Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[quadraginta]

Who is Funnacello?

Annette?

ANNETTE?!!!

Is that you?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I do not know what you are getting at here, Fulcanelli. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is certainly the standard of proof for criminal cases in the US, UK and in Italy. There is some debate in legal journals as to whether there should be a specific definition but in the UK and in Italy that has not so far been introduced: I do not know about the US

The judge instructs the jury as to what it means in this country: the best instruction I heard was

"not a metaphysical doubt, but the kind of doubt which would give you pause in your ordinary affairs"

Well, I think SomeAlibi layed it out rather well, on another forum.

 

[HumanityBlues]

In fact, many courts don't even bother with a 'reasonable doubt', instead instructing the juries 'what seems most true to you'. And that's just within the US. Those standards also differ from country to country.

Where on earth did you get the idea that is legal for a judge to do in American court?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Where on earth did you get the idea that is legal for a judge to do in American court?

Well, I was referring to UK courts really. I can't really speak for the US ones so well.

 

[katy_did]

Am I wrong in assuming that the dispatcher’s log book and the cell phone records were introduced as evidence during the trial?

No, you're not; what the log book actually said was that the police set off for the cottage at 12:48. I suspect this was a mistake, and that what they meant was that Battistelli was only notified about the second phone at 12:48, when he was on his way to the cottage.

This would mean that the first conversation between the postal police and Amanda and Raffaele only mentioned one phone, and also that when Luca arrived they were just talking about one phone. All three people contradict this idea, and the police themselves never suggested they found out about the second phone mid-conversation. This would suggest that the police arrived after 12:48.

Fiona mentioned a paragraph in Micheli's report, but I had another look at the Google translation and I'm still not entirely sure how his reasoning works. Originally I had thought he was claiming Lana was at the police station when her daughter phoned to tell her about the second phone, but she wasn't, she was out shopping - so why would the police have known about it before it was delivered to the police station?

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, you're not; what the log book actually said was that the police set off for the cottage at 12:48. I suspect this was a mistake, and that what they meant was that Battistelli was only notified about the second phone at 12:48, when he was on his way to the cottage.

Battistelli was already at the cottage.

All three people contradict this idea, and the police themselves never suggested they found out about the second phone mid-conversation.

Why did they need to, was it important? Were they actually 'asked' about it on the stand in the first place?

 

[katy_did]

The police view of the CCTV footage is that the figure walks to the cottage at 20:43. For this time to be correct and the figure to be Meredith, she had to leave Robyn's place at 20:35 or earlier. A fair amount earlier that the times given by both Robyn and Sophie. And Meredith would have been at the cottage for at least 10 minutes before attempting to call her mother.

Yes, the police view of this footage is a little confusing. I think Bob quoted police inspector Mauro Barbadori earlier, in which he says the belief is that it is Meredith based on the timing - this would practically be an acknowledgement that the CCTV was slow, based on witness testimony that Meredith couldn't have been there at 20:43. Based on the defence reading of the footage, Meredith would have been there a little before 12:56, which would make it likely she'd just arrived home when she tried to call her mother. I think Bongiorno also suggested in court that the interrupted call marked the start of the attack.

I tend to agree with what you posted earlier about the location of the cottage having been a factor in the police identification of the various figures seen. As you said, the cottage is practically the only house on that side of the street, and anyone walking to a house on the other side of the street would more likely walk through the carpark rather than along the road. They must surely have had some reason for identifying the different figures with the certainty which they did (even when they thought it was Amanda, they seemed certain it was a figure visiting the cottage).

They surely wouldn't have picked a random female figure and just assumed it was heading for the cottage unless they had more reason to believe that than just the very murky CCTV footage - would they?

The call from Meredith's phone to Abbey Bank around 22:00 is an indication that her phone was no longer in her control. The bank phone number didn't include the 44 prefix for the UK, so it's doubtful that Meredith routinely contacted her bank that way since arriving in Italy. The Micheli Report theory is that the call was triggered by accident while the phone was in a pants pocket. That is possible, but who's pants pocket was it in by then?

Yes, I'd agree. The 20:56 interrupted call and the 22:00 call give an indication of the time boundaries within which the attack probably happened. The other possibility regarding the bank call is that it was a deliberate call made to see if there was some way of accessing her bank account (I think there may also have been a text requesting details of her bank balance? Not sure). The fact her bank cards were taken would perhaps support this theory too.

 

[katy_did]

Battistelli was already at the cottage.

Nope: he was on his way, but at that point he hadn't arrived.

Why did they need to, was it important? Were they actually 'asked' about it on the stand in the first place?

Yes, all three stated that Battistelli was talking about two phones when he arrived (or in Luca's case, when he arrived); none mention that the situation changed midway through, including the police themselves. As you know, Luca assumed that the two phones on the table when he walked in were the two phones that had been found, and Amanda made the same mistake when she said Battistelli showed her the two phones they'd found when he arrived (he must have already had his own phone in his hand at this point).

Not to get into this again, but the CCTV footage and the log book (which the police claimed was a mistake) all support the 112 calls being made before the police's arrival. It's only Battistelli's memory that doesn't.

 

[katy_did]

Well Luca said Battistelli entered the room and lifted the quilt. He remained firm that Battistelli entered the room and Battistelli insisted he did not. Luca acknowledged that he did not see Battistelli lift the quilt, though, because he went outside before that happened (if it did)

Do we know for sure that Luca didn't see that? I know Paola didn't, but I thought Luca stated he did. From Perugia Shock:

They all run out of the house except Battistelli and Luca. Luca will reach them after about 30 seconds because he is pushed by inertia with a foot in the room. Paola and Luca see Battistelli stepping in the room. Paola goes out and Luca stays some seconds just in time to see Battistelli lifting the duvet to see Meredith's face. In that moment Luca turns around and goes to the others in the garden, where the other policeman had already blocked the entrance.

And from another post:

But Luca saw him very clearly. And doesn't have any problem in recalling again, quiet and easy, those 3 steps towards Meredith. What's more simple than that? He saw him stepping inside and going to lift the end of the duvet.

You may be right and that he said during the cross-examination he wasn't sure, though.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, the police view of this footage is a little confusing. I think Bob quoted police inspector Mauro Barbadori earlier, in which he says the belief is that it is Meredith based on the timing - this would practically be an acknowledgement that the CCTV was slow, based on witness testimony that Meredith couldn't have been there at 20:43.

Or simply, Barbadori was uncertain how accurate the testimony, in regard to times, given by Meredith's friends was.

They must surely have had some reason for identifying the different figures with the certainty which they did (even when they thought it was Amanda, they seemed certain it was a figure visiting the cottage).

Actually, they didn't seem 'certain' at all:

Police inspector Mauro Barbadori told the court the CCTV footage had been recovered in the hope that it would provide key information.

He said: ''From the time on the film and the fact it is a female figure - the belief is that it is Meredith but it is very poor quality and we cannot say for definite.
''Hypothetically speaking it is very possible that the figure seen is Meredith returning home after spending the evening at a friend's house.''

SKY NEWS

'very poor quality'...'cannot say for definite'...'Hypothetically speaking'...'it is very possible'.

They surely wouldn't have picked a random female figure and just assumed it was heading for the cottage unless they had more reason to believe that than just the very murky CCTV footage - would they?

Barbadori offered no other reasons other then that it was hypothetically possible.

Yes, I'd agree. The 20:56 interrupted call and the 22:00 call give an indication of the time boundaries within which the attack probably happened.

Mere speculation. Meredith could just as easily have pressed speed dial by accident. That is the most likely explanation. Meredith had no reason to call her mother, having already called her just that afternoon.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Nope: he was on his way, but at that point he hadn't arrived.

He was already there.

Yes, all three stated that Battistelli was talking about two phones when he arrived (or in Luca's case, when he arrived);

He was talking about two phones because they had informed him Meredith had two phones. He did not know about Meredith's phone. This is why the Postal Police were only interested in Filomena, for it was her phone that had been found.

Not to get into this again, but the CCTV footage and the log book (which the police claimed was a mistake) all support the 112 calls being made before the police's arrival. It's only Battistelli's memory that doesn't.

Evidently, 5 different courts do not agree. So, either 5 courts are wrong, or you are wrong.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Do we know for sure that Luca didn't see that? I know Paola didn't, but I thought Luca stated he did. From Perugia Shock:

Well, there's your problem right there. I wouldn't rely on Perugia Shock, Frank Sfarzo is FOA.

You may be right and that he said during the cross-examination he wasn't sure, though.

The key element is that he saw him take 'three' steps...not four or five. He was very specific with 'three'. Three steps would not have been enough to put him by the head of Meredith and close enough to lift the top of the duvet. Therefore, the subtext is very clear. Luca merely saw him take three steps into the room and 'inferred' he completed the movement of what he assumed to be to check Meredith and raise the duvet. He 'inferred' it, he did not 'see' it.

 

[piktor]

On doubt and beyond reasonable doubt

Judgements are proffered on some objective facts and on some "reasonable" conclusions.

Circumstantial cases in particular, people deciding on guilt or innocence of the accused have to take a flight from hard facts and start making inferences and assumptions and conclusions based on "reason" or "logic".

You have on one hand the Marty Tankleff case. I saw from the beggining that Marty was innocent. The police investigation and the prosecution's narrative made no sense. The lead investigator "saw" indications that the culprit was Marty, he had "no doubt" whatsoever.

The American jury did not believe Marty and they did agree with the prosecution's narrative.

Poor old Marty spent 17 years in prison for a double murder of his adoptive parents he had nothing to do with.

It was a titanic struggle to finally free him from a travesty of justice. So much for "beyond reasonable doubt".

On the other hand we have an equally lurid murder case in Alaska with some of the most colorful narrative ever devised, and as always, reality defeats imagination. You could not make this up.

I will not tell you the verdict in the Alaska case because you will have to watch the report's full 90 minutes and see just how people judging can make terrible judgements like the Tankleff case and reach a conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt" with a narrative that makes no sense.

The story is beyond description, no violence at all and one single victim with misplaced affection for the exotic dancer gal.

This video is long and the story is amazing. The verdict is also a surprise. As in the Kercher case, wholly circumstantial and hard to believe homicides like this actually happen:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4447481n&tag=mncol;lst;2

 

[Kestrel]

I tend to agree with what you posted earlier about the location of the cottage having been a factor in the police identification of the various figures seen. As you said, the cottage is practically the only house on that side of the street, and anyone walking to a house on the other side of the street would more likely walk through the carpark rather than along the road. They must surely have had some reason for identifying the different figures with the certainty which they did (even when they thought it was Amanda, they seemed certain it was a figure visiting the cottage).

Jovana Popovic stopped by Raffaele's flat at about 20:40 to tell him she didn't need a ride to the bus station. She said Amanda answered the intercom, making it a bit difficult for Amanda to be on the car park video at 20:43. We also know that Raffaele got a phone call from his father at 20:42. Did Amanda answer the intercom because Raffaele was on the phone?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Jovana Popovic stopped by Raffaele's flat at about 20:40 to tell him she didn't need a ride to the bus station. She said Amanda answered the intercom, making it a bit difficult for Amanda to be on the car park video at 20:43. We also know that Raffaele got a phone call from his father at 20:42. Did Amanda answer the intercom because Raffaele was on the phone?

But it must also be remembered, these times are not to the minute and second...they are approximate times.

As for why Amanda answered the intercom, there could be any number of possible reasons.

 

[katy_did]

Jovana Popovic stopped by Raffaele's flat at about 20:40 to tell him she didn't need a ride to the bus station. She said Amanda answered the intercom, making it a bit difficult for Amanda to be on the car park video at 20:43. We also know that Raffaele got a phone call from his father at 20:42. Did Amanda answer the intercom because Raffaele was on the phone?

I feel like we're talking at cross-purposes a bit! It couldn't have been either Amanda or Meredith if the real time had been 20:43, as you say (I agree with you that Amanda likely answered the intercom because Raffaele was talking to his dad at that time). So if it was either of them, it must have been because the CCTV was slow, as the defence claimed. In other words I'm assuming the 'raw' CCTV time was 20:43, since this is the time that was widely reported very early on in the investigation, likely before the police were aware there was a problem with the CCTV time.

So if 20:43 was the time stamp on the CCTV, this means that, per the defence's theory, the actual time Meredith is seen on the footage is between 20:51 and 20:55. This fits in both with the time the girls left Meredith's friend's house, and also with Sophie's estimated arrival time home at 20:55 - and of course, also with that interrupted 20:56 phone call.

I think the police's original argument that it was Amanda must have been because they didn't know the CCTV timing was wrong. So because they knew Meredith arrived home later than 20:43, they assumed that since it was a female figure who appeared to be going to the cottage, it must have been Amanda arriving 10-15 minutes before Meredith. Probably at that time they hadn't checked out her alibi, which as you say, means she couldn't have been there.

 

[katy_did]

He was already there.

No, he wasn't. This is fun.

He was talking about two phones because they had informed him Meredith had two phones. He did not know about Meredith's phone. This is why the Postal Police were only interested in Filomena, for it was her phone that had been found.

Nope, Amanda and Raffaele both state that when the postal police first approached them while they were waiting in the garden, they told them they had found two phones. Like Luca, Amanda mistakenly thought the two phones in Battistelli's hand were the two phones they had found. When Luca arrived, he thought the two phones on the table were the two phones the postal police were talking about. If Luca arrived before the 112 call was made, he must have arrived at or before 12:45, a minute before the finding of the second phone was reported.

Raffaele:

We pause to wait outside and suddenly there are two guys who tell us to be the postal police seeking Filomena, as they had found two mobile phones and a number belonged to Filomena. For Amanda comes to mind that these phones were Meredith's and I ask the police to break the door.

Amanda's Testimony:

LG: And they told you that they were there for the problem of the cell phones?

AK: Yes, in fact, they told me that after I brought them into the house. They showed me the cell phones and said they were looking for a certain Filomena.

The postal police knew about the two cell phones before Amanda and Raffaele said anything to them. The reason they were only interested in Filomena is because they were able to tell that the first phone was registered to her. Meredith's second phone was a UK one, which means the police couldn't tell who it was registered to. Along with the CCTV footage, this is just more evidence you are ignoring because it doesn't fit your theory.

Evidently, 5 different courts do not agree. So, either 5 courts are wrong, or you are wrong.

Presumably this is the same argument you'll use if they win the appeal. 5 courts agreed, 1 court disagreed, so that 1 court is wrong?

Yet, it's that 1 court that will matter, not the other 5.

 

[Alt+F4]

Nope, Amanda and Raffaele both state that when the postal police first approached them while they were waiting in the garden, they told them they had found two phones.

Strange that the killers would even take the phones since they contained no important evidence and then hold on to them long enough to walk/run almost a half mile before dumping them in the garden.

 

[katy_did]

Strange that the killers would even take the phones since they contained no important evidence and then hold on to them long enough to walk/run almost a half mile before dumping them in the garden.

Bank details, perhaps? (there was a call/SMS to Meredith's bank, and her cards were stolen)

 

[Alt+F4]

Bank details, perhaps? (there was a call/SMS to Meredith's bank, and her cards were stolen)

Could be but I would think the killers would have to use the phone to try and get that information and no calls were made on that phone after 9pm.