Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

pdf page 145:

translation: Staff of the Postal Police prepares to enter Via della Pergola No. 7 for delivery of 2 phones. As stated by staff the Flying Squad in Perugia the watch of the cameras of via Anthony parking is ten minutes AHEAD, so the time actual arrival of the Police Check should be placed at 12:39 approximately and in any case to 12:35, as stated, because the machine (Postal Police's black Punto) at 12.35 passes, stop and restart, no one comes out from it. (go to pages 74 through 84)

Can you see the two red arrows on pages 74-84? They point to the two Postal Police feet.

pdf page 146:

Carabinieri marked car arrive, photo on the left, at 13:12 (correcting minus 10 from 13:22 taken into account).

THE CAR PARK CLOCK IS AHEAD 10 MINUTES.

Right photo shows legs of Carabiniere in uniform walking towards Pergola 7, 13:12, REAL time.

*********************************

The police have nothing to gain from the creation of a fog of confusion here.

The accused and their lawyers do.

They have been playing a snow job from the start. The more the confusion, the merrier.

************************

Conclusion: Postal police arrive at 12:35 as stated and proven with photos on pdf. Both Postal investigators head towards Pergola #7 at 12:38.

I do not know if they made contact with Knox/Sollecito and then entered flat until 12:58.

Maybe, I do not know this for a fact, but just maybe Postal Police are not allowed to investigate a crime scene, waited for Carabinieri to arrive, chatted with K/S, looked around and waited more. Entered flat at 12:58, looked around some more, until Carabinieri arrived at 13:12. Remember Meredith's door was knocked open at 13:15, two minutes after Carabinieri arrive.

If Postal Police was idling, looking but not touching, waiting for Carabinieri, for 20 minutes or more before entering the flat, the timeline is justified.

Knox makes Seattle phone call at 12:47. The Postals are already there.

Days later, Knox conveniently forgets she ever made the call.

After Knox hangs up, Sollecito makes call and does not tell his sister Postals are already there, same as Knox. Then he calls Carabinieri and they arrive at 13:12, in uniform and a marked car.

Agree?

 

[Fiona]

pdf page 145:

translation: Staff of the Postal Police prepares to enter Via della Pergola No. 7 for delivery of 2 phones. As stated by staff the Flying Squad in Perugia the watch of the cameras of via Anthony parking is ten minutes AHEAD, so the time actual arrival of the Police Check should be placed at 12:39 approximately and in any case to 12:35, as stated, because the machine at 12.35 passes, stop and restart (their BLACK (Fiat) Punto), no one comes out from it. (go to pages 74 through 84)

Yes I have read it.

Can you see the two red arrows on pages 74-84? They point to the two Postal Police feet.

How do you know? They actually point to two pairs of legs in dark trousers and light trainers according to the legend. How unusual is that ? Can you actually see that they are police? I can't

pdf page 146:

Carabinieri marked car arrive, photo on the left, at 13:12 (correcting minus 10 from 13:22 taken into account).

THE CAR PARK CLOCK IS AHEAD 10 MINUTES.

Ok

Right photo shows legs of Carabiniere in uniform walking towards Pergola 7, 13:12, REAL time.

If this is to establish the time that is fine: but can you actually see the uniform? I can't. And I cannot understand why it seems to show a pair of legs walking from the left and labelled as carabinieri legs then shows the carabinieri car entering from the left and parking. Unless I am seeing that wrong it means one of the carabinieri got out of the car off screen and walked to the house then the other drove the car into shot? Is that what you would expect the police to do? Not me

<snip>

Maybe, I do not know this for a fact, but just maybe Postal Police are not allowed to investigate a crime scene, waited for Carabinieri, chatted with K/S, looked around and waited more. Entered flat at 12:58, looked around some more, until Carabinieri arrived at 13:12. Remember door was knocked open at 13:15, two minutes after Carabinieri arrive.

No. The postal police were not there to investigate a crime scene: they were there about the phones. If they were not to investigate a crime scene even to the extent of finding out if it was a crime scene then they would perhaps have waited outside for the police Sollectito said he had phoned: but if they did that they would have continued to do that and would not have "looked around". Knox and Sollecitor both say they told the police about what they had found and showed them the blood and the bathroom and Filomena's room with the broken window. They gave them the phone numbers. Knox told them Kercher usually locked her door. They phoned HQ at 13:00 to report what they had been told. The Carabinieri did not arrive until after the door to Kercher's room was kicked in at 13:15, so they did not arrive at 13:12 because that would have been before that happened.

If Postal Police was idling, looking but not touching, for 20 minutes or more before entering the flat, the timeline is justified.

If you leave out the arrival of Luca and his friend - where is that on the footage? If you leave out the arrival of Filomena and her friend- where is that on the footage. If you ignore the fact that Luca was inside the cottage and saw the post it note with Kercher's phone numbers on it after the police were already inside. If you ignore the fact that not only were Luca and his friend inside when Filomena and Paola arrived but so were the police. If you ignore the fact that the police reported their concern at 13:00 and that was partly on the basis that Filomena had had time to tell them about the phones and also that Kercher did not normally lock her door. But I can't see any reason to ignore all of that on the basis of footage with no provenance and which does not show the full period under discussion:in particular the time when the camera is said to have recorded the arrival of the police at 12:25 camera time

Knox makes Seattle phone call at 12:47. The Postals are already there.

Yes but she does not tell her mother the police are already there

Then Knox conveniently forgets she ever made the call.

Yes

After Knox hangs up, Sollecito makes call and does not tell his sister Postals are already there, same as Knox. Then he calls Carabinieri and they arrive at 13:12, in uniform and a marked car.

No. The Carabinieri did not arrive until after 13:15: they were not there when the door was kicked in

 

[piktor]

Fiona:

"If this is to establish the time that is fine: but can you actually see the uniform? I can't. And I cannot understand why it seems to show a pair of legs walking from the left and labelled as carabinieri legs then shows the carabinieri car entering from the left and parking. Unless I am seeing that wrong it means one of the carabinieri got out of the car off screen and walked to the house then the other drove the car into shot? Is that what you would expect the police to do? Not me"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The uniformed carabinieri walks towards Pergola 7.

Carabinieri marked car passes uniformed policeman on foot and drives into Pergola 7.

Carabinieri on foot is told to guard the entrance at Pergola 7 (my theory) while investigators drive marked car into Pergola 7 car drive.

I assume Postals and Carabinieri are in radio contact:

Carabinieri authorize Postals to search for Meredith. Carabinieri arrive 13:12 Park car and get off car and reach cottage entrance 13:13 approx.

Postals say they are not authorized to damage property, young male breaks door open at 13:15, with or without Carabinieri at Meredith's door but on premises.

Fiona, are you able to see the images in movement, with the mouse wheel or the forward-backward keys on your computer's type pad?

If you can see the stills in sequence it is clearer than just still photos.

-----------------------------------


Fiona: "How do you know? They actually point to two pairs of legs in dark trousers and light trainers according to the legend. How unusual is that ? Can you actually see that they are police? I can't "

The prosecution testified they were dressed like that. You either believe their testimony or you don't.

Camera and timer on car park says those trousers and snakers were there, their black Punto car was there, they are walking towards Pergola 7 at the time they said they did. Everything checks with their testimony and car park camera.

 

[Kestrel]

Carabinieri authorize Postals to search for Meredith. Carabinieri arrive 13:12 Park car and get off car and reach cottage entrance 13:13 approx.

Look at Amanda's phone log on page 149 of the PDF. If the 5 minute call starting at 13:29 is the Carabinieri calling for directions, it gives us a way to calibrate the car park time. Phone company records are normally accurate to a few seconds, so it's a good reference. People remembering the time after an event are not nearly as accurate.

If the phone call ended when the marked car appears on the video, that tells us that 13:22 on the car park video is actually 13:34. You need to add 10 to 12 minutes to the car park video times to get the actual time.

 

[Fiona]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The uniformed carabinieri walks towards Pergola 7.

Ok how do you know this is a uniformed carabinieri? Can you actually see a uniform yourself? I can't. Why did he get out of the car and walk to the house and why did the car then pass him as he did this?

Carabinieri marked car passes uniformed policeman on foot and drives into Pergola 7.

Can you see the uniform? I can't.

Carabinieri on foot is told to guard the entrance at Pergola 7 (my theory) while investigators drive marked car into Pergola 7 car drive.

Possibly.

I assume Postals and Carabinieri are in radio contact:

No. They were in contact using knox's phone.

Carabinieri authorize Postals to search for Meredith. Carabinieri arrive 13:12 Park car and get off car and reach cottage entrance 13:13 approx.

No. This cannot be right for two reaons. In the first place it makes the camera clock fast, not slow. In the second place we have testimony from 8 people that the door was kicked in before the carabinieri arrived.

Postals say they are not authorized to damage property, young male breaks door open at 13:15, with or without Carabinieri at Meredith's door but on premises.

The postal police are not authorised to kick in the door: But that does not mean the carabinieri are not authorised to do so. I do not know. But it is moot because the carabinieri were not there when the door was kicked in

Fiona, are you able to see the images in movement, with the mouse wheel or the forward-backward keys on your computer's type pad?

Yes

If you can see the stills in sequence it is clearer than just still photos.

No, it isn't. Let me ask you this. If you look at that series without the commentary can you say for sure this is a police car and those are uniformed police officers? The only thing I can see clearly is the carabinieri police car because you can see the writing . Can you see the number on the other cars? Can you see the policemen inside? Can you see them getting out?

-----------------------------------

The prosecution testified they were dressed like that. You either believe their testimony or you don't.

I have not seen that testimony but it makes no difference at all. Not unless nobody else in italy wears dark trousers and trainers. Dark trousers covers many colours in black and white footage. What were Luca and his pal wearing? What was Filomena wearing? Do you know?

Camera and timer on car park says those trousers and snakers were there,

Yes. And you believe they were on the postal police because? I put it to you that you believe it because the commentary says it. That might be true, but it is not certain by any means

their black Punto car was there

A black punto car was there. Can you see the number? It is Italy, Piktor. I have no idea how common those cars are there. I do know that I once hired a white citroen in France and could not find it in the supermarket car park because every second car was a white citroen.

they are walking towards Pergola 7 at the time they said they did. Everything checks with their testimony and car park camera.

I am missing something here. It was stated that the camera records their arrival at 12:25 camera time:and we do not see that footage. So how can it check with their testimony and with the camera?

The legend says that the camera stops recording when there is no movement, I think. If we accept what it says there is no movement between the police going to the cottage at 12:48 camera time and the carabinieri arriving at 13:22 camera time. So when did luca and his pal arrive? when did Filomena arrive? Are you saying they were not there at all?

 

[stilicho]

Look at Amanda's phone log on page 149 of the PDF. If the 5 minute call starting at 13:29 is the Carabinieri calling for directions, it gives us a way to calibrate the car park time. Phone company records are normally accurate to a few seconds, so it's a good reference. People remembering the time after an event are not nearly as accurate.

If the phone call ended when the marked car appears on the video, that tells us that 13:22 on the car park video is actually 13:34. You need to add 10 to 12 minutes to the car park video times to get the actual time.

Whoa. Where did you get the 10 to 12 minutes to be added to the timestamp? Was it 10 minutes slow or 12 minutes slow? That does make a difference.

I don't think anyone has any trouble with the photo of the Carabinieri, Kestrel. What we're having a problem with is how the bulk of the evidence you supplied backs up anything that RS claimed (and apparently later retracted).

I'm with Fiona that one has to leap to extraordinary assumptions to go along with your claim about the unmarked Polizia and whether the legs belong to those they are said to belong to. Even if you are able to establish those things, you're faced with the unpleasant prospect that AK and RS still had plenty of time to make the calls while the Polizia were bumbling about at the edge of the property.

Can we agree that, at best, the pdf simply doesn't supply enough information to refute the prosecution's case?

-------------

Here's a 3D model of a Polizia Punto: http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=7973073e3e1f2c55aa6f1351daa80d

Try as I may I cannot find any references to unmarked Polizia vehicles. Can anyone verify they exist? If not then we can probably rule out the preponderance of that pdf since it only works under the assumption that there are unmarked Polizia vehicles, that the are used by the Postal division, that there is one or more of these in Perugia, that they are Fiat Puntos, and that one of them was tasked with returning the cell phone.

That's a lot of assumptions for something that doesn't even exonerate RS!

 

[piktor]

Fiona, I will answer your remarks as soon as possible. I have a headache right now.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Just in case this is of help...on the car park camera:

The car park camera is not constantly filming. It works via movement detection, then ceases when movement stops. The detection is activated by movement only 'within' the garage, not further out on the street. Therefore, its use is limited to and only to, the fact that it's lens 'also' captures things out on the street but ONLY does so when there is movement within the garage. This needs to be kept in mind.

 

[Kestrel]

Whoa. Where did you get the 10 to 12 minutes to be added to the timestamp? Was it 10 minutes slow or 12 minutes slow? That does make a difference.

I don't think anyone has any trouble with the photo of the Carabinieri, Kestrel. What we're having a problem with is how the bulk of the evidence you supplied backs up anything that RS claimed (and apparently later retracted).

The Carabinieri called for directions on how to find the apartment. This phone call to AK's number is on the phone log and starts at 13:29. The log shows it lasted five minutes, so the call ended at 13:34. The Carabinieri car shows up at 13:22 on the car park video. Since there is no need for them to ask directions once they stop, the phone call would have ended at that time or shortly before. The difference between the 13:34 phone log and the 13:22 car park times is 12 minutes. The 10 to 12 minute range is considering they may have hung up a bit sooner, when they were spotted by the person talking them in.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The Carabinieri called for directions on how to find the apartment. This phone call to AK's number is on the phone log and starts at 13:29. The log shows it lasted five minutes, so the call ended at 13:34. The Carabinieri car shows up at 13:22 on the car park video. Since there is no need for them to ask directions once they stop, the phone call would have ended at that time or shortly before. The difference between the 13:34 phone log and the 13:22 car park times is 12 minutes. The 10 to 12 minute range is considering they may have hung up a bit sooner, when they were spotted by the person talking them in.

Who says it's the same carabinieri car that needed the directions? There had just been a murder. Multiple cars were heading for the cottage at different times.

 

[stilicho]

The Carabinieri called for directions on how to find the apartment. This phone call to AK's number is on the phone log and starts at 13:29. The log shows it lasted five minutes, so the call ended at 13:34. The Carabinieri car shows up at 13:22 on the car park video. Since there is no need for them to ask directions once they stop, the phone call would have ended at that time or shortly before. The difference between the 13:34 phone log and the 13:22 car park times is 12 minutes. The 10 to 12 minute range is considering they may have hung up a bit sooner, when they were spotted by the person talking them in.

I understand your deduction. I was just wondering whether you have any evidence that the car park camera was 12 minutes late and not 10 minutes late. The pdf itself doesn't use your calculation so I wonder if the author knows more than you or I do about it.

You must agree that the pdf isn't conclusive.

Fulcanelli adds a point that likewise remains unanswered. I am rather surprised that self-proclaimed sceptics are so willing to latch on to this pdf or the nine internet DNA "experts" instead of following the results of the court proceedings.

 

[stilicho]

Just in case this is of help...on the car park camera:

The car park camera is not constantly filming. It works via movement detection, then ceases when movement stops. The detection is activated by movement only 'within' the garage, not further out on the street. Therefore, its use is limited to and only to, the fact that it's lens 'also' captures things out on the street but ONLY does so when there is movement within the garage. This needs to be kept in mind.

I know this and I think everyone else (except the terminally enfogged JihadJane) knows it too. I doubt the CCTV evidence was used in court except to provide a general timeframe. Anything as dependent and constrained in its function could never be introduced as a coup de main.

Although less versed in the proceedings than you, Fulcanelli, I recall that the two things that did so, audibly, were the introduction of the bra clasp abundant DNA evidence and Curatolo's statements.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I recall that the two things that did so, audibly, were the introduction of the bra clasp abundant DNA evidence and Curatolo's statements.

Indeed. And let's not also forget Kokomani.

 

[stilicho]

Indeed. And let's not also forget Kokomani.

Kokomani was the one that made AK laugh in court. I am always intrigued by witnesses like that. He obviously doesn't have it all together. When asked what time he eats dinner he replied "when I'm hungry".

But this is the sauce that any ordinary run-of-the-mill prosecutor faces all over the world. He's portrayed in the Seattle media as a drug-addled clown but he wasn't there for a plea bargain or any such nonsense. He was included because he was a witness and a pretty damning one too. He remembered (no marijuana cloud for him) throwing the olives and the cell phone. Those are details he knew and that's what makes him credible in spite of his other misdemeanours.

I think a lot of people are accustomed to the Perry Mason type of witnesses who are always conveniently located, eloquent, and dapper. In reality, of course, this is rarely the case.

 

[Kestrel]

I understand your deduction. I was just wondering whether you have any evidence that the car park camera was 12 minutes late and not 10 minutes late. The pdf itself doesn't use your calculation so I wonder if the author knows more than you or I do about it.

You must agree that the pdf isn't conclusive.

Fulcanelli adds a point that likewise remains unanswered. I am rather surprised that self-proclaimed sceptics are so willing to latch on to this pdf or the nine internet DNA "experts" instead of following the results of the court proceedings.

You are confusing being a skeptic with being a supporter of authority and the status quo.

For example, when an expert witness says "Dead skin cells floating around the room do not contain DNA", it's simply wrong. It doesn't matter what side that witness works for, a skeptic shouldn't ignore bad science.

A skeptic should also understand that finding a person's DNA in their own home, especially in their own bathroom is normal. We leave behind bits of ourselves, complete with our DNA, whenever we groom ourselves. Or for that matter, whenever we sneeze. That DNA stays around, it doesn't evaporate in a day or two.

 

[stilicho]

You are confusing being a skeptic with being a supporter of authority and the status quo.

For example, when an expert witness says "Dead skin cells floating around the room do not contain DNA", it's simply wrong. It doesn't matter what side that witness works for, a skeptic shouldn't ignore bad science.

A skeptic should also understand that finding a person's DNA in their own home, especially in their own bathroom is normal. We leave behind bits of ourselves, complete with our DNA, whenever we groom ourselves. Or for that matter, whenever we sneeze. That DNA stays around, it doesn't evaporate in a day or two.

Ooooo Kaaaaay.

That had nothing whatsoever to do with your assertions about the pdf we were just talking about. You're about 10 pages late talking about the flying DNA. Halides1, among others, has accepted that the RS defence expert was not incompetent. If he wasn't incompetent then RS got the best possible available expert and he could not on his own create enough reasonable doubt in front of a properly constituted court.

If you don't want to talk about the pdf then you should either ignore it or accept that its conclusions don't exonerate RS.

The funny thing about your "science" is that it isn't supported by the experts but by politically and financially motivated internet wags. Not only that, but in our discussions, I've seen you (or others) produce links that aren't even remotely similar to this one. The Duke Lacrosse case is probably my favourite in this particular appeal to authority. That case involved a false accusation exacerbated by falsified forensics. This one involves a false accusation reversed by scientific investigation.

Do you even remember that these conspiratorial Italian laggards already had Lumumba pinned for the crime by AK's false accusation? An innocent man spent two weeks in prison and had his business ruined before science came to his rescue.

 

[Kestrel]

Ooooo Kaaaaay.

That had nothing whatsoever to do with your assertions about the pdf we were just talking about. You're about 10 pages late talking about the flying DNA. Halides1, among others, has accepted that the RS defence expert was not incompetent. If he wasn't incompetent then RS got the best possible available expert and he could not on his own create enough reasonable doubt in front of a properly constituted court.

If you don't want to talk about the pdf then you should either ignore it or accept that its conclusions don't exonerate RS.

I stand by my reasoning on the PDF. If the assumptions I clearly stated turn out to be true, it shows the prosecution timeline is off.

The funny thing about your "science" is that it isn't supported by the experts but by politically and financially motivated internet wags.

Attacking the person instead of the science doesn't prove your point. Try dealing with the reality of DNA instead. Skin cells containing DNA are transfered by simply touching things. It happens every day, not just when someone is a victim or committing a crime. The DNA inside skin cells may slowly degrade, but it is still inside the cells that flake off our skin every day.

Quoting from a UK site.

Our skin cells are transferred all of the time but in terms of what has already been accomplished, touch DNA has been used on samples from all sorts of objects ranging from a car's steering wheel to a person's clothing.

A challenge is that skin cells from a number of innocent people will still remain at the crime scene so the real test is for an investigator or forensics expert to decide where a sample is best collected.

Do you understand why finding DNA in a person's home, or a home they have visited several times isn't proof that they committed a crime?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Do you understand why finding DNA in a person's home, or a home they have visited several times isn't proof that they committed a crime?

Do you understand why the case that was made against Sollecito and Knox does not hinge solely on that single piece of pop-science trivia?

 

[Kestrel]

Do you understand why the case that was made against Sollecito and Knox does not hinge solely on that single piece of pop-science trivia?

I am more interested in why JREF skeptics would accept a statement such as "dead skin cells floating around a room don't have DNA" without question.

Why didn't you question this statement?

 

[quadraginta]

I am more interested in why JREF skeptics would accept a statement such as "dead skin cells floating around a room don't have DNA" without question.

Why didn't you question this statement?

Because I find the interminable nitpicking about DNA to be almost completely irrelevant to the totality of the case made against them. Strategies of distraction and misdirection such as this are about the only thing that piqued my curiosity enough to start learning more about the case to begin with.

I've made that abundantly clear in this thread. Your reasons for asking yet again are only more evidence of the same disingenuous approach.

On this subject with which you are supposedly so obsessed, you have failed to address, much less answer the question of why, in the face of such an allegedly ubiquitous presence of DNA unrelated to the crime, there was such an overwhelming (nearly total?) absence of the defendants' DNA in any of the other ~400 samples taken.

Speaking of evasions, why didn't you answer the question I asked you in my last post?