Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

You're a bit free with that word 'lie'. First of all, the police did not confront Amanda with the video during her night of questioning. Secondly, they believed that 'was' Amanda in the video. The police introduced it in court under Micheli. But, it was ruled to be of so low quality that a positive identification couldn't be made and so deemed as unusable. Whatever you think of the video, it certainly depicts 'someone' going to the cottage, but the reason above is why it was never used in the main trial.

Low quality doesn't jibe with how it was described.

A camera in the carpark opposite Miss Kercher’s house has a "clear-cut image" of 20-year-old Amanda Knox, from Seattle, on the premises, according to police.

ETA: I stand by my comment that they lied.

 

[katy_did]

She did say she was at the cottage at 12:08. And, as I said, this has been discussed before. She was lying or Filolmena was lying. Clearly you choose to believe Knox: that is your privilege. But please stop with the pretence that that is not the choice you have made. You are entitled to your view: you are not entitled to imply that it is not a decision you have made between two contradictory accounts.

Filomena lied about the time Amanda first called her, claiming it was 12:35 when actually it was 12:08. Why shouldn't she be lying about the things Amanda said, too?

 

[Fiona]

And where did that start?

I don't know, Dan_O. It seems to me it began at the very start of the thread because I know that quite early on I was very struck by the one-sidedness of what we were being told. It seemed to me that there could not have been a conviction if things were so clear cut. It did not take me very long to find that there was a lot more to consider.

To return to the cartwheels: I have set out what I can find about that. Can you now explain what has led you to accept that Knox was asked to perform those by the police? Please include other evidence which I have missed, if you have it. I will be interested to see what it is which leads you to weigh the evidence on this small point in the way you do

 

[katy_did]

Yet zero evidence that the door needed to be locked fro the inside and a key was needed in order to get out of the cottage. It is certainly important enough that had it been the case it would have been raised in court, yet not so much as a mention. Therefore, it's groundless speculation which you are trying to announce as fact.

The source I have states specifically that the door needed to be locked with a key, or it would blow open. It seems to me that you were not even aware the latch on the door was broken, since you showed such surprise when I mentioned it, so I suppose it's not surprising you haven't stumbled across my source. It seems to me this could pretty easily be proven one way or another, if we had a picture of the front door.

If we're to conclude that offering facts without sources makes them groundless speculation, than I shall have to assume that your claim that the police denied Amanda's statement that they were the ones to mention Meredith screaming, and that other judges disagreed with Matteini's report which confirmed her statement, as well as so much else, are also 'groundless speculation'.

 

[katy_did]

It is logical Bongiorno made the best argument she could, both to Judge Micheli and and the judges in the main trail, judges who had all of the evidence, including evidence you do not. And Bongiorno failed yo prove her case.

No, Bongiorno did not give the presentation comparing cell phone and CCTV records to Judge Micheli. Micheli had the raw data, but not the presentation she gave which proved beyond doubt that the 112 call was made before the postal police arrived.

How do you know that the judges/jury in the main trial didn't accept her argument? The guilty verdict does not mean they bought all of the prosecution case. The fact the prosecution backed down on their 10/20 minute fast claim in their closing argument, suggesting instead that it could have been 5 minutes fast (another impossible claim) shows they were worried the jury had in fact been convinced by Bongiorno.

I'm claiming the police got thetre c. 12:34 - 6

Then you are clearly wrong. If the postal police got there at 12:34, meaning the CCTV clock was 18 minutes fast, this means the carabinieri got there at 13:04. This is preposterous.

 

[Fiona]

Filomena lied about the time Amanda first called her, claiming it was 12:35 when actually it was 12:08. Why shouldn't she be lying about the things Amanda said, too?

No. This has already been discussed as well

"Romanelli told that about 12:15 she received a call from Amanda. "Hello, there is something strange in the house. I arrived and the door was open. There is blood. I had a shower and now I'm going to Raffaele and get him come here" - said Amanda in the call to Filomena who told her to make a check and call her back. "I tried to call Meredith. One of her phones rang but did not respond. The other was switched off" - Filomena said - "I tried to recall Amanda but she did not respond. Then I called her again and she told me that ??the house was open?? (tutto per aria) and the window of my room was smashed. I said her to call the carabinieri and she said yes."

“Meredith told me that she had come to Italy only to study. She was going to university every day and told me she did not want to tie herself up romantically. I never saw her bring men home.” Regarding the morning of the discovery of the body, the young lady stated that around 12.15 she received a phone call from Knox. “She said in English, ‘There’s something strange’, meaning having found the [front] door open and maybe traces of blood, of having had a shower and therefore she was on her way to Raffaele’s to tell him”.

La Stampa: link not available

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_...th_59585958-f504-11dd-a70d-00144f02aabc.shtml

The call was at 12:08, so she was a little out in her timing. I see no reason to believe that was a lie rather than an error, but clearly you do. Can you give an indication as to why Filomena would lie? What was her purpose?

 

[Fiona]

The source I have states specifically that the door needed to be locked with a key, or it would blow open.

Perhaps it does. I have not seen that source but you may well be right. Why does it matter?

It seems to me that you were not even aware the latch on the door was broken, since you showed such surprise when I mentioned it, so I suppose it's not surprising you haven't stumbled across my source. It seems to me this could pretty easily be proven one way or another, if we had a picture of the front door.

No. The fact that the latch did not work well has been stated many times on this thread so you assumption is unwarranted. If you cannot be bothered to read the thread I can understand that: but the fact that the latch did not work properly is not disputed by anybody here. You really are not so much better informed than the rest of us as you seem to think. It is a bit annoying, actually

 

[katy_did]

He called the Carabinieri while the Postal Police were at the cottage. This is established fact. None of the contrary scenarios make any sense.

Can we add this to the list of all the things we all agree upon?

I'm amazed that you are still calling this 'established fact'. I put forward this scenario to Fiona earlier; could you tell me why it doesn't 'make any sense'?

Filomena and her friends all say they arrived at 'around 1', with Filomena and Paola arriving a couple of minutes after the other two. I don't see that the timing is so improbable. If we take 12:56 to have been the time of the postal police's arrival, we then have:

12:47 - Knox's call to mother
12:50 - Sollecito's call to sister
12:51 - S to carabinieri
12:54 - S to carabinieri
12:56-13:01 (let's say) - postal police arrive and talk with K and S
13:00 - Meredith's phone at police station activated, possibly as a result of Battistelli calling the number Amanda had given him
13:01 - Filomena's friends arrive to find K, S and police talking, phones and post-it note on the table
13:03 - Filomena arrives

Is that so improbable? If the times I give for Filomena and friends arriving is inaccurate, this means they must have arrived at 12:46 or earlier in order to give Knox and Sollecito a chance to disappear and make their phone calls (between 12:47 and 12:55, their phone calls are almost constant). A few minutes after 1 seems more likely, given their claims to have arrived 'around 1'.

All the CCTV footage supports the defence's theory that the CCTV clock was 8-12 minutes fast, including the possible sightings of Guede and Meredith from the previous evening (admittedly, less certain than the footage of the police). Guede is seen at 19:41, CCTV time, which would be 19:31 actual time per the prosecution. However, he says he didn't leave the house until a particular news show had started, which was checked and found to begin at 19:30. He could not have been in the area at 19:31. The defence time of 19:51 is much more plausible.

The possible sighting of Meredith is at 19:43, CCTV time; 19:33, per the prosecution. Yet not only was Meredith still with her friends at 19:33, she was still with them at 19:43. Fast forward 8-12 minutes, and we have a time of 20:51-20:55, much more plausible taking into account Sophie's statement that she arrived home around 20:55.

ALL the objective evidence points to the CCTV clock having been 8-12 minutes fast, as the defence claimed. The only thing to contradict them is Battistelli's statement that he arrived at 12:35 (based on him checking his watch) and Battistelli is proven to have lied in court. I fail to see how anyone is even considering this point open to question at this stage.

 

[katy_did]

Perhaps it does. I have not seen that source but you may well be right. Why does it matter?

It matters in the sense that Guede would have needed the key to get out of the house, had Meredith locked it with a key behind her (as she undoubtedly would have at that time of night, even if the latch hadn't been broken). Hence Guede had a solid reason for taking Meredith's keys, and would have been able to (perhaps opportunistically) lock her door too.

It is also a reason why, if he was already in the house when Meredith arrived home, he couldn't have simply let himself out the front door; he would have needed a key to do so.

No. The fact that the latch did not work well has been stated many times on this thread so you assumption is unwarranted. If you cannot be bothered to read the thread I can understand that: but the fact that the latch did not work properly is not disputed by anybody here. You really are not so much better informed than the rest of us as you seem to think. It is a bit annoying, actually

Fiona, I have read the entire thread, over several weeks, and followed it for some time before posting.

If Fulcanelli was surprised that the latch was broken, I can only conclude that he had not read the thread properly; as you know, I already knew the latch was broken.

 

[Fiona]

It is to me implausibe because I cannot believe they achieved all that is said to have happened in 4 (or 2) minutes. It is as simple as that.

On the basis of the information I have I do not accept that we see the police in that footage. I am told that that was not disputed in court and if that is the case then it seems to me that there are two explanations: there was other evidence which has not been reported; or the assertion that it was accepted is not correct. The testimony from the police which I have seen reported puts their time of arrival at around 12:35. The CCTV footage was presented in court. Presumably the pollce were then questioned again and confirmed that they ageed with the defence time line? I am afraid I have not yet found a report of where they did that. Can you link?

 

[Fiona]

It matters in the sense that Guede would have needed the key to get out of the house, had Meredith locked it with a key behind her (as she undoubtedly would have at that time of night, even if the latch hadn't been broken). Hence Guede had a solid reason for taking Meredith's keys, and would have been able to (perhaps opportunistically) lock her door too.

It is also a reason why, if he was already in the house when Meredith arrived home, he couldn't have simply let himself out the front door; he would have needed a key to do so.

Well I think I have addressed all of that before. You believe it plausilble and I don't for the reasons I gave. Each will reach their own conclusion. As to him locking her door: I can think of absolutely no reason why he would do that: again you are free to think otherwise, of course

Fiona, I have read the entire thread, over several weeks, and followed it for some time before posting.

If Fulcanelli was surprised that the latch was broken, I can only conclude that he had not read the thread properly; as you know, I already knew the latch was broken.

I do not think Fulcanelli was surprised that the latch was broken. But that is for him to answer, of course.

 

[katy_did]

Additional evidence for the postal police having arrived after Sollecito made his 112 calls is the fact that Meredith's second phone was not reported found until 12:46. Yet there is no suggestion from anyone - not Amanda and Raffaele, nor the postal police themselves - that the entirety of that first conversation revolved around just one phone having been found. In fact, both Amanda and Raffaele state independently that the police arrived saying that they had found two phones, one of which was registered to Filomena. Amanda made the same mistake Luca did, and presumed that the two phones Battistelli was holding in his hand were the phones that had been found.

If the 112 calls were made after the postal police's arrival, the first conversation must have been over by 12:46, meaning they must have initially arrived talking about only one phone and then been notified by the station that a second phone had been found. Yet Luca, arriving no later than 12:46, assumed like Amanda that the two phones on the table were the two that had been found. Had he been there when the call about the second phone came through, he would obviously not have made this mistake.

It really is very clear if you apply simple logic, that the postal police must have arrived after the 112 calls were made.

 

[katy_did]

Well I think I have addressed all of that before. You believe it plausilble and I don't for the reasons I gave. Each will reach their own conclusion. As to him locking her door: I can think of absolutely no reason why he would do that: again you are free to think otherwise, of course

He would have locked Meredith's door to delay the discovery of her body by her housemates.

On the other hand, there really is absolutely no reason for Amanda and Raffaele would have done it, since everything they did the next day served to hasten the discovery of the body.

 

[Fiona]

Well I can see no reason why locking her door would delay discovery. So that is the first point of disagreement. I see no evidence that he (or anyone) came in through the window. So that is the second point. I see nothing to suggest that "everything they did the next day served to hasten the discovery of the body". Can you say what you think shows this? I do not think it is likely that Guede could have opened the door with a key yet left no blood on it, given he was covered in blood: and there is no trace of his blood in either of the bathrooms so it is a stretch to think he washed his hands because his shoes were leaving tracks yet those tracks are not in either bathroom.

I could go on but this has all been said before.

 

[katy_did]

It is to me implausibe because I cannot believe they achieved all that is said to have happened in 4 (or 2) minutes. It is as simple as that.

What is it about that timeline that you find implausible? The first conversation we can assume would have taken 5-6 minutes. A 12:56 arrival time means the conversation would have continued till about 13:01, at which time Filomena's friends arrived, followed by Filomena herself shortly afterwards. It is entirely plausible that Filomena's statement that she arrived at 'around 1' could mean a few minutes after 1, and certainly more plausible than that she meant 12:48 (which would have to be the case, if her friends arrived in time to take over from A and R while they made phone calls).

Could you tell me exactly why you find that timeline impossible, and perhaps offer a better one that fits the facts?

On the basis of the information I have I do not accept that we see the police in that footage. I am told that that was not disputed in court and if that is the case then it seems to me that there are two explanations: there was other evidence which has not been reported; or the assertion that it was accepted is not correct. The testimony from the police which I have seen reported puts their time of arrival at around 12:35. The CCTV footage was presented in court. Presumably the pollce were then questioned again and confirmed that they ageed with the defence time line? I am afraid I have not yet found a report of where they did that. Can you link?

Not only did the police accept it was them, the prosecution based their own argument that the CCTV was 10-15 minutes fast on the sighting of the postal police. They did not need, of course, to 'agree with the defence time line' as you put it - they just needed to argue that the CCTV time of 12:48 was actually 12:38, thus confirming Battistelli's claimed approximate arrival time of 12:35. The only dispute was how slow/fast the CCTV was; no one disputed that it was the postal police. Except you, apparently.

In fact, they most likely based their claim that the CCTV footage was 10-15 minutes fast on the discrepancy between Battistelli's stated 12:35 arrival time and the sighting of him on CCTV at 12:48, presuming him to have been telling the truth. Now that was a silly thing to do.

 

[Fiona]

Additional evidence for the postal police having arrived after Sollecito made his 112 calls is the fact that Meredith's second phone was not reported found until 12:46. Yet there is no suggestion from anyone - not Amanda and Raffaele, nor the postal police themselves - that the entirety of that first conversation revolved around just one phone having been found. In fact, both Amanda and Raffaele state independently that the police arrived saying that they had found two phones, one of which was registered to Filomena. Amanda made the same mistake Luca did, and presumed that the two phones Battistelli was holding in his hand were the phones that had been found.

If the 112 calls were made after the postal police's arrival, the first conversation must have been over by 12:46, meaning they must have initially arrived talking about only one phone and then been notified by the station that a second phone had been found. Yet Luca, arriving no later than 12:46, assumed like Amanda that the two phones on the table were the two that had been found. Had he been there when the call about the second phone came through, he would obviously not have made this mistake.

It really is very clear if you apply simple logic, that the postal police must have arrived after the 112 calls were made.

No.That is fully addressed in Micheli's report, as you must know

 

[katy_did]

I see nothing to suggest that "everything they did the next day served to hasten the discovery of the body". Can you say what you think shows this?

Perhaps because they called a bunch of people and told them there was blood in the bathroom (you know, the blood they were supposed to be in the process of cleaning up when the postal police arrived)?

I do not think it is likely that Guede could have opened the door with a key yet left no blood on it, given he was covered in blood: and there is no trace of his blood in either of the bathrooms so it is a stretch to think he washed his hands because his shoes were leaving tracks yet those tracks are not in either bathroom.

So are you saying you don't think Guede went into the bathroom, hence that he wasn't the one to go back and forth to the bathroom fetching towels, hence that he wasn't the one to stay behind and try and 'save' her after the other two had fled?

The claim that it is 'a stretch' he washed his hands is, to say the least, a stretch.

 

[katy_did]

No.That is fully addressed in Micheli's report, as you must know

What exactly are you suggesting was addressed in the Micheli report?

It is known that the second phone Battistelli was holding was his own, not Meredith's; nowhere does it suggest that the conversation changed course mid-direction once the second phone was reported to the postal police.

 

[shuttlt]

All this uncertainty about basic facts. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the only way to decide this kind of rats nest is to set up some kind of formal chaired enquiry, with the power and resources to summon the primary sources to them for examination and where, after due deliberation a final decision is reached or everyone packs up and goes home.

A trial has to be better than what's going on here. This is endless.

 

[Fiona]

What is it about that timeline that you find implausible?

You have read the thread so you know the answer to that

The first conversation we can assume would have taken 5-6 minutes. A 12:56 arrival time means the conversation would have continued till about 13:01, at which time Filomena's friends arrived, followed by Filomena herself shortly afterwards. It is entirely plausible that Filomena's statement that she arrived at 'around 1' could mean a few minutes after 1, and certainly more plausible than that she meant 12:48 (which would have to be the case, if her friends arrived in time to take over from A and R while they made phone calls).

She said she arrived just before 1:00.

I do not find 5-6 minutes plausible: you do. Why 12:48? Her friends arrived before her but I do not recall a time being put on that. I find nothing odd in the idea that they arrived around 12:4o or 12:45, though

Could you tell me exactly why you find that timeline impossible, and perhaps offer a better one that fits the facts?

See upthread.

Not only did the police accept it was them,

I am sure you are correct so if you can just link me to that it will be helpful

the prosecution based their own argument that the CCTV was 10-15 minutes fast on the sighting of the postal police. They did not need, of course, to 'agree with the defence time line' as you put it - they just needed to argue that the CCTV time of 12:48 was actually 12:38, thus confirming Battistelli's claimed approximate arrival time of 12:35. The only dispute was how slow/fast the CCTV was; no one disputed that it was the postal police. Except you, apparently.

Well it is not possible to establish that from the footage. Since you have read the thread you know that I have no problem with the idea that the camera clock was around 10 minutes slow. So where is the footage from 12:25 camera time?