No, that is not the case. However I will explain again why I do not think your outline is plausible if that will help you
On the one hand we have the testimony of the police that they arrived around 12:25 camera time, and 12:30 on their own recollection. That would be about 12:35 if the clock is slow.
When they arrived they met AK and RS outside the cottage. They had a conversation which covered both the reasons for their visit (the phones) and the strange things which AK and RS had found and were concerned about. They were shown some of those things by AK and RS. They asked for the flatmates' numbers and those were written on a post it note. Luca and his friend arrived during all this and presumably they also had to be told something of what was going on.
At some point, presumably while the police were talking to Luca and his pal, AK and RS went into AK's room. They came out of that room when Filomena and Paola arrived shortly before 1:00. Filomena then also had to be brought up to speed and she discussed the phones and also the question of whether it was usual for Meredith to lock her door. The call to the police station was made at 1:00.
To me this time frame is plausible.
On your scenario the police arrived at 12:56 (or 12:58). All of those same conversations, arrivals, explanations etc have to be made in the course of 4 (or 2) minutes. That seems to me to be unlikely. Obviously you find it plausible. And that is a straightforward difference of opinion
We do have some evidence on each side: there is the testimony of the police about their time of arrival: there is also the testimony of Luca and of Filomena about their time of arrival. There is the testimony of RS, who said the police arrived before he called 112. All of that supports the time line I choose to accept
On the other side we have the CCTV footage. You say that the idea that this does not show the police arrival is "implausible". I disagree. I have looked at it and I do not think it is possible to say it shows what it says it shows. Nor does it show the footage at 12:25 clock time. Rather odd, given the importance of that time. And that is all we have in support of the revision to the times
The footage does show the arrival of the carabinieri. It seems reasonable to me that the clock was slow because of the time they are recorded as arriving. It is not certain because it relies on an accurate record that the door was opened at 1:15. Since I accept the timings given by the witnesses I accept the implication: but since you reject all of those why do you accept that one? Presumably you don't and that is why you found you argument on the unidentifiable legs. But that is not the basis for accepting the clock was slow: it is the arrival of the carabinieri car coupled with accepting the time the door was opened which does that.
It has been claimed here that the prosecution/police accepted the revision you propose: but I have asked for the evidence of that and so far it has not been forthcoming. Nor have I been able to find it. All I can see is that the police and other witnesses gave their testimony as to the timings; and the defence tried to displace that using this footage. I do not think that was accepted by the prosecution and in fact I cannot find any comment from them to that effect at all: but I may have missed it. I have asked you and others to steer me to where that was done, and I will be happy if you will now do so
But you tried to displace the burden of proof on to me. It is your claim, however, and the ball is in your court. What you seemed to say was that you could not link to a conversation which did not take place. Just so. If it did not take place then both accounts were placed before the court and they were left to make a judgement between them: that is their job. If that is how it was then this footage is there for us also to judge and we have done so. What now?
On the one hand we have the testimony of the police that they arrived around 12:25 camera time, and 12:30 on their own recollection. That would be about 12:35 if the clock is slow.
When they arrived they met AK and RS outside the cottage. They had a conversation which covered both the reasons for their visit (the phones) and the strange things which AK and RS had found and were concerned about. They were shown some of those things by AK and RS. They asked for the flatmates' numbers and those were written on a post it note. Luca and his friend arrived during all this and presumably they also had to be told something of what was going on.
At some point, presumably while the police were talking to Luca and his pal, AK and RS went into AK's room. They came out of that room when Filomena and Paola arrived shortly before 1:00. Filomena then also had to be brought up to speed and she discussed the phones and also the question of whether it was usual for Meredith to lock her door. The call to the police station was made at 1:00.
To me this time frame is plausible.
On your scenario the police arrived at 12:56 (or 12:58). All of those same conversations, arrivals, explanations etc have to be made in the course of 4 (or 2) minutes. That seems to me to be unlikely. Obviously you find it plausible. And that is a straightforward difference of opinion
We do have some evidence on each side: there is the testimony of the police about their time of arrival: there is also the testimony of Luca and of Filomena about their time of arrival. There is the testimony of RS, who said the police arrived before he called 112. All of that supports the time line I choose to accept
On the other side we have the CCTV footage. You say that the idea that this does not show the police arrival is "implausible". I disagree. I have looked at it and I do not think it is possible to say it shows what it says it shows. Nor does it show the footage at 12:25 clock time. Rather odd, given the importance of that time. And that is all we have in support of the revision to the times
The footage does show the arrival of the carabinieri. It seems reasonable to me that the clock was slow because of the time they are recorded as arriving. It is not certain because it relies on an accurate record that the door was opened at 1:15. Since I accept the timings given by the witnesses I accept the implication: but since you reject all of those why do you accept that one? Presumably you don't and that is why you found you argument on the unidentifiable legs. But that is not the basis for accepting the clock was slow: it is the arrival of the carabinieri car coupled with accepting the time the door was opened which does that.
It has been claimed here that the prosecution/police accepted the revision you propose: but I have asked for the evidence of that and so far it has not been forthcoming. Nor have I been able to find it. All I can see is that the police and other witnesses gave their testimony as to the timings; and the defence tried to displace that using this footage. I do not think that was accepted by the prosecution and in fact I cannot find any comment from them to that effect at all: but I may have missed it. I have asked you and others to steer me to where that was done, and I will be happy if you will now do so
But you tried to displace the burden of proof on to me. It is your claim, however, and the ball is in your court. What you seemed to say was that you could not link to a conversation which did not take place. Just so. If it did not take place then both accounts were placed before the court and they were left to make a judgement between them: that is their job. If that is how it was then this footage is there for us also to judge and we have done so. What now?
