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.