I get that. However, electronics and communications expert witnesses at the trial tested all of this and discovered:
- There was no break in the signal as of the date of the murder.
- None of Raff's neighbours, in exactly the same situation, had any problems with their signals or reception during that evening.
Well this is all a load of old bollocks, isn't it?
Firstly, these "points" seem to be implying that you're referring to the signal as transmitted from the base stations (cell masts) in the vicinity of Sollecito's apartment. But that's not at question at all. Nobody doubts that the base stations themselves were working fine on the evening/night of the murder. What's at issue is just how well those signals could be received at certain points within Sollecito's apartment (not just on the evening of the murder, of course - at any time).
The "point" you make about Sollecito's neighbours is entirely irrelevant. The entire question is about the signal strength within Sollecito's apartment - and not just that, but within specific different areas inside Sollecito's apartment. And the defence showed (via signal analysis) that indeed there were "not spots" within areas of Sollecito's apartment, where it would be difficult or impossible to receive cellular signal coverage (on account of the specific topography and stonework interference at those specific point in his apartment).
- Raff was demonstrably shown to be lying about having spoken to his father at about 23:00.
- Raff was lying about his phone being switched on, but in an area where there was no signal.
Uhhh.... no.
Just wrong. But no surprises there.
- There is objective scientific proof beyond reasonable doubt, he switched on his phone circa 5:30 next morning and received the incoming messages which had been bouncing off the telphone masts periodically.
What utter crap. There's no "objective scientific proof" of this at all (but well done on borrowing that phrase - even though you clearly don't know what it really means, since it doesn't apply here). And you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about with respect to incoming messages "bouncing off the telephone masts periodically". This is arrant nonsense. As you've been patiently told before on this issue: if a message is unable to be delivered, it is just stored at the central server until the network reconnects to the phone to which it needs to be delivered, and it then resends the message via the appropriate base station to the phone in question. Please don't try to talk about things like this unless/until you actually understand them. Thanks.
- Amanda Knox admitted turning off her phone at circa 20:45 the night of the murder, giving at least three different reasons to police.
No. She did not give "at least three different reasons". And what inference do you draw from Knox turning off her phone, Vixen? (Careful - unless you want to try to argue premeditation......)
- It is an objective scientific observation based on phone logs that Raff switched off his phone within 15 minutes of Knox.
Firstly, once again please stop turning round phrases like "objective scientific observation" - which have been used in posts to you - when you apply them inappropriately (as you have done, again, here). All that can be said is that Sollecito's phone had no signal coverage at the time his father sent the message. That is all. It certainly cannot be even said that Sollecito's phone had no signal coverage "within 15 minutes" of Knox turning off her own phone. And - again as has been explained to you too many times to remember now - Sollecito's phone could have no signal coverage for two different reasons (assuming it did not have a totally flat battery, which it did not): either Sollecito turned his phone off.... OR his phone, while remaining switched on, dropped out of signal coverage.
Erm, no. Very little of what you wrote was fact. Nearly all of it was the product of hopeless subjective bias and a serious misunderstanding of the technology underpinning cellular networks.
