Friday, April 10, 2015

Those Pesky Certainties Cassation’s Fifth Chambers May Or May Not Convincingly Contend With #1

Posted by Cardiol MD

The Italian Supreme Court is in the background

1. How Overload Can Overwhelm The Checks And Balances

The Italian Supreme Court (SCC) has 396 Judges in Rome and elsewhere.

Because of the enormous pro-defendant tilt in the system, the SCC hears about 80,000 appeals a year - more than all other Supreme Courts in the rest of Europe combined.

The SCC operates in panels, typically of 5 justices; that scales to about 4 appeals/panel/workweek, or about 1 appeal/panel/workday. A huge workload impinging on carefulness and promoting distraction and exhaustion.

Even with a law-clerk infrastructure, and the most ingenious exploitation of human concentrated-attention-span, highly questionable outcomes such as that for Meredith’s case would seem inevitable.

The four SCC judges panels (2008, 2010, 2013, 2015) which have ruled on various issues arising as Meredith’s murder case inched its way through the Italian legal system have been composed of different judge-combinations, with different skills, different knowledge, different education, and different experiences.

In many cases high-tech issues are an integral part of the evidence before the courts. This requires the enlistment of expert opinions because the judges may not be versant in the relevant high-tech issues. All sides, the defence, the prosecution, other interested parties, and even the judges, can cherry-pick experts for hire, who often use brazen sophistry to persuade the judges in the experts’ favour.

These facts may help to explain if not justify the unexpected conclusion of this current SCC judges panel which is now drafting the Motivazione.

2. Circumstantial Evidence And The Italian Requirement For Certainty

Near the start of the 2015 SCC hearings Judge Bruno, one of the 5 members of the Marasca SCC-Panel, was quoted as having said that the trials had “not many certainties beyond the girl’s death and one definitely convicted.”

As we await this particular Motivazione intended to explain its decision, we will review the Massei Motivazione, the Nencini Motivazione, and the several past SCC rulings to establish what do constitute the certainties - of which in fact as Italian law defines them there is actually a large number.

In order to be classified as Circumstantial Evidence in Italian Law an evidentiary circumstance or fact must be true to the level of being a certainty. Note that this rule does not supersede BARD, it applies only to the the acceptance of individual items of evidence as circumstantial, so it can mislead and confuse authors and readers.

As will be noted below, under this Italian requirement the unverifiable RS/AK broken water-pipe story can not be classified as pro-defense Circumstantial Evidence. Therefore it cannot legally be argued as corroboration of the excuses of Knox & Sollecito, including their mop claims.

Sollecito’s father, Dr. Francesco Sollecito, did say that RS had mentioned the alleged-leak of Nov. 1st, 2007, in the father’s 221 seconds, 20:42:56 call of Nov.1st, 2007.  Hellmann/Zanetti bought into this story, discussing it in their Motivazione.

AK is quoted by Nencini as referring to the alleged-leak in her testimony, but neither Galati nor the 2013 Hellmann/Zanetti-annulling SCC panel mentioned the alleged-leak. All seemed aware that there was no certainty.

3. An Explanation Of Why This Will Matter So Much In Future

In 2013 the SCC itself annulled most of the Hellmann-Zanetti verdict in part because there was an obvious parceling-out of the pieces of circumstantial evidence and a lack of assessment of each piece of circumstantial evidence. Hellmann-Zanetti had failed to check whether the possible flaws and lacks in the logical value of each single piece of evidence could be resolved by cross-checking them and taking in account the whole.

Have the SCC judges themselves now made this same mistake? It is especially at this level that informed legal analysis in Italy of the pending SCC Motivazione will concentrate, future books on the case will concentrate, and the final degree of legitimacy will be established.

Given the peculiarity that the case was not referred back down to Florence for adjustment, worries at this level especially could be driving the very obvious nervousness of all of the defense counsels, shushing and restraining their clients in the presumed hope that the SCC judges really can square the circle and achieve legitimacy.

4. Certainties And Certainly-Nots In The Circumstantial Evidence

1. Fracture Of Hyoid Bone?

The SCC-Panel for Guede’s Sentencing (English Translation) wrote on Pages 4-5:

c) The body presented a very large number of bruising and superficial wounds – around 43 counting those caused by her falling – some due to a pointed and cutting weapon, others to strong pressure: on the limbs, the mouth, the nose, the left cheek, and some superficial grazing on the lower neck, a wound on the left hand, several superficial knife wounds or defence wounds on the palm and thumb of the right hand, bruises on the right elbow and forearm, ecchymosis on the lower limbs, on the front and inside of the left thigh, on the middle part of the right leg, and a deep knife wound which completely cut through the upper right thyroid artery fracturing the hyoid bone, a wound which caused a great deal of bleeding from the vessels of both lungs.

This caused a haemorrhagic shock and asphyxiation by the presence of blood in the respiratory passages, an exitus [decease] placed at around 23:00 of Nov. 1 by the forensic pathologist.

The emphases are mine. The knife cut through the hyoid bone rather than fractured it (in the English version it should say that it severed the hyoid bone; this is a translation issue). A Certainly-Not then.

The wound certainly did not cause any bleeding at all from the vessels of either lung; this is not a translation issue. This is a factual error in the original Italian Sentencing Report. A Certainly-Not then.

(This shows how the SCC-Panel Reports are not infallible. Unfortunately the Marasca Panel will have to dredge-up some past, fallible SCC-Panel Reports in order to explain its own reasoning.)

2. Two Knives?

Massei Translation p377: “There must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime.”

Certainly! There were 2 major, penetrating knife-wounds into Meredith’s neck; one entering on the left-side, and one entering on the right-side, which was made by a pocket-knife of the size Sollecito customarily carried. The latter wound could not have been made by whatever knife entered on the left-side. Therefore 2 knives were Certainly used.

3. Single Blow?

Massei Translation p 371 ”…a single blow was apparently halted by the jawbone…”

Certainly Not.

The statement that a blow could be “apparently halted” by Meredith’s jawbone is at best a figure of speech, and the quotes of Prof Cingolani on page 152 of the Massei Translation clearly indicate that any cause and effect inference from the phrase “apparently halted”, “did not…. have elements of certainty to establish” it was “stopped by the jawbone.” Prof Cingolani “did not, however, have elements of certainty to establish that the blade which had caused the wound 4 centimetres deep had stopped at the said depth because [it was] stopped by the jawbone.”

Maybe there is a Judicial, translational, or typographical glitch and “by” the jawbone should have been “near” the jawbone. Skin is soft and bone is harder but there is no way that the knife striking the jawbone or hyoid bone would halt the knife in this case, they would just roll with the blow, depending on the angle of attack.

Furthermore, contact between the knife and jawbone or hyoid bone would not mark the knife because living-bone is softer than the knife. When your pet gnaws on a non-living cow-bone, neither the bone nor your pet’s teeth can bend; both your pet’s teeth and the bone can be broken, and the bone gets scratches on it because it is still softer than the teeth, but your pet’s teeth do not get scratches on them, because they are harder even than the non-living bone.

If someone is stabbed in the back with a kitchen carving knife, penetrating ribs on its way to the heart, the knife may have no scratches at all, nor show any signs of damage caused by that action. Any implication in the statement quoted above that stabbing Meredith’s neck with enough force to penetrate the layers of her neck and then strike bone would have the effect of signs of damage to the knife-blade, is a mistaken implication.

It is an old rule of materials-physics that a softer substance cannot mark a harder substance. [To some people this may be counter to their intuition, so I have passed it by an eminent MIT physicist, and he agrees with me that the knife blade would certainly not show signs of damage caused by the stabbing in this case.]

4. SMS Message?

It is Certain that at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007 Amanda Knox’s mobile-phone received the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic? pub on the evening of 1 November.

Remember that mobile-phones are equivalent to convicts’ ankle-monitor bracelets, their use creates with Certainty a record of the Times of cell-phone activities, the Location of the corresponding transmitter-cell, and hence the general location of the mobile-phone, especially Ruling-Out particular Locations e.g. Proving whether the carrier of the phone was in or out of the range of their home transmitter-cell. Call Verbal-Content is not publicly available.

Here the mobile-phone Record proves that Knox’s mobile-phone was Certainly-Not in Sollecito’s lodging-house at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007:

At the time of reception, Knox’s phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. Amanda Knox’s mobile phone, and therefore Knox herself, was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell.

This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub.

Knox was therefore Certainly Not at Sollecito’s Corso Garibaldi Lodging at that time, contrary to the allegation that she was, and Knox Certainly-Could have been at her Cottage.

5. SMS Reply?

At 20.35.48 on Nov.1st, 2007, Amanda Knox Certainly sent an SMS in reply to Patrick, at No. 338-7195723; the message was sent when her on Nov.1st, 2007 mobile phone was in Corso Garibaldi 30 or in the immediate neighbourhood. The cell used, in fact, was that of Via Berardi sector 7 - no other [use] was shown for the day of 1.11.07, noting that Amanda declared during hearings that she had switched her mobile phone off once she had returned 323 to Raffaele’s house, claiming she was more than happy she did not have to go to work and could spend the evening with her boyfriend.

(Knox may also have been LESS than happy that Lumumba preferred Meredith instead of Knox as an employee. This was perhaps humiliating enough to Knox for Knox to decide that the time to cut Meredith down-to-size was now.)

6. Bomb Threat?

Massei Translation page 25: On “the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything….”

This call was Certainly received, the Police Certainly came to Mrs. Lana’s home, presumably not long after 10: pm on the evening of November 1, 2007 (Time & Duration of Police presence apparently not publicly-available).

The Courts must know those times accurately and precisely; reasonably assuming them to be after Meredith’s murder, and near the time of the Phone-Dump (Otherwise, the necessary combination of coincidences is too implausible).

It is most likely that the visible, and possibly audible, presence of Police triggered the panicked disposal of the Cell-Phones down the steep slope that falls sharply into the valley below.

There is no need to invoke any awareness by the phone-dumper[s] of the reason(the hoax-call) that the Police were near Mrs. Lana’s residence.

So if the killers saw flashing police-lights, or any other sign of police near Mrs. Lana’s place, that sign could be enough to explain panic phone-dumping - then and there (not considering whether the phones were switched-on or switched-off).

According to John Follain the slope is heavily overgrown with trees and bushes, an ideal place to dispose of evidence. If the phones had fallen just a few yards further, they would certainly have gone over the edge of the cliff, down into a 50m gully, straight into a thick scrub of nettles, and probably been lost forever….

7. Phone Dialings?

There were four dialings on Meredith’s mobile phones after her arrival home on the evening of 1 November ‘07:

    i. 20:56 hours on 1 November 07, attempted call to Meredith’s mother’s home in England.

  ii. 21:58 hours on 1 November 07, attempted call to mobile phone’s answering service, voicemail ‘901’.

  iii. 22:00 hours on 1 November 07, dial to Meredith’s London bank ‘ABBEY’.

  iv. 22:13:29 hours (9 seconds) on 1 November 07, attempted internet connection. Connection consistent with being attempted from cottage, but inconsistent with being attempted from Mrs.Lana’s.

These dialings are Certain with regard to Existence, Timings, and Location.

Massei Translation, page 331, attributes the above 4 dialings to Meredith absent-mindedly playing with the mobile phone in her hand, and her phone may well have still been in her hand when her attackers surprised her.

8. Phone Location?

Was Meredith’s Phone still in the cottage at Via della Pergola at 22:13:29 hours on 1 November 07? Yes. Certainly.

9. A Tow Truck?

At about 22:30 hours Car broken-down nearby. Tow-Truck called-for.

At about 23:00 hours Tow-Truck arrives to load car.

At about 23:13 hours Tow-Truck leaves with loaded car.

These events Certainly occurred, but those times are approximate.

10. Francesco Called?

@23:41:11 RS’s father attempts phone-call but makes no oral contact. Father leaves message which is not received until 06:02:59 on 2.11.07.

This 23:41:11 call was attempted during the very time-frame of the attack on Meredith, her murder, and the flight of her killers with her mobile telephones. Meredith’s Phone[s] were removed from her cottage by about Midnight, less than 20 minutes after this attempted call.

These phone calls are Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

11. Phone Location?

For 2.11.07 the first record is that of MKP - [0]0:10: 31, (i.e. Very early in the a.m. 10 minutes and 31 seconds after midnight) “when it has been established as an incontrovertible fact that Meredith’s English mobile phone was no longer in Via della Pergola, the mobile phone having received the contact under the coverage from Wind signal [cell] ..25622, which is incompatible with the cottage.”

Was Meredith’s Phone still in the cottage at Via della Pergola at 00:10: 31, 2.11.07? No!

Therefore Meredith’s English mobile phone had been removed from her cottage between 10.13.39 p.m. on 1.11.07 (more likely about 11.13 p.m.  when tow-truck departed) and 0:10:31 on 2:11:07; about 10 ½ minutes after midnight – say Meredith’s Phone[s] Removed By About Midnight, allowing for the time-elapse before being dumped near Mrs. Lana’s place. (Hellmann falsified this time-span on page 14 of his report, stating it to be more than 10 hours after midnight rather than about 10 ½ minutes after midnight.)

12. Phones Stolen?

At some time before Meredith’s attackers fled, they had seized her mobile telephones, probably near the beginning of the attack, having started their attack with a pre-emptive strike to intimidate Meredith, remove all hope, surround her, display knives, seal all possible escape-routes, and remove any possibility of phone-calling for help.

Immediately after Meredith’s scream her attackers had silenced her with the fatal stabbing, and then fled immediately.

They fled with her already-seized but still switched-on mobile telephones, probably without locking anything, including Meredith’s door.

Their over-riding and 1st imperative was not-to-be-caught-at-the-crime-scene.

See item 6. above.

13. Crimescene Meddling?

Having accomplished the Phone-Dump, Meredith’s killers next re-model the crime-scene, minimising the evidences of their identities, cleaning-up the evidences that it was ‘an inside job’, and simulating the appearances that it was ‘an outside job’.

One should bear in mind that these killers should have still been overwhelmed by their having actually committed a crime beyond their wildest imaginings.

Their panic impaired their thinking, and their ignorance, immaturity, inexperience, lack of technical resources and their arrogance precluded their selecting deceptions more effective against knowledgeable, experienced professional crime-investigators with a large fund of resources. They probably think that throwing the stone from inside Filomena’s room was a brilliant deception.

They wish it had never happened.

They wish they could make it unhappen (Hellmann/Zanetti got close to fulfilling this wish, but got themselves unhappened by Cassation)

They wish they could prevent the discovery of Meredith’s murder.

They cannot prevent the discovery of Meredith’s murder.

They may be able to postpone its discovery, but not longer than the inevitable return of the cottage-mates, later that day.

They believe that the person who ‘discovers’ a murder may become 1st-suspect.

They may be able to manouevre others-than-themselves into being the ones that make the discovery – quite a wily aim.

It is beyond reasonable doubt that:

Meredith’s killers seized her mobile telephones, and that

Her killers did not switch-off these mobile telephones, and that.

Her killers threw the telephones into an apparent ravine, landing in Mrs.Lana’s garden, and that

This phone-dump was accomplished before 00:10: 31, 2.11.07, and that

Amanda Knox caused:

    i. the English phone to ring at 12:07:12 (16 seconds) and be discovered by Mrs.Lana’s daughter only because it rang , and

    ii. the other phone, registered to Filomena Romanelli, to ring, very briefly, at 12:11:02 (3 seconds) and,

    iii. the English phone to ring again, also very briefly, at 12:11:54 (4 seconds), after being brought into Mrs.Lana’s house. 6. Sollecito had more than 5 days, from about 11.30 pm on November 1st, 2007 until November 6, 2007, to remove from the killing-knife the traces of Meredith’s DNA.

In the opinion of the Court of Assizes (Massei Translation p.325), Amanda Knox’s call to Meredith’s phone was

...the first indispensible step before putting the [348] planned staging into action. The lack of a reply, since the poor girl was obviously already dead, gave a reason for reassurance about the fact that the young woman’s phone had not somehow been retrieved, [and] was therefore safe in the spot where it had been thrown, which, according to the expectations [in the minds] of the murderers was a precipice or some other inaccessible spot, rather than in the garden of a villa located barely outside the city, where the vegetation concealed it from view.

Knox may well have expected that she was safe from phone-discovery, but these calls turned out to be the very instrument of a phone-discovery.

Had Knox not made these obfuscatory stabs, in the time-frame she made them Meredith’s phone would not have rung when it did ring and would therefore not have been discovered by Mrs. Lana’s daughter when she did discover it.

14. Phone Switched On?

For the day of 2.11.07, when Meredith was already dead, the traffic registered for the Vodafone number was shown to be the following:

00:10:31; duration and caller unspecified, but Wind signal [cell] incompatible with cottage, but compatible with Mrs. Lana’s place.

Therefore, Meredith’s mobile cell-phone had already been taken away from the cottage by her killers. It is not possible to determine from this phone-record whether the phone was switched on or off, but this phone was discovered at Mrs. Lana’s place because it was ringing, and therefore was “on”.

12:11:02 (duration of 3 seconds): Knox’s phone call reached the phone and was diverted to the answering service. The Vodafone cell used by Meredith’s service provider was situated in Strada Vicinale S. Maria della Collina sector 1.

12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made by Knox’s phone towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)

Three more phone-calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

15. Francesco SMS Received?

At 06:02:59 Raffaele Sollecito received the SMS from his father allegedly wishing Raffaelle a good night; from the evidence of the mobile phone record printouts of Dr. Francesco Sollecito, it was shown that the sending of the message occurred at, as has been said, 23:41:11 of 1.11.07. This was the last SMS sent from that mobile phone during the whole day of 1.11.07

3+ Hours after receiving his father’s message from 23:41:11 of 1.11.07:

At 09:24 Raffaele Sollecito received a phone call from his father lasting 248 seconds]

At this time RS’s consiousness would be dominated by his guilty knowledge, and probably far-advanced in the accomplishment of the 3rd imperative.

Did RS and father spend 4+ minutes discussing the weather?

This is the first father/son opportunity to formulate the two-pronged water-leak story.

Although AK had already been to the hardware store 2 hours before, they may well not have known the potential DNA problems with the knife, the need to scrub it vigorously, to clean-out, and repair the drain-pipes under the sink, and the need to return the knife to RS’s kitchen drawer.

As it turned-out, Sollecito had more than 5 days, from about 11.30 pm on November 1st, 2007 until November 6, 2007, to remove from the killing-knife the traces of Meredith’s DNA.

They probably did not know that incriminating stains could be invisible, but can be revealed by Luminol.

16. Francesco Calls Received?

At 09:29 another call was received lasting 38 seconds

At 09:30 (duration unspecified?) the father called Raffaele; the call connected to the Vial Belardi sector 7 cell.(the best server cell for Corso Garibaldi 30).]

These two calls, Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations, were probably spent dotting ‘i’s, crossing ‘t’s, and exchanging options, such as enlisting sister Vanessa’s skills and contacts.

17. More Calls Later?

Another 2+ Hours later:

At 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito’s house)

At 12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)

Discovery will be inevitable when Filomena eventually arrives-back at the cottage.

AK/RS have accepted that they have to ‘stand-pat’ with their efforts so-far to accomplish not-to-be-the-“discoverers”-of-Meredith’s-body.

Amanda did not say a word in this phone-call to Filomena about Amanda’s phone call to Meredith, thereby withholding information that should have led Amanda to initiate discovery of Meredith’s body, and help Amanda to manouevre someone other than Amanda into being the one who ‘discovers’ Meredith’s body.

At 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector3)

18. Yet More Calls?

For the day of 2.11.07, when Meredith was already dead, the traffic registered for the Vodafone number was shown to be the following 5 calls, Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations:

    i. 12:11:02 (duration of 3 seconds): Amanda’s phone call reached the phone and was diverted to the answering service. The Vodafone cell used by Meredith’s service provider was situated in Strada Vicinale S. Maria della Collina sector 1.

    ii. 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)

    iii. 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele’s house)

    iv. 12:20:44 (lasting 65 seconds) Romanelli F. calls Amanda, who receives the call connecting to the cell in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (good for Corso Garibaldi 30)

    v. 12:34:56 (48 seconds): Filomena calls Amanda who receives it from the cottage on Via della Pergola 7 (the cell used is that on Piazza Lupattelli sector 7. As mentioned, Raffaele also used the same cell when he called the service centre at 12:35 hours to recharge [the credit of] his mobile phone)
19. RS Phone Location?

At 12:35: Raffaele’s mobile phone contacted a service centre for a phone [credit] recharge (the cell used was that of Piazza Lupattelli sector 7, which gives coverage to the little house on Via della Pergola 7. The signal in question does not reach Corso Garibaldi 30, which instead is served by the signal from Piazza Lupattelli sector 8)

At 12:38: Vodafone sent R.Sollecito a message of confirmation of phone [credit] recharge (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, good for Via della Pergola 7)

At 12:40: incoming call from RS’s father’s mobile phone (lasting 67 seconds; connection through Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell, compatible with the Sollecito’s presence near the little house)]

At 12:47:23 (duration of 88 seconds): Amanda calls the American (USA) number 00120069326457, using the cell on Piazza Lupatetlli sector 7; the phone call takes place prior to the one which, at 12.51.40, Raffaele Sollecito will make to ‚112?, connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1, which gives coverage to Via della Pergola 7]

In “Waiting To Be Heard” Knox can hardly deny having made this 1st call, acknowledges making the call, and purports, now, to recall its substance, providing the reader with her version of what was said.

At 13:24:18 (duration of 162 seconds): Amanda calls the same American number which corresponds to the home of her mother, Mrs Edda Mellas, using the same cell. It is obvious that the young woman is inside the cottage, where by this point, several minutes earlier, the Postal Police had shown up, [347] represented by Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi, who were engaged in the task of tracking down Filomena Romanelli, who was the owner of the Vodafone phonecard contained in the mobile phone found earlier in the garden of the villa on Via Sperandio]

In “Waiting To Be Heard” Knox can hardly deny having made this 2nd call either, she acknowledges making the call, and provides the reader with her current version of what was said.

20. More Phone Locations?

At 12:50:34 outgoing call directed at mobile phone 347-1323774 belonging to Vanessa Sollecito, sister of the defendant; duration 39 seconds. Connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell 320

At 12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito called ‚112? to inform the Carabinieri of the presumed theft in Romanelli’s room (duration 169 seconds; connection to Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell, which covers Via della Pergola 7)

At 12:54: a second call by Raffaele to ‚112? (57 sec.; connection to Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)

Three more Sollecito calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

21. More Phone Locations?

At 13:17:10 (lasting 1 second) to Meredith’s phone: the cell used was located in the same place, sector 7

At 13:27:32 (duration of 26 seconds): Amanda calls the American number 0012069319350, still using the cell at Piazza Lupattelli sector 7.

At 13:29:00 (duration of 296 seconds) Amanda receives [a call] from No. 075/54247561 (Piazza Lupattelli sector 7 cell)

Three more Knox calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

22. Another Phone Location?

At 13:40:12: incoming call from his father to RS (94 sec.; Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 1 cell)

Another Sollecito call Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

23. More Knox Calls?

At 13:48:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to AK’s mother’s number

At 13:58:33 (1 second): this is an attempted call to her mother’s number

The above item is a faithful translation from the Massei Motivazione section on Amanda Knox’s mobile phone traffic, but is listed out-of-time-sequence; the assigned-time is probably a ‘typo’ – “13:48:33” is much more likely correct.

Two more Knox calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

24. Francesco Call?

14:33: Sollecito’s father called Sollecito for 21 seconds (as above)]

Do RS and father exchange more caveats in their call Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations?

25. More Knox Locations?

At 14:46:14 (102 seconds) Amanda receives a call from the German number 494154794034, most likely belonging to her aunt Doroty Craft

Call to Meredith’s phone at 15:13:43 (5 seconds) cell not indicated.

At 15:31:51 (1 second): Knox receives an SMS sent from the number 389/1531078; at this point the cell being used is the one on Via Cappuccinelli 5/A sector 2, where the Questura [police headquarters] is located.

Two more Knox-related calls Certain wrt Existence, Timings, and Locations.

In the hours that followed the [mobile phone record] printouts show that the answering service of Amanda’s number 348-4673590 was activated due to a lack of signal coverage.

Massei Translation p.324:

Finally, the analyses of the [phone record] printouts highlight that the first phone call made by Amanda on the day of 2 November was to Meredith Kercher’s English number.

The American student called her English flatmate even before contacting Romanelli Filomena to whom she intended to express, as she testified in court, her fears about the strange things she had seen in the cottage, which she had returned to at about 11 o’clock in order to shower in preparation for the excursion to Gubbio which she and Raffaele had planned.

It is strange that Amanda did not say a word to Filomena about the phone call to their flatmate, when the call, not having been answered, would normally have caused anxiety and posed some questions as to why Meredith did not answer the phone at such an advanced hour of the day.

26. Sollecito Locations?

At 17:01: RS’s father called RS for 164 seconds; cell used is that of Via Cappucinelli 5/A sector 2, corresponding to the location of the Perugia Police Station

At 17:42: RS’s father called RS for 97 seconds (as above).

With regard to Raffaele Sollecito’s landline home phone (No. 075-9660789)

The above 2 calls presumably covered final agreements on the Father/son stories.

For the entire day of 1 November and then of 2 November, Raffaele Sollecito’s fixed line was not affected by any calls, either incoming or outgoing.

This series continues here.


Thank you Cardiol MD. This is an excellent analysis and review of exactly what happened. The data from the cell phone towers is a clear indication of what transpired before and after Meredith Kercher was murdered. I’m looking forward to reading part 2 soon.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 04/11/15 at 11:15 AM | #

Cardiol MD many thanks for such a concise summary of hard facts of the case.

Now just how will the Supreme Court explain all that

Posted by Mason2. on 04/11/15 at 11:44 AM | #

These are iron cast evidences. But a Smith and Wesson trumps four aces.

Will the final report coming soon be consistent with these evidences?

Another aspect worth looking into is the money these two kids were having when they were arrested and the expenses they incurred during the period leading to their arrest. The money trail often leads to somewhere…

Thank you Cardiol for the wonderful timeline. Mobile phones are indeed ankle bracelets and I often wonder how google knows where I went…

Posted by chami on 04/11/15 at 01:48 PM | #

Most interesting - especially the medical aspects: as you so clearly point out, when judges have a relatively short time to assess the ‘expert’ testimony - whether it is about cell phones or hyoid bones - ‘reviewing judges’  are putting their faith in a sort of ‘third-hand narrative’ quite outside their personal expertise. I think it is obvious that Massei, having himself been present throughout the testimony part of the trial, and having intervened to clarify details to his satisfaction, does have a much clearer perspective.

But I do think that you are ascribing a little too much certainty to the location aspect of the cell phone information. We mustn’t forget that this was Italy, in 2007, and none of the cellphones used had GPS functionality. The data recording by the Italian network providers was relatively sketchy, and the testimony about the cell tower coverage (by an expert who had never before visited Perugia) was incoherent.

A slightly more readable treatise on the cell phones recently became available, (authored by a Sollecito defence expert, Pellero, in 2009). That report maintains that Kercher’s English phone attempted to receive a GPRS connection at 22.13 (rather than attempted to send data), and I accept their reasoning, although it is clearly stated to be conjectural. They also claim that this cell phone was not at the cottage at that time - although the data they show doesn’t seem to me to back up this claim in any way. (I think they demonstrate that it probably was at the cottage.)

Knox does discuss in her testimony (the recently translated last segment) where she might have been when she made the first calls to Romanelli. It is another of those ‘I don’t remember’ moments.

I suppose all I am saying is that cell phones in 2007 were not by any means ‘ankle bracelets’ and that Perugia is such a three dimensional place that a passing swallow could mean that a cell phone links to a different mast than you’d expect.

Posted by Sallyoo on 04/11/15 at 03:24 PM | #

Hi Sallyoo

Your comment that “We mustn’t forget that this was Italy, in 2007, and none of the cellphones used had GPS functionality. The data recording by the Italian network providers was relatively sketchy,” is mistaken.  It was not sketchy.

The Network Providers in 2007 Perugia provided what I said they provided in 2007.

You, yourself, commented in January:  “just have one query about the 20.18 text message from Lumumba received by Knox’s phone.  While it is Certain that the message arrived on the phone at that precise time, (via that precise cell tower) it doesn’t inevitably follow that Knox read the message immediately it arrived. Posted by Sallyoo on 01/31/15 at 07:50 AM”.

Re-read my Post on 01/30/15 at 02:31 PM:

UTC [Coordinated Universal Time], “…is used for civil timekeeping all over the Earth’s surface…Therefore, for example, the timings of the mobile-phone, and landline-phone calls between Sollecito, in Perugia, Sollecito’s father Francesco, in Bari, and Sollecito’s sister, in Puglia, are precisely recorded – their Start, End, and Duration timings – but not their content. The Locations of the phones at those times are also detectable.”

The CUT Records I quote provide all the information CUT provided in 2007, wrt Factual Existence, Timings, and Locations. So the Network Providers in 2007 Perugia did provide what I said they provided.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/11/15 at 04:21 PM | #

Cardiol. You wrote -

“Massei Translation p377: “There must necessarily have been [405] two knives at the scene of the crime.”

Certainly! There were 2 major, penetrating knife-wounds into Meredith’s neck; one entering on the left-side, and one entering on the right-side, which was made by a pocket-knife of the size Sollecito customarily carried. The latter wound could not have been made by whatever knife entered on the left-side. Therefore 2 knives were Certainly used.”

To be precise the wound on the right side was 4 cms in depth and 1.5 cms wide.

The wound on the left was 8 cms in depth and also 8 cms in width.

Everyone agrees that the D-DNA Knife could not have caused the wound on the right side because it’s width 4cms from the tip of the blade is almost twice the width of that wound.

The question is whether a blade with a width of 1.5 cms could be responsible for a wound 8 cms wide. Of course if the blade was only 4 cms long then it couldn’t be responsible for a wound 8 cms deep anyway but it could be that it was only inserted to that depth.

8 cms wide is big. That is why she was described as having a cut throat.

The width of the incision on the left was therefore more than 5 times the width of the incision on the right.

Defence experts explained this as being the result of a sawing motion (with a 1.5 cms wide blade at a significant and awkward depth?) or as a consequence of the blade having been extracted and plunged in several times (more than 5 times, with incredible accuracy, and with blood everywhere?).

Please !

It is far, far more likely that the wound on the left side was caused by a knife larger than the one which caused the wound on the right. It’s quite simple to see what I mean just by getting out your ruler.

This is just one of a number of reasons for sustaining a scenario involving more than one attacker. It’s absurd to imagine a single attacker juggling with two knives.

Posted by James Raper on 04/11/15 at 05:59 PM | #

James, you’re quite right!

Be patient. The subject of “whatever knife entered on the Left side” ( the Kitchen-Knife) will Certainly be fully-discussed in #2.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/11/15 at 07:59 PM | #

Re the comment by Sallyoo, Cardiol had emailed asking asking that Sallyoo first see his reponse by email as he was reluctant to disagree.

But I was out and Sallyoo may be offline so, as time is passing, Cardiol has just posted his intended response above the comment by James.

Thanks all.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/12/15 at 08:50 AM | #

I don’t think we have any disagreement here. I’m entirely happy that the data supplied by the telecoms operators is a certainty.

It’s only the human interpretation (“because this phone connected to this mast it must have been precisely in this location”) which I think is difficult to consider a certainty.

Posted by Sallyoo on 04/12/15 at 12:16 PM | #


“because this phone connected to this mast it must have been precisely in this location”

Telecom operator simply say that the cellphone communicated via this tower. There will be some log files in some computers and other records to support this.

All towers continuously monitor all cellphones within its coverage area. That is how the network knows where you are and how to find you.

The human interpretation is that the cellphone must be located in the neighbourhood of the tower within a radius sufficient to receive signal suitable for communication. If the signal received by the cell phone is insufficient, then the communication will actually not take place.

Presence of hills, walls or other bodies (but not swallows) will only decrease this range.

We usually draw a circle with the cell phone tower at the centre and the maximum range as the radius. The cellphone must be located within this circle. This much is certain…

Usually cellphone towers have overlapping coverages. But that does not negate the above argument.

The correct statement will be therefore:
“any phone connecting to this mast it must have been precisely within this circular region”

Posted by chami on 04/12/15 at 01:05 PM | #

Thank you chami.

The post did not claim or imply “because this phone connected to this mast it must have been precisely in this location”. Here is the key statement.

Remember that mobile-phones are equivalent to convicts’ ankle-monitor bracelets, their use creates with certainty a record of the times of cell-phone activities, the location of the corresponding transmitter-cell, and hence the general location of the mobile-phone, especially ruling-out particular locations e.g. proving whether the carrier of the phone was in or out of the range of their home transmitter-cell. Call Verbal-Content is not publicly available.

Therefore, if AK’s phone was in the circular region of the mast at Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, and RS’s residence was NOT in that circular region AK’s phone was not at RS’s residence.

RS’s residence was NOT in the circular region of the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 mast, therefore AK’s phone was not at RS’s residence. QED.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/12/15 at 01:36 PM | #

The Italian justice system is currently under review in parliament to speed up processes for budget and business-investment reasons.

It could wind back the proneness toward second-guessing by successive courts, some of which Cardiol is identifying here with reference to original evidence.

Every second or third post and thread recently has discussed whether the Italian system has fundamental flaws or whether rebalancing in some areas is all that is called for.

The Italian system is indeed well known to be exceptionally heavily pro-defendant, in part it was designed that way and in part it was slanted further by parliamentarians helping unsavory buddies.

In polls a majority of Italians do want it to be more pro-victim, though despite that it remains largely trusted and popular, much moreso than parliament or politicians.

Based simply on Meredith’s case I’d go for various adjustments as they may be winnable and as this was a very unusual process. Consider:

Unusualness #1: From late 2007 to mid 2008 AK & RS were beating up on one another. Then they each realigned toward beating up on Guede, which caused the Guede team reluctantly to go for the short form trial (out of which he got a very long sentence with no guarantee it would be shortened). Almost never do shortforms AND longforms follow from the same crimes.

Unusualness #2: At trial AK and RS were back to separation with RS doing zero to help her with her alibi.

Unusualness #3: Knox had to get on the stand as she had no witnesses in her support for what was highly circumscribed cross-examination on the calunnia. She lost and ultimately got the 3 years inside.

Unusualness #4: Typical of Italy but unlikely in the UK or US or any other country that I know of were the two automatic appeals (RG and RS/AK)

Unusualness #5: Both appeals were with juries (why juries at that level?).

Unusualness #6: The judge-shopping that resulted in Hellmann replacing Chiari. This happened at a limbo time for the prosecution (Galati had not yet arrived in Perugia) or it could have been taken straight to the Supreme Court.

Unusualness #7: Almost complete annullment of Hellmann.

Unusualness #8: Highly curtailed presentation of the prosecution case to the Fifth Chambers by “a new guy” opposed by lengthy statements by defense lawyers on the case since 2007.

Unusualness #9: The Fifth Chambers not referring the Nencini outcome back down to Nencini for adjustments, for reasons not yet known to us.

Unusualness #10: Both an act of the President and a lawsuit could even now throw a spanner in the works. Dont take it that this is cast in stone now.

Again, its a slanted system but not totally rotten. Changes in the code/ improvements in the system could be addressed to prevent future Unusualnesses #1, #4, #5, #7, #8, and #9.

We should write an open letter to PM Renzi. It could actually be effective.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/13/15 at 12:30 PM | #


Yes, the idea is very sound. “We should write an open letter to PM Renzi. It could actually be effective”.

We need justice for the sake of justice. We need to take the abstract view. It is the justice that has been murdered- people’s faith in the system must be restored. There is no other way to go forward.

It is not to be confused with pro-victim or pro-criminal (yes, that is the correct word)- it must be pro-justice. Truth must not become the real victim.

The system must be self-correcting- I am not asking for the perfect perfection but it must be faithful.

I think it is important to let them know that people are watching closely.

Posted by chami on 04/13/15 at 01:27 PM | #

Peter, the open letter is an excellent idea.  PM Renzi cannot like the idea that the rest of the world is judging Italy by this mad decision or that a fine family is denied justice for their loved one. In the same way that the FOA created a stink with no decent basis for doing so we have every right to do so for the sake of the Kerchers and for justice.

Posted by MHILL4 on 04/13/15 at 03:11 PM | #

@Peter @chami

Re: letter to PM Renzi

A very good idea. A well-crafted letter, expressing surprise and dismay at what seems a perverse outcome - after 7 years of deliberations that point to guilt - can surely only be helpful.

Posted by Odysseus on 04/13/15 at 03:14 PM | #

Fantastic idea Peter about the open letter. A clear, factual letter questioning the manifest lack of logic apparent in the supreme court’s judgement but devoid of the bombast and hyperbole that typified the relentless FOA media campaign could be just what the doctor ordered. It would sit in nice juxtaposition beside Knox’s own simpering effort directed at Nencini. I doff my cap to your efforts and those of the other main contributors to this site in keeping justice for Meredith alive. It is a marvellous thing that you all do. Even if it results in nothing, the effort is certainly worthwhile. And you never know, it may just strike a chord with Renzi who must already have an opinion on this matter. I’ll keep my fingers, toes and even eyes crossed.

Posted by davidmulhern on 04/13/15 at 09:35 PM | #

I second the motion for an open letter to PM Renzi. I know in my mind this ludicrous decision has cast a pall on the Supreme Court and I am dumbfounded as to what would be the kind of pressure that would compel them to let the perps go completely free. I struggle with a deep sense of disappointment and frustration even though we still might see some form of justice in the future. A thank you to Cardiol for the post. I too had deep concerns when I heard what the judge said about the case since it sounded eerily like what Hellmann said but did not post my reservations. Another warning sign was when Andrea Vogt said that both sides had been given some criticism and that the judgement seemed up in the air. I am paraphrasing her post. But then I reasoned that the case was too airtight for some judges to overthrow. Boy, was I wrong.

Posted by Vinnie on 04/13/15 at 10:57 PM | #

Thanks all. More? We may open a separate page to work on this so everyone can join in, spotting system issues is fun and not so hard (and can make you a millionaire!)

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/14/15 at 12:52 PM | #

Aha! The Unusualnesses grow. Here are two more.

Unusualness #11: The Fifth Chambers invoked Article 530.2 which is not Cassation’s to invoke, that is absolutely exclusively the code for lower courts. On that alone a lawsuit or the President may result in an overturn.

Unusualness #12: Gennaro Marasca and Antonio Paolo Bruno and co are said to be getting roasted by colleagues across Italy on this and other faults right now, including by others senior to them in the Supreme Court.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/14/15 at 01:05 PM | #


Diplomat number (1)

“Excuse me could I have a word? I wish to talk to you about some labor problems you have been having including some ongoing difficulties with contractual negotiations. It’s possible that we could make those problems disappear and then of course we could return to business as usual. After all, we have to examine the bigger picture and any irritant between us could pose a problem even in the short term. There has been so much negative publicity on both sides, and as I say pursuing such a strategy would not be good for both our countries so perhaps, and for future considerations of course, this minor problem could be nipped in the bud. Far better to let it go this time and of course we in the US would be grateful and we would seriously consider any future requests from your government to ours. Also, and as a mark of friendship between us, the labor problems you have been experiencing we could smooth out for you. I’m sure you understand.  After all this is just a minor problem in the total scheme of things not to mention yesterdays news, and after all, the world must move forward don’t you agree? Therefore any help you could provide in this matter would be looked upon with favor. Of course this is totally off the record and just a conversation between old friends.”

Diplomat number (2)

“Well yes but in view of the overwhelming evidence proving guilt I doubt that my government would be too enamored with such an outcome. After all it sets a very dangerous precedent don’t you think?”

Diplomat number (1)

“Yes of course you are correct. But once this situation is away from the public eye we could guarantee that in the fullness of time we would take care of any perceived problems you may have regarding correct justice. After all cooperation in this regard would be the same as the old government phrase, ‘One hand washes the other.’ and we can always arrange for something unfortunate to happen in the future to certain guilty parties which of course would have nothing to do with our two countries. Concerning checks and balances though a verbal commitment on your part to take care of the other individual, again in the fulness of time, would help lubricate the wheels of justice. Would that satisfy your government?”

Diplomat number (2)

“Yes provided there was some kind of time limit set. So for the sake of argument lets say one year.”

Diplomat number (1)

“I’ll talk to my people. I’m sure your counter proposal will be received in a very positive light.”

Diplomat number (2)

“Very good, and therefore as a matter of good faith between us we will set in motion such recompense as is deemed appropriate towards the other individual.”

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/14/15 at 07:01 PM | #

Grahame, your Diplomat-Dialogue is hilarious! Thanks.

To dot a remaining Question:
Sallyoo’s reference to GPS raised an interesting back-ground Issue:

Amanda Knox’s mobile phone had a Vodafone SIM [card] 348-
4673590 in 2007.
It is my understanding that this SIM card permitted GPS activation in the Perugia of Nov. 2007. So that the Phone could have displayed its own GPS Location in Nov. 2007.

Any caller could have easily found that Location in Nov. 2007 if the the Phone was switched-ON. That is Certainly relevant to AK switching that Phone OFF on the night of Nov, 1/2, 2007. Strongly suggestive of Pre-Meditation.

The CUT record of Nov. 2007 did not record the GPS Location of Knox’s Phone, but did indicate where her Phone was Certainly-Not.
At the time of receiving Lumumba’s.‘s message, Knox’s phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal did not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s lodging-house. Whether or not Knox read his message at that time is beside the point.

The CUT Record does prove that Knox’s mobile-phone was Certainly-Not in Sollecito’s lodging-house at 20:18:12 on Nov.1st, 2007.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/14/15 at 09:28 PM | #


GPS needs separate hardware in the phone. It does not use any cell phone data. However, if you want to show it on a map, data connection is used to download the map information. GPS location is more precise (within 2-5 meter) when outdoor. Location information from cell phone tower location is less accurate.

Usually callers are not permitted to access the location information of the called party. No mobile displays this information by default.

I usually keep my GPS off to save on the battery. The location information I get from the cell phone tower location is pretty good (10-50 meter) but that can vary.

Few phones in 2007 had the GPS chip installed. Even the user could not see his position on a map. The situation changed when lots of devices came in the market that gave the driver turn-by-turn instructions while driving. Most of these devices are now gone and we can get the same information on the mobile.

Posted by chami on 04/15/15 at 12:14 AM | #

@ chami - Thanks for elevating my understanding of GPS, and possibly that of others, too.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 04/15/15 at 03:18 AM | #

The open letter would be an excellent idea. If there is already disagreement in Italian legal circles, it might encourage those better placed than us to write in support.

A separate, member-only, unindexed page would be good to have, Peter, since I think we have a lot of things to discuss and details to iron out.

Timing-wise, I personally think that waiting for the motivation report would be wise, as it would allow us to assess the judges’ reasoning and understand what laws were applied and how.

Posted by Vivianna on 04/15/15 at 05:30 AM | #

I support Vivianna’s idea above. I consider it to be our duty as responsible citizens of the world.

Posted by chami on 04/15/15 at 11:03 AM | #

I am a new guy here. I read Sallyhoo’s statement concerning location prediction using cellular technology in 2007:

“But I do think that you are ascribing a little too much certainty to the location aspect of the cell phone information. We mustn’t forget that this was Italy, in 2007, and none of the cellphones used had GPS functionality. The data recording by the Italian network providers was relatively sketchy, and the testimony about the cell tower coverage (by an expert who had never before visited Perugia) was incoherent”

Location precision with GPS and later assisted GPS was already developed into mobile phones based on GSM technology since early 2000s. And Italy was one of the early adopters of GSM mobile technology in Europe.

I have no reason to doubt that location triangulation or prediction based on GPS communication (sattelite based as opposed to mobile frequency based) was available in 2007 with mobile phones in Italy. The technology was already miniature enough in late 1990s and was cheap enough to be put into feature phones by mid-2000s and 2G mobile phones were already a mass consumer technology by that time.

If I remember stats, Italy already had 75% 2G coverage by 2004. So, the city that AK lived in (Perugia) must have been covered with 2G by the concerned cellular operators. Their results must be repeatable. Otherwise, they cannot make the records public.

Posted by pursueroftruth on 04/16/15 at 06:51 AM | #

Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Dupe Watch: Professional Fraud Exposer Benjamin Radford Himself Gets Seriously Duped

Or to previous entry In Big Complication For Cassation Guede Demands New Trial To Prove He Was Not “Accomplice Of Myself”