• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Police tested the pair too early for it to show in their hair. Police reported Amanda had the characteristic cat piss smell of a cocaine or crystal meth user. (So much for her claim of taking three showers within 36 hours.) These are police who recognise drug smells. Perugia was swimming in drugs.

So they just used these drugs for the first time on the murder night?

I thought you said she was trading sex for drugs. You said the guy on the train was a big time drug dealer. Did he trade drugs for sex?

Did Sophie get coke from her boyfriend and share it with the birds at the pizza dinner?
 
I'm beginning to suspect that the powers that be here may have a new strategy to end this thread.
 
It is recorded in Amanda's court testimony that she had amnesia. Her own words.

So if you believe this then you cannot attach an ounce of credence to her "confession", can you?

Can you not see that your beliefs build falsehood upon falsehood and when you analyse what you've said it amounts to rubbish? You can't pick and choose the bits you want to and then make up the rest.

You believe the confession was true and you believe Amanda had amnesia? Surely Mensa people have basic analytical skills.
 
Last edited:
*Ahem*

What load of old bollocks has been spouted from a pro-guilt perspective over the past 24 hours. All of it - without exception - tendentious, mendacious rubbish based on fundamentally incorrect "facts" and wilful misinterpretations. And a constant, continual shifting of goalposts and rewriting of positions with no hint of shame or contrition.

(Just one example of very, very many: we go from "Filomena tries several times to call Knox soon after midday on the 2nd, but furtive Knox doesn't pick up any of the calls" to "There's an unanswered call at 12.20pm" to "That call was answered". When all the while, the truth - as shown incontrovertibly by the phone records - is that there were in fact several phone exchanges between Knox and Romanelli over the period between 12.08pm and 12.45pm that day.)

Personally, I don't find it either acceptable or worthwhile to engage with these sorts of "ARGUMENTS". They are clearly intellectually dishonest "ARGUMENTS" borne of a mixture of shockingly poor reasoning, refusal to adhere to facts, huge amounts of bias and preconception, and the classic logical error of trying to twist/bend/invent things to fit with an a priori conclusion (which is itself a form of confirmation bias, tunnel vision, post hoc ergo propter hoc and ex post facto logical errors). I'm happy to address ARGUMENTS that are made in good faith, no matter how much I disagree with them. But the various pro-guilt "ARGUMENTS" that have been deposited here recently come nowhere close to meeting that standard, in my opinion. Therefore they don't warrant a response or a rebuttal, again in my opinion.
 
https://drugs-forum.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=1720&pictureid=15061

Cocaine and meth are detectable within 5-7 days. The tests are highly sensitive and very difficult to beat. Drugs is another red herring issue.

Even if it took 2 weeks the crack PLE would know that and test every week. It's not like the kids' hair wasn't available.

Bigger fact is that she and he were not snorting up hundreds of Euros worth of coke before the murder. The whole drug meme goes away. Away. Or will this be like Curatolo and she took drugs just long enough before being arrested not to show up and also just before so not long enough before to show up.
 
Don't forget she was gap-toothed when he "saw" her.

I saw Tony Blair last week. Thin man, about six foot seven and bald.....but it was definitely him. I know this because I saw him.

Vixen doesn't want to believe the truth.
 
Last edited:
I saw Tony Blair last week. Thin man, about six foot seven and bald.....but it was definitely him. I know this because I saw him.

Vixen doesn't want to believe the truth. To identify someone and then describe someone else is a mistake....or a lie.


Exactly.

And (to echo Massei's stunning "reasoning" about Capezzali's testimony), we have to conclude that you really did see Tony Blair, because why would you have said you saw him if it wasn't him that you saw? :rolleyes::p
 
Police tested the pair too early for it to show in their hair. Police reported Amanda had the characteristic cat piss smell of a cocaine or crystal meth user. (So much for her claim of taking three showers within 36 hours.) These are police who recognise drug smells. Perugia was swimming in drugs.

In Amanda's own words:
Source, please...
 
acbytesla will a cell phone stay connected to a tower its already connected to if it has no reason to change? Or will it always switch to the strongest tower?

It's variable like you wouldn't hardly believe.

There are other factors including load on the network. The computers are constantly measuring strength of signal, traffic and balancing all these factors to provide the best service to the entirety of customers, not just one. It's also variable to the provider and their equipment. It's software driven. So a new Rev of the software comes out and how they handle calls could change. Keep in mind, it's digital so the antenna servicing your call could change multiple times during your call and you wouldn't know it.

Each antenna is measuring the signal to your phone. It's not only measuring the strength of signal but the consistency of signal. If the signal on a specific frequency fluctuates wildly, it will connect to another antenna. Dr. Pellero pointed this out about calls connecting in his apartment.

But traditionally, on both outgoing and incoming calls, your call is connected to the last antenna your phone is registered to. The process works like this. There is a database server managing each antenna's calls. When you turn on your phone, your phone goes looking for the network and your phone gets registered with strongest consistent antennas local database server, From that point on, it knows how to route the call.
Now a call is made and it first tries that route to reach you. But if your signal ever degraded too much, your phone would have found another antenna and you would be registered to that one.
It's actually very simple but complex to explain. Its much easier to understand visually. Sorry if my explanation isn't clear.
 
Last edited:
Even if it took 2 weeks the crack PLE would know that and test every week. It's not like the kids' hair wasn't available.

Bigger fact is that she and he were not snorting up hundreds of Euros worth of coke before the murder. The whole drug meme goes away. Away. Or will this be like Curatolo and she took drugs just long enough before being arrested not to show up and also just before so not long enough before to show up.


Absolutely. There is zero evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were using any other drugs than alcohol and weed(marijuana)/hashish in the weeks before (and the week after) Kercher's murder. The police found zero traces of any other substance in either Knox's or Sollecito's residences (and of course none of the paraphernalia that may be associated with many harder drugs). And blood and hair tests conducted upon the pair showed that indeed there were no traces of any harder drug use.

So the reasonable, logical conclusion (in fact the only possible conclusion) is that neither Knox and Sollecito were indeed using no other mind-altering drugs than alcohol and marijuana (and its derivative products).

In passing, we can be pretty confident that the police and prosecutors would have been very pleased to have found any decent evidence of the use of harder drugs (cocaine, heroin, LSD, ecstasy, amphetamines, crack, strong sedative/opiate tablets........) by Knox/Sollecito around the time of the murder. It would have tended to support and bolster their underlying theory of the case in many strong ways. So in a way, the very fact that hard drug use was never introduced at trial by the prosecution (for the simple and obvious reason that they had zero evidence to support such an allegation) is strong evidence in itself that Knox/Sollecito were not using any such hard drugs.
 
It's variable like you wouldn't hardly believe.

There are other factors including load on the network. The computers are constantly measuring strength of signal, traffic and balancing all these factors to provide the best service to the entirety of customers, not just one. It's also variable to the provider and their equipment. It's software driven. So a new Rev of the software comes out and how they handle calls could change. Keep in mind, it's digital so the antenna could servicing your call multiple times during your call and you wouldn't know it.

Each antenna is measuring the signal to your phone. It's not only measuring the strength of signal but the consistency of signal. If the signal on a specific frequency fluctuates wildly, it will connect to another antenna. Dr. Pellero pointed this out about calls connecting in his apartment.

But traditionally, on both outgoing and incoming calls, your call is connected to the last antenna your phone is registered to. The process works like this. There is a database server managing each antenna's calls. When you turn on your phone, your phone goes looking for the network and your phone gets registered with strongest consistent antennas local database server, From that point on, it knows how to route the call.
Now a call is made and it first tries that route to reach you. But if your signal ever degraded too much, your phone would have found another antenna and you would be registered to that one.
It's actually very simple but complex to explain. Its much easier to understand visually. Sorry if my explanation isn't clear.


The protocols for GSM (the system upon which all mobile phones in Italy operated in 2007) have just this sort of traffic optimisation system. On top of everything you've written - all of which applies to GSM, I'd make the following observations, which are something of a simplified and appended version:

Basically, if a phone ("Handset 1") is switched on but not in use and connected via a certain base station ("A"), the network may switch the phone from base station A ("A") to another base station ("B") if A has started to handle a large amount of traffic (that is, of course, assuming that Handset 1 can get suitably strong and reliable signal from both A and B at that time. If Handset 1 can "see" only A as a base station, then it will remain connected to A until and unless it is switched off, or its location changes, or the signal coverage with A degrades so much that the phone disconnects from the network entirely)

While Handset 1 is involved in an actual live communication connection to the network (i.e. a phone call, MMS message or GPRS internet use (a text message is such a short-duration burst of traffic as to be irrelevant here)), it will remain connected via A unless A physically goes offline or has another major problem, or unless Handset 1 loses signal coverage with A (either because of changes in atmospheric or topographic/obstruction conditions, or because the person using Handset 1 is on the move). If Handset 1 is forced, through one of these occurrences, to switch to B (or any other base station) in the midst of e.g. a phone call, the call participants will hear a very short period of silence as the call hands over from one base station to the other.

And therefore to address bagels' original question more specifically, if a phone has connected to (and registered with) a particular base station ("A"), it will, as a rule, stay connected to that base station until/unless:

a) Signal quality to that base station (A) degrades too much (changes in atmospherics, obstructions, etc) to make reliable/clear communications possible - assuming that the handset can get a stronger signal from another base station (B), it will then switch to that second base station. Similarly, if the existing connection to A is of low strength/quality/reliability, and if the handset is able to see a second base station (B) with which it can establish a higher-strength, more reliable signal, it will usually switch to B. If the connection with A degrades, but if the handset cannot see any other base station with sufficiently stronger/reliable signal, then the handset will remain connected to A regardless, until it crosses a further threshold (determined by the network) of insufficient connectivity, at which point the handset will disconnect from the network entirely.

b) The user moves out of (or to the very edge of) the coverage area of A, to the point where B now gives a stronger, more reliable connection (this is really another example of point (a) above.

c) Base station A gets "full" of traffic from other mobile phone active connections - the network software will switch the handset to B, provided that the handset can also get a strong, reliable connection to B.
 
Last edited:
The protocols for GSM (the system upon which all mobile phones in Italy operated in 2007) have just this sort of traffic optimisation system. On top of everything you've written - all of which applies to GSM, I'd make the following observations, which are something of a simplified and appended version:

Basically, if a phone ("Handset 1") is switched on but not in use and connected via a certain base station ("A"), the network may switch the phone from base station A ("A") to another base station ("B") if A has started to handle a large amount of traffic (that is, of course, assuming that Handset 1 can get suitably strong and reliable signal from both A and B at that time. Otherwise Handset 1 will remain connected to A until and unless it is switched off or its location changes.

While Handset 1 is involved in an actual live communication connection to the network (i.e. a phone call, MMS message or GPRS internet use (a text message is such a short-duration burst of traffic as to be irrelevant here)), it will remain connected via A unless A physically goes offline or has another major problem, or unless Handset 1 loses signal coverage with A (either because of changes in atmospheric or topographic/obstruction conditions, or because the person using Handset 1 is on the move). If Handset 1 is forced, through one of these occurrences, to switch to B (or any other base station) in the midst of e.g. a phone call, the call participants will hear a very short period of silence as the call hands over from one base station to the other.

And therefore to address bagels' original question more specifically, if a phone has connected to (and registered with) a particular base station ("A"), it will, as a rule, stay connected to that base station until/unless:

a) Signal quality to that base station (A) degrades too much (changes in atmospherics, obstructions, etc) to make reliable/clear communications possible - assuming that the handset can get a stronger signal from another base station (B), it will then switch to that second base station. Similarly, if the existing connection to A is of low strength/quality/reliability, and if the handset is able to see a second base station (B) with which it can establish a higher-strength, more reliable signal, it will usually switch to B. If the connection with A degrades, but if the handset cannot see any other base station with sufficiently stronger/reliable signal, then the handset will remain connected to A regardless, until it crosses a further threshold (determined by the network) of insufficient connectivity, at which point the handset will disconnect from the network entirely.

b) The user moves out of (or to the very edge of) the coverage area of A, to the point where B now gives a stronger, more reliable connection (this is really another example of point (a) above.

c) Base station A gets "full" of traffic from other mobile phone active connections - the network software will switch the handset to B, provided that the handset can also get a strong, reliable connection to B.

That's like playing chess blindfolded which I can't master no matter how hard I try.

Who's on first anyone?

It's ten times easier with visual representations of the components.
 
Last edited:
So if you believe this then you cannot attach an ounce of credence to her "confession", can you?

Can you not see that your beliefs build falsehood upon falsehood and when you analyse what you've said it amounts to rubbish? You can't pick and choose the bits you want to and then make up the rest.

You believe the confession was true and you believe Amanda had amnesia? Surely Mensa people have basic analytical skills.

Please familiarise yourself with the court testimony before embarrassing yourself about the amnesia issue.
 
It's variable like you wouldn't hardly believe.

There are other factors including load on the network. The computers are constantly measuring strength of signal, traffic and balancing all these factors to provide the best service to the entirety of customers, not just one. It's also variable to the provider and their equipment. It's software driven. So a new Rev of the software comes out and how they handle calls could change. Keep in mind, it's digital so the antenna servicing your call could change multiple times during your call and you wouldn't know it.

Each antenna is measuring the signal to your phone. It's not only measuring the strength of signal but the consistency of signal. If the signal on a specific frequency fluctuates wildly, it will connect to another antenna. Dr. Pellero pointed this out about calls connecting in his apartment.

But traditionally, on both outgoing and incoming calls, your call is connected to the last antenna your phone is registered to. The process works like this. There is a database server managing each antenna's calls. When you turn on your phone, your phone goes looking for the network and your phone gets registered with strongest consistent antennas local database server, From that point on, it knows how to route the call.
Now a call is made and it first tries that route to reach you. But if your signal ever degraded too much, your phone would have found another antenna and you would be registered to that one.
It's actually very simple but complex to explain. Its much easier to understand visually. Sorry if my explanation isn't clear.

Thanks. I am trying to determine how plausible is it that Meredith's phones were in Rudy's house at the time of the 10:13 ping from the 30064 Ponte Rio tower. I recently learned that Rudy lived in the last house on the block at the edge of the city, right next to the Sant’Angelo Park the defense expert said connected to the 30064 antenna "99 times out of 100."

My working hypothesis is that Rudy may have run out the cottage the back way, probably around ~21:30 and in the back rural area the cells lost the town center signal and picked up 30064, and kept on that tower until Rudy decided to dump them, possibly with the 22:13 incoming text reminding him how hot they were. And in the garden they may have lost the signal and later picked up the closer Piazza Lupattelli signal they pinged the next day.

The standard theory is he dumped them on the way home and the 22:13 ping was in the garden, but that puts his exit from the cottage pretty late since there was human interaction on the phones starting at 21:58.
 
Police reported Amanda had the characteristic cat piss smell of a cocaine or crystal meth user. (So much for her claim of taking three showers within 36 hours.) These are police who recognise drug smells. Perugia was swimming in drugs.


Regarding this, there are other esteemed individuals who pride themselves in this sort of "smell test" of people, and who use it to evaluate those with whom they are conversing, even in a professional context (they claim perhaps to have used exactly these sorts of "smell tests" regularly in their professional work).

These sorts of people, for example, "smelled" Curatolo and decided enthusiastically that he (Curatolo) was clean, sober and of sound mind.

Whereas, in reality, Curatolo was (at the time of that meeting, and before and after, unless he was in prison) a sad heroin addict and dealer, a chronic alcohol abuser, and a man with many mental health issues (including a bizarre type of Messiah complex).

So maybe these "smell tests" aren't as reliable or credible as those who employ them (or those who credulously believe in their accuracy when it suits their needs in argument) might like to think...... :rolleyes: ;) :p
 
Thanks. I am trying to determine how plausible is it that Meredith's phones were in Rudy's house at the time of the 10:13 ping from the 30064 Ponte Rio tower. I recently learned that Rudy lived in the last house on the block at the edge of the city, right next to the Sant’Angelo Park the defense expert said connected to the 30064 antenna "99 times out of 100."

My working hypothesis is that Rudy may have run out the cottage the back way, probably around ~21:30 and in the back rural area the cells lost the town center signal and picked up 30064, and kept on that tower until Rudy decided to dump them, possibly with the 22:13 incoming text reminding him how hot they were. And in the garden they may have lost the signal and later picked up the closer Piazza Lupattelli signal they pinged the next day.

The standard theory is he dumped them on the way home and the 22:13 ping was in the garden, but that puts his exit from the cottage pretty late since there was human interaction on the phones starting at 21:58.


Ah but the problem with this is that the 9.58pm (21:58) failed call from Kercher's UK phone was almost certainly made while the handset was still inside the girls' cottage.

So Guede would have had to leave the cottage some time shortly after that call (let's say 10pm), gone back to his apartment, and been there by the time the 10.13pm incident* happened. It's possible of course, but on balance of probabilities IMO it's more likely that Guede was on his way home (via the dark, quiet route outside the city walls) when the 10.13pm incident occurred.


* For clarity, this incident was that the phone received a notification of an incoming multimedia message (MMS) over GPRS (the rather primitive data communications system that operated on top of GSM at that time). Whoever was in control of the phone at that point (i.e. Guede) pressed one or more buttons on the phone in reaction to the notification alert (which probably took the form of a short noise and the lighting-up of the phone's screen, with a textual notification of an incoming MMS being available to download), but the button(s) that was/were pushed had the effect of initiating the data download itself. Similarly, the phone would have showed that the download had started, along with its progress. At that point, the person in control of the phone pressed the stop/abort button to cancel the download.
 
Ah but the problem with this is that the 9.58pm (21:58) failed call from Kercher's UK phone was almost certainly made while the handset was still inside the girls' cottage.

How do we know that? I thought the 21:58 failed call never connected to a tower so it couldn't be localized?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom