairs apt.

Is it possible they ran DNA tests before Nov 6 and hid the results, because they already know they've got zippo? And won't have anything until they ca manufacture a knife result?

And/or is the release of DNA only after the news conference, and only after Amanda's mother arrived, and only after the interrogation and opportunity to force an incriminating statement, similarly a deliberate act to gather circumstantial evidence before the hard evidence comes back with zippo.

 

[Numbers]

Mach and others sometimes try to defend Stefanoni we are warned we may be subject to defamation proceedings. Stefanoni states that the location of the DNA of the knife ex Sollecito means that she held it in a way that you would if stabbing someone. nankin has extended this expert opinion to conclude that Knox struck the fatal wound.

Stefanoni has gone beyond any reasonable expert interpretation of evidence. There is no literature to support that there is a unique pattern of DNA associated with stabbing a human with a knife versus routine kitchen duties. Whilst I hesitate to say she lied, as she may have believed this, to state this as an expert opinion betrays bias and incompetence.

If she had been impartial as she was supposed to be and competent as she was supposed to be she would have said that the DNA of Knox cannot relate to the use of the knife in the murder of MK (if it was), as any cleaning that removed the copious amounts of DNA and blood there would have been on the knife from the victim (remember all traces of blood were absent), would certainly have removed the lesser amounts of DNA of the wielder.

I reiterate this as it is an excellent example of the bias and incompetence of Stefanoni and the failure of logical thought by Nencini. I wonder if any pro guilt proponents would care to dispute this?

{Highlighting added to quote.}
To fabricate a scientific or technical claim without evidence is not the same as lying. If Stefanoni had claimed that there was literature or experimental support for her statement that DNA distribution on a knife handle can show that the knife was used for stabbing rather than for kitchen use, and such data does not exist, she would be either: 1) lying, 2) mistaken, or 3) hallucinating. In any case, it is not supported by evidence and must at best considered a speculation, not a scientific or technical fact.

 

[platonov]

Where are the cartwheels

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

It appears that the link to one of the earlier, in fact the first thread has been omitted from the list. Well the mods/admins are busy and we should all help where we can. So here it is – the original of the species
Amanda Knox guilty – all because of a cartwheel.

While this particular argument doesn’t have the scope of the later conspiracy theories it has a certain naive, if xenophobic, charm & I would commend it to all the noobs.

 

[Numbers]

{Highlighting added to quote.}
There are technical, legal, and procedural questions that can be addressed to the issue of whether or not the Italian police were able to find out the content of the Nov. 1 text messages between Patrick Lumumba and Amanda Knox.

I believe that a text message must be stored at a central service between its origination by the sender and its receipt at the target phone. There are generally "store and forward" functions at sms central servers. And I suspect that in Italy, where phone intercepts are an important part of police work, and I suspect may even be carried out broadly, that phone companies may save messages for some time. But I have absolutely no evidence of that.

I tend to believe that the police targeted Amanda Knox as a "vulnerable suspect" probably from Nov. 3, 2007. That is, I don't believe the police were as concerned with finding a guilty person, but one who could be made to appear guilty. In part, I think they were motivated by perceived needs for efficiency and convenience and appearing to solve a horrible murder quickly.

There would be no need for the police to conduct the Nov. 5/6 interrogation without first reviewing the initial DNA profiles from the crime scene or other forensic data, unless an arbitrary "solution" of the crime was being sought. The driving event for initiating the Nov. 5 interrogation was, IMO, the expected arrival of Amanda's mother in Italy from Seattle on Nov. 6.

To add to the list of apparent police entrapment actions:
Since the police were, I would assume, aware that Amanda worked for Patrick Lumumba from one of her early witness statements, and they had her phone records and Lumumba's, they could have interviewed Lumumba about the activities of Nov. 1, 2007 before the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. They would have asked, among other questions, for his knowledge of Amanda's activities that night and attempted, perhaps without prompting, to obtain information on his sms phone message exchange with Amanda. AFAIK, this did not happen. And the failure of the police to interview Lumumba as a witness was not merely substandard police work, it is IMO a clear indication that they were saving Lumumba to be a suspect and hoping or planning to use the sms message as a pretext for accusations.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well I think we have the answer to the most important question, from Ms Knox:

Page 88 WTBH -

3rd November interview at the Questura

"I scrolled through my Italian phone and gave him (unnamed detective) the names and numbers of every contact I had."

There really is no longer any doubt that the police had Lumumba's name matched with his number, no later than the afternoon of 3rd November. From Ms Knox's phone records they will have seen the instances of the two text messages - the last communications Ms Knox had the night of the murder.

What we don't know is whether the police were able to access the content of the messages before the interrogations of the 5th/6th.

Interestingly, Lumumba's message was deleted by Lumumba from his handset and by Ms Knox from hers. When Ficarra snatched Ms Knox's phone from her at the questura, all she could read was Ms Knox's reply.

Not everyone thinks so.

 

[Samson]

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

It appears that the link to one of the earlier, in fact the first thread has been omitted from the list. Well the mods/admins are busy and we should all help where we can. So here it is – the original of the species
Amanda Knox guilty – all because of a cartwheel.

While this particular argument doesn’t have the scope of the later conspiracy theories it has a certain naive, if xenophobic, charm & I would commend it to all the noobs.

It was a great thread notable for being started by someone who saw through the hoax directly. If only you'd got there first the course of history might have been different, platonov, instead you've spent six years on the back foot, though no doubt your triumphal salute to Mignini's buffoons keeps you sane in the face of such adversity.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wow, we're on V12 of the thread about twice convicted murderer Amanda Knox.

Is she still guilty? <Checks Google.....> Yep!

 

[platonov]

It was a great thread notable for being started by someone who saw through the hoax directly. If only you'd got there first the course of history might have been different, platonov, instead you've spent six years on the back foot, though no doubt your triumphal salute to Mignini's buffoons keeps you sane in the face of such adversity.

But but but – the original thread/argument was founded on cultural differences. Apparently in the freewheelin’ west coast USA doing cartwheels in a police station after the brutal rape/murder of a close friend was normal and the uptight medieval furners’ misinterpreted this.
Of course we have moved on since then. The current CT’s are even more believable


What? I have no interest in the case – the response is what interests me. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until my bosses in Rome/Moscow/Africa Andromeda tell me otherwise.

 

[Samson]

Wow, we're on V12 of the thread about twice convicted murderer Amanda Knox.

Is she still guilty? <Checks Google.....> Yep!

And who wins when the series goes two all in March?