Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

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

I thought you had read it?

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

I think there must be a typo or two in this post. If you fast forward 8-12 minutes from 19:43 you get 19:51-19:55, not 20:51-20:55. That would be fast-forwarding 68-72 minutes.

 

[katy_did]

I think there must be a typo or two in this post. If you fast forward 8-12 minutes from 19:43 you get 19:51-19:55, not 20:51-20:55. That would be fast-forwarding 68-72 minutes.

Indeed - thank you for the correction.

The sighting of Meredith was at 20:43, of course, not 19:43.

 

[Fiona]

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.

On reflection I think you are right, Shuttit. This is a conclusion I have reached several times, but for some reason I keep thinking it is possible to get to some agreement about something, sometime. This is madness on my part. There is nothing to be gained by going over and over the same minutiae. We have all come to our conclusions by now. I will take you implicit advice and "pack up and go home". Again

 

[katy_did]

I thought you had read it?

It does not say what you claim it does. Better?

 

[Fiona]

Well anyone who is interested can read it for themselves.

it was claimed that the BATTISTELLI reported to have traveled to the spot because they were found two mobile phones, but the lady wool is taken on record on the second phone found only at 12:46 p.m.; and second Altiero LUCA agents were in the kitchen , with the two phones placed on the table. In support of these assumptions, it is recognized that the Information Manager of the Police Post states that the wool had returned to deliver a second phone and, in light of the results, it was decided to send staff in Via della Pergola.
In fact, the sequence of events is as follows:
10:58 a.m. - is the first complaint by Dr collection. BARTOLOZZI (and states that the first phone is delivered simultaneously)
11:38 a.m. - will perform inspections on membership, which shows the name of ROMANELLI
11:50 - the second record with LANA (probably remained in those offices) which shows that she and her family was the perfect ROMANELLI unknown; verbalizza still BARTOLOZZI
12:46 p.m. - second complaint, also collected by BARTOLOZZI with simultaneous delivery of mobile
13:00 - there is the activation of the cell corresponding to the Police Command Post (Strada Borghetto of Prepo) from the users of English Kercher
13:50 - seizure of the two phones, recorded - usually from BARTOLOZZI - 14:00
The data now reported, however, must integrate with the statement made by Biscarini Fiammetta, daughter of Mrs. wool, which she was called by her mother to ask if you knew a certain ROMANELLI (before 11:50 a.m., it must be considered) and shortly afterwards colf found with the second mobile phone, at that point, the Biscarini immediately called his mother, who at that point was probably more at the Police Post, not reason to stay and not imagine the result of history, and immediately after the command Police, from which he felt that it was necessary to bring the other equipment. So the Biscarini went to the mother near the WFP and went, just before 12:46 p.m., at the police.
It follows that the police knew of the second Postal mobiles around noon, under the call of the daughter of the wool,

 

[katy_did]

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

Your argument on this thread is simply that you don't believe the footage of the postal police to be the postal police, and that therefore - since you believe Battistelli that he got there at 12:35 - that they cannot have taken 20 minutes to get to the house. You haven't said anything about why the timeline I put forward is implausible.

She said she arrived just before 1:00.

No, Paola said 'just before 1'. Filomena said 'around 1'.

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

Whether you find 5-6 minutes plausible or not, it does not change the fact the objective evidence shows it happened that way, and you have not contradicted it.

Filomena's friends must have arrived at 12:46 at the very latest, to allow Amanda and Raffaele to disappear and make their phone calls, which began at 12:47. Clearly, they could not have made these calls without the postal police noticing if they were the only other ones there.

See upthread.

I have seen no plausible alternative to the timeline I posted. If you have one, feel free to share.

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

You are the one suggesting the postal police did not accept it was them. Maybe you should link to that? The fact it was never disputed in court shows, in itself, that they accepted it was them. We can presume they or the prosecution would have disputed it if there were any doubt, and they didn't. I'm afraid I can't link to the absence of a dispute; you may be able to link to the presence of one, though.

Why do you think the prosecution claimed the CCTV was 10-15 minutes fast, if they hadn't even accepted the postal police were the ones seen on the footage? Why on earth would they even argue that point? Were they trying to say the Carabinieri really arrived at 13:07-13:12, and the discussion was about the 13:22 sighting of them?

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?

It probably didn't show the postal police. If it had, it would no doubt be presented in court. If there were at least three separate activations of the CCTV camera between 12:40 and 12:50 CCTV time, do you find it plausible there were none between 12:20 and 12:30?

It would only have been presented in court if it showed them. Clearly, it did not.

 

[katy_did]

Well anyone who is interested can read it for themselves.

The Google translation is rather confusing, but if I'm getting this straight, Micheli presumes that Lana would have informed the police of the second phone when her daughter phoned her, but that the police made no record of it until 12:46.

That seems a little odd, and like so much else in Micheli's report it's speculative, but I accept that it's possible they could have known about the two phones earlier.

 

[katy_did]

Hmmm, well this is odd. I was informed Bongiorno's report on the CCTV footage had been discussed on the thread, yet when I searched for Bongiorno, the only references to CCTV that came up were my own. No wonder I had no recollection of it having been discussed here, and no wonder Stilicho thought the information came from some random blogger.

ETA: Ah OK, it was Fulcanelli's statement that the information wasn't presented in court but came "from some random individual's post" that gave Stilicho that impression. Not Stilicho's fault, then.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hmmm, well this is odd. I was informed Bongiorno's report on the CCTV footage had been discussed on the thread, yet when I searched for Bongiorno, the only references to CCTV that came up were my own. No wonder I had no recollection of it having been discussed here, and no wonder Stilicho thought the information came from some random blogger.

Could you please try to be a bit more condescending?

The CCTV footage was indeed discussed in this thread. If you cannot find it, that is not the fault of those who did discuss it

 

[katy_did]

Could you please try to be a bit more condescending?

The CCTV footage was indeed discussed in this thread. If you cannot find it, that is not the fault of those who did discuss it

If I'm condescended to, I'm likely to be condescending back. You surely can't claim the posts made in reply to me have not been condescending? If a reply to me shows a basic respect and courtesy, I'm very happy to give similar back.

Yes, I've read the discussion, both in my original reading of the thread, and just now having gone back and read it. I'm not arguing the CCTV footage was not discussed, just that it having originated in a presentation made by Bongiorno was not mentioned. That is probably why Stilicho was not aware of that fact, aside from a simple lapse in memory.

The crazy thing is this discussion should really have been settled ages ago, if people were just prepared to look at the objective facts and not try and see every little thing as a sign of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. There's an unbelievable stubbornness in the face of basic logic. Accepting that Sollecito called the cops before the postal police arrived does not have to mean you suddenly think he's innocent.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If I'm condescended to, I'm likely to be condescending back. You surely can't claim the posts made in reply to me have not been condescending? If a reply to me shows a basic respect and courtesy, I'm very happy to give similar back.

Yes, I've read the discussion, both in my original reading of the thread, and just now having gone back and read it. I'm not arguing the CCTV footage was not discussed, just that it having originated in a presentation made by Bongiorno was not mentioned. That is probably why Stilicho was not aware of that fact, aside from a simple lapse in memory.

The crazy thing is this discussion should really have been settled ages ago, if people were just prepared to look at the objective facts and not try and see every little thing as a sign of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. There's an unbelievable stubbornness in the face of basic logic.

Interestingly, it was settled ages ago. A jury in Italy found the duo guilty. That's pretty settled

 

[katy_did]

Interestingly, it was settled ages ago. A jury in Italy found the duo guilty. That's pretty settled

Till the appeal.

As I posted earlier, however, it's entirely possible the jury accepted Sollecito made the 112 call before the postal police's arrival, yet still found them guilty. It's very unlikely to have been a decisive issue, either way.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Till the appeal.

As I posted earlier, however, it's entirely possible the jury accepted Sollecito made the 112 call before the postal police's arrival, yet still found them guilty. It's very unlikely to have been a decisive issue, either way.

So, why waste so much energy on all these non-decisive issues?

 

[katy_did]

So, why waste so much energy on all these non-decisive issues?

Because it keeps getting mentioned as a sign of Knox and Sollecito's guilt. That's how the whole discussion started.

My own view is that since Knox and Sollecito had called a bunch of people already to tell them exactly what they'd found when the postal police arrived, it's pretty irrelevant. Now if they'd been scrubbing the bathroom floor when the postal police walked in, rather than waiting in the garden, fair enough.

If it can be decisively settled one way or another, shouldn't it be? I don't personally think it has any bearing on their guilt or innocence, but if other people do, I'll argue the facts to counter that (unfair) suspicion.

 

[Kestrel]

Indeed - thank you for the correction.

The sighting of Meredith was at 20:43, of course, not 19:43.

Does anyone have a good link for the video presumably showing Meredith returning to the cottage?

The one I have seen is poor quality and cropped so it doesn't include the time information in the lower right corner.

 

[katy_did]

Does anyone have a good link for the video presumably showing Meredith returning to the cottage?

The one I have seen is poor quality and cropped so it doesn't include the time information in the lower right corner.

Yes, I'd be interested to know if any better footage exists, too. I was just going on the widely reported time in my post, but of course, without the footage it's impossible to say for certain (and as you say, the figure itself is very indistinct, and was initally reported to be Amanda).

I wonder if this was ever actually presented in court, or just reported in the press?

 

[Kestrel]

Could you please try to be a bit more condescending?

The CCTV footage was indeed discussed in this thread. If you cannot find it, that is not the fault of those who did discuss it

For the benefit of newcomers to this thread, it was brought up way back in Post 1444.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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



ETA: I stand by my comment that they lied.

It is not for the police to make a final decision about the quality of the evidence, it's a for a court. The judge decided the video wasn't usable.

To call them liars is completely without foundation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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'.

Yes, from the OUTSIDE, in that they couldn't just shut the door behind them when they went out.

As for the police, you can't play those games. It isn't the police who are on trial. You will find the links to the police testimony in various media sources on PMF. They explained exactly how they interrogated Amanda and what questions they asked her. If you can't be bothered to go and read the sources, then too bad. But it sounds ignorant to me, to be making claims about the police testimony when you've not even read it.