Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby struoc » Thu May 12, 2011 9:48 pm

Can anyone post a link to this testimony and information presented?

I did a few searches here and it comes up "0".

thanks
struoc
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 6:05 pm

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby Dan O. » Sat May 14, 2011 12:35 pm

There is some coverage in the Massei Report pg 342-353 (page numbers from the italian original). Frank might have a picture on his blog (cache link) but doesn't give details.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby PaulTC » Mon May 23, 2011 3:37 am

The appeals explain the defense position on the coverage issue very clearly. One gets the impression that, as per usual, the police work was simplistic and absurd. The scientists and engineers that worked for the defense did a highly respectable scientific study involving multiple readings, consultations with equipment manufacturers and carriers, etc.
PaulTC
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:03 am

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby RoseMontague » Mon May 23, 2011 3:50 am

PaulTC wrote:The appeals explain the defense position on the coverage issue very clearly. One gets the impression that, as per usual, the police work was simplistic and absurd. The scientists and engineers that worked for the defense did a highly respectable scientific study involving multiple readings, consultations with equipment manufacturers and carriers, etc.


Here is the human translated section of Raffaele's appeal dealing with the cellphones and the defense expert's opinions. Massei choose to ignore the defense expert. It is clear that the defense did a better job on this, however. It is a rather long section.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby Flipp » Mon May 23, 2011 4:05 pm

I have a doubt about the 22:13 call. The connection is received by Meredith's English phone using WIND cell 30064 which optimal coverage is inside park S Angelo. Which, by Raffaele's defense, leads to the conclusion that the phones at that time were somewhere between the cottage and the place that they were found in via Sperandio:
Cell Phone Section, Pag 9 wrote:In fact, as the consultant has clearly demonstrated – in consideration of the fact that the only other communications in which Meredith’s English phone connected with the cell 30064 of Ponte Rio were at 12.11 and 16.22 – there is no evidence to link the connection with cell 30064 with Meredith’s presence in her home.

The appeal document states that the other times that Meredith's phones connected to cell 30064 were at "12.11" and "16.22". It's not clear if they are talking about the 1st or the 2nd November. Anyone knows?
Flipp
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby Dan O. » Fri May 27, 2011 7:28 pm

Flipp wrote:I have a doubt about the 22:13 call. The connection is received by Meredith's English phone using WIND cell 30064 which optimal coverage is inside park S Angelo. Which, by Raffaele's defense, leads to the conclusion that the phones at that time were somewhere between the cottage and the place that they were found in via Sperandio:


Something else to keep in mind here is that the prosecution determined the coverage based on the minimum signal strength for phone communications. SMS and MMS signals can and do get through when a call cannot and these modes will use whatever cell tower the phone is associated with at the time whether it has the optimal signal or not. The record of an SMS connection therefore will more likely tell where the phone had been rather than where the phone is at the time. We also see this effect with Amanda and Patrick's phones when they exchanged SMS messages.

Cell Phone Section, Pag 9 wrote:In fact, as the consultant has clearly demonstrated – in consideration of the fact that the only other communications in which Meredith’s English phone connected with the cell 30064 of Ponte Rio were at 12.11 and 16.22 – there is no evidence to link the connection with cell 30064 with Meredith’s presence in her home.

The appeal document states that the other times that Meredith's phones connected to cell 30064 were at "12.11" and "16.22". It's not clear if they are talking about the 1st or the 2nd November. Anyone knows?
[/quote]

I know of a call at 12:11:54 on Nov. 2 when Amanda made the second call to Meredith's UK phone. I have seen no mention of a 16:22 call and that would also be after the phones were taken to the police station.
... and remember that you can never assume that you are completely anonymous or that you cannot be identified by your online comments. -- (from the ISF membership agreement)
Dan O.
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Home is where I hug my cat

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby Flipp » Sat May 28, 2011 9:58 am

Dan O. wrote:I know of a call at 12:11:54 on Nov. 2 when Amanda made the second call to Meredith's UK phone. I have seen no mention of a 16:22 call and that would also be after the phones were taken to the police station.

Can't find in the Massei report the cell used to receive the 12:11:54 call from Amanda to Meredith's UK phone. By this time the phone was still in Lana's garden, so if in fact the reception was made by cell 30064, it doesn't add up with what is written in Massei's about coverage.

There's a lot of information missing in the Massei report regarding cell records, why look at only two days of data? Looking at a larger period would help establish a much more clear pattern of cell reception.
Flipp
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby RoseMontague » Sat May 28, 2011 11:12 am

Flipp wrote:I have a doubt about the 22:13 call. The connection is received by Meredith's English phone using WIND cell 30064 which optimal coverage is inside park S Angelo. Which, by Raffaele's defense, leads to the conclusion that the phones at that time were somewhere between the cottage and the place that they were found in via Sperandio:
Cell Phone Section, Pag 9 wrote:In fact, as the consultant has clearly demonstrated – in consideration of the fact that the only other communications in which Meredith’s English phone connected with the cell 30064 of Ponte Rio were at 12.11 and 16.22 – there is no evidence to link the connection with cell 30064 with Meredith’s presence in her home.

The appeal document states that the other times that Meredith's phones connected to cell 30064 were at "12.11" and "16.22". It's not clear if they are talking about the 1st or the 2nd November. Anyone knows?


My understanding was that this cell 30064 had shown up in Meredith's cell phone records only twice before and during the day rather than at night.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3526
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby jane » Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:54 am

RoseMontague wrote:
PaulTC wrote:The appeals explain the defense position on the coverage issue very clearly. One gets the impression that, as per usual, the police work was simplistic and absurd. The scientists and engineers that worked for the defense did a highly respectable scientific study involving multiple readings, consultations with equipment manufacturers and carriers, etc.


Here is the human translated section of Raffaele's appeal dealing with the cellphones and the defense expert's opinions. Massei choose to ignore the defense expert. It is clear that the defense did a better job on this, however. It is a rather long section.


Link to the Pellero testimony about the location of Meredith's phone is in the post by Rose Montague earlier on this page. Is there any reason why this link cannot be posted publicly?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby MichaelB » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:47 am

jane wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
PaulTC wrote:The appeals explain the defense position on the coverage issue very clearly. One gets the impression that, as per usual, the police work was simplistic and absurd. The scientists and engineers that worked for the defense did a highly respectable scientific study involving multiple readings, consultations with equipment manufacturers and carriers, etc.


Here is the human translated section of Raffaele's appeal dealing with the cellphones and the defense expert's opinions. Massei choose to ignore the defense expert. It is clear that the defense did a better job on this, however. It is a rather long section.


Link to the Pellero testimony about the location of Meredith's phone is in the post by Rose Montague earlier on this page. Is there any reason why this link cannot be posted publicly?


Nope. Here it is. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Sollecito-appeal-2010-phone-section-p194-210.doc
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Bruno Pellero (cellphone expert)

Postby jane » Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:52 am

MichaelB wrote:
jane wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
PaulTC wrote:The appeals explain the defense position on the coverage issue very clearly. One gets the impression that, as per usual, the police work was simplistic and absurd. The scientists and engineers that worked for the defense did a highly respectable scientific study involving multiple readings, consultations with equipment manufacturers and carriers, etc.


Here is the human translated section of Raffaele's appeal dealing with the cellphones and the defense expert's opinions. Massei choose to ignore the defense expert. It is clear that the defense did a better job on this, however. It is a rather long section.


Link to the Pellero testimony about the location of Meredith's phone is in the post by Rose Montague earlier on this page. Is there any reason why this link cannot be posted publicly?


Nope. Here it is. http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Sollecito-appeal-2010-phone-section-p194-210.doc


Thanks , Michael!
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am


Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests