The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[RoseMontague]

Link & Link

While this Cartwheel is long on mispokes as per Dan O and others - its short on spokes or else is spinning ever faster.

I said there is a mystery (see lamp) on why the defense team uses 6:30-7:00 as the meal time. The three witnesses would have all had to change their testimony and it just not be mentioned anywhere that I can find (meaning I highly doubt it-do I really need to say that?).

Here is the TOD issue as explained in the RS appeal:

..all the consultants of the prosecution and the experts, whilst acknowledging the interpretive difficulty of using the gastric contents for thanato-chronological* purposes, identified the time of death with respect to the typology and quantity of gastric contents and to the composition of the last known meal as follows:

* Dr. Lalli: at a distance of not more than 2-3 hours from the consumption of the last meal (see errate corrige [Latin: correction of error] on 15.2.2008, acquired during the trial hearing, and p. 47 of the stenotyped record from the hearing of 3.4.09);
* Prof. Bacci and Dr. Liviero: at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the last meal which was consumed in a discontinuous way from 18.00 and ended at about 20.00 on 1.11.07, as demonstrated by the fact that the stomach was full and the duodenum empty, indicating that gastric emptying had not yet begun (p. 64 hearing 4.4.09; p. 32 hearing 18.4.09);
* Prof. Umani Ronchi: at a distance of 3-4 hours from the last meal (p. 30 hearing 19.9.09).

On the basis of these specifications it can be stated that, even taking into account the widest range indicated by the majority of the consultants, the time of death would be no later than 22.50 on 1.11.2007.

However, it is possible from a scientific point of view to further restrict such a range using the gastric contents, in terms of size (500 cc.) and composition (pastry, mozzarella, vegetables, apple slices), and comparing this with the last meal eaten by the victim as reported by witnesses: the time of death would in this way be placed, based on forensic criteria of maximum reliability (on account of the individual and converging viewpoints of the various consultant and experts), at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the start of the consumption of the last known meal (18.30-19.00 on 1.11.2007) and thus at about 21.30-22.00.
The identification of the time of death as 21.30-22.00 on 1.11.2007 finds confirmation:

* in the correspondence, in terms of quantity (500 cc. or about a kilo of food) and quality (pizza with mozzarella and vegetables, and apple slices), between food consumed during the last meal on 1.11.2007, and the stomach contents of the body;
* in the absence in Meredith’s stomach of fragments of food different to those described by her friends as having been consumed during the meal on 1.11.2007;
* in the empty duodenum, which (having been properly closed by ligation as can be seen in the autopsy) is indicative of the fact gastric emptying had not yet started;
* in the uncertainty about the nature of the vegetable fragment found in the distal third of the oesophagus, never subject to product analysis and which can reasonably be assumed to be a slice of apple.

I am sticking with the shortly after 9PM because the friends testimony on the meal time and the cell phone records of Meredith. I believe she was attacked almost immediately.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose started it !

I was curious why she thought MK stored her lamp on the floor...

Yes, and you provided valuable information. I did notice that Hendry is not certain it was knocked over but I see that as a much stronger possibility now.

 

[platonov]

I said there is a mystery (see lamp) on why the defense team uses 6:30-7:00 as the meal time. The three witnesses would have all had to change their testimony and it just not be mentioned anywhere that I can find (meaning I highly doubt it-do I really need to say that?).

Here is the TOD issue as explained in the RS appeal:



I am sticking with the shortly after 9PM because the friends testimony on the meal time and the cell phone records of Meredith. I believe she was attacked almost immediately.

I am more interested in why the defence teams and Massei have a possible meal start time as late as 7 - which is where we started.

Are the defence teams in on the conspiracy or have you got your 'facts' wrong.

Your opinion on the ToD is not the issue under discussion - well not the current discussion I'm involved in

 

[RoseMontague]

I am more interested in why the defence teams and Massei have a possible meal start time as late as 7 - which is where we started.

Are the defence teams in on the conspiracy or have you got your 'facts' wrong.

Your opinion on the ToD is not the issue under discussion - well not the current discussion I'm involved in

OK,
Both Massei and Raffaele's defense team are wrong (and I am right). The testimony of the friends is clear and one was quoted in the Micheli report as well (6PM or perhaps earlier).

I have quoted the information from the testimony of all three. Even Massei quotes two of them (around 6PM and 5:30-6:00PM) and then proceeds to blithely state 6:30-7:00PM. Other than Meredith, there was nobody else present for the meal that could testify to a different time. Perhaps the defense is actually going with the court's time on this one because it still fits.

 

[Kaosium]

IIRC, Sophie testified there was a TV show at 9PM she wanted to see and was certain she (Sophie) made it just in time. They had split up just shortly before 9PM.

Thank you, Rose. LondonJohn would have me drawn and quartered, I'm terrible with names. For some reason I can remember names like Piers Gaveston and Roger de Mortimer but have trouble remembering Sophie Purton's first name or for the longest time I couldn't recall Quintavalle's last name or how to spell it. Let's not get started with my spelling of names either...

I'm not sure why you are asking me about PMF - last time someone went down that road a bunch of posts got moved to AAH (the mods have enough to do) and the pigs got loose.

But I'd be surprised if the Massei report isn't still available there.

It's a source and the purpose of my question was not to inflame passions about it. So don't you start anything!

I was hoping the other version was available elsewhere, as it doesn't have the original Italian in brackets every sentence which makes it much more difficult to scan in my experience.

 

[platonov]

Thank you, Rose. LondonJohn would have me drawn and quartered, I'm terrible with names. For some reason I can remember names like Piers Gaveston and Roger de Mortimer but have trouble remembering Sophie Purton's first name or for the longest time I couldn't recall Quintavalle's last name or how to spell it. Let's not get started with my spelling of names either...



It's a source and the purpose of my question was not to inflame passions about it. So don't you start anything!

I was hoping the other version was available elsewhere, as it doesn't have the original Italian in brackets every sentence which makes it much more difficult to scan in my experience.

But perhaps you are good with numbers - Together you two would make a formidable team


What's the other version ?

Has somebody else made a translation available publicly - If so I hope it has been compared to the PMF version.
I hear they [PMF] are not to be trusted - this is a priceless opportunity to expose their perfidy.
Of course that would mean reading Massei twice and it appears that once is too often for some

 

[Draca]

OK,
Both Massei and Raffaele's defense team are wrong (and I am right). The testimony of the friends is clear and one was quoted in the Micheli report as well (6PM or perhaps earlier).

I have quoted the information from the testimony of all three. Even Massei quotes two of them (around 6PM and 5:30-6:00PM) and then proceeds to blithely state 6:30-7:00PM. Other than Meredith, there was nobody else present for the meal that could testify to a different time. Perhaps the defense is actually going with the court's time on this one because it still fits.

It's like Raffaele's appeal gives an extra half hour beyond the latest dining time so it can't be questioned. It's like - well say they ate as late as 6:30 p.m., MK STILL would have died closer to 9:30 - 10:00 p.m. than the ridiculous 11:30 p.m. the prosecution suggests! A mistake by the defense in my opinion.

 

[Kestrel]

Something just occurred to me about this. (no, not that she was killed by Sally Purton or whatever her name is) I was wondering just how solid that time she left the English girls was? I know there's that CCTV shot that catches someone (presumably Meredith) entering the property but as I recall the timestamp on that is missing for some reason.

From other released images, we know the car park camera puts a timestamp on the bottom of the frame. But the only video available to the public has the bottom of the frame cropped. Press reports indicate the time was 8:43 pm. We know the prosecution believed the camera time was 10 minutes fast. If they adjusted the time reported to the press, the camera time would be 8:53 pm. The defense later proved the camera is at least 10 minutes slow. So the actual time the woman appears is 9:03 pm. A time that fits nicely with Meredith leaving Sophie around 8:55 pm.

 

[Kaosium]

But perhaps you are good with numbers - Together you two would make a formidable team

Yes, his numbers make sense to me, but then again I read them from front to back, not back to front....

What's the other version ?

Has somebody else made a translation available publicly - If so I hope it has been compared to the PMF version.
I hear they [PMF] are not to be trusted - this is a priceless opportunity to expose their perfidy.
Of course that would mean reading Massei twice and it appears that once is too often for some

In October when I was looking for it the one on the Seattle PI didn't have Italian words in brackets, as the PMF version of that time did, and I for one found it easier to read. It is possible that they went back and got rid of all those insertions, however I've not checked it since. I'm hoping someone will tell me where I can find that old version.

As for perfidy, I wrote a post about two weeks ago in the main thread to the (since banned) fellow with the charming username indicating outside the curious changing of words regarding Filomena's tidiness or memory, that the mistakes made in the translation were minor and appeared to me to be neutral and in good faith. Others disagreed with my assessment, but I stand by it.

Stop trying to make trouble!

 

[platonov]

Yikes !

It's like Raffaele's appeal gives an extra half hour beyond the latest dining time so it can't be questioned. It's like - well say they ate as late as 6:30 p.m., MK STILL would have died closer to 9:30 - 10:00 p.m. than the ridiculous 11:30 p.m. the prosecution suggests! A mistake by the defense in my opinion.

It's like, man, they are in on the conspiracy

- Or they are au fait (and know the court also are) with the testimony which puts the possible meal start time as late as 7 [or indeed, for completeness, as early as 5.30 or 6].

- Or, dare I say it , the defence experts haven't perused one of the more ridiculous conspiracy theory 'sciency' threads on JREF and aren't aware that ToD was at no later than 9.05* or 8.05 or whatever you're having yourself.

*give or take 25%

The first option seems most likely given the other obvious points they have missed

 

[Draca]

From other released images, we know the car park camera puts a timestamp on the bottom of the frame. But the only video available to the public has the bottom of the frame cropped. Press reports indicate the time was 8:43 pm. We know the prosecution believed the camera time was 10 minutes fast. If they adjusted the time reported to the press, the camera time would be 8:53 pm. The defense later proved the camera is at least 10 minutes slow. So the actual time the woman appears is 9:03 pm. A time that fits nicely with Meredith leaving Sophie around 8:55 pm.

The police didn't know that the CCTV was 10-12 minutes slow at the time they leaked to the press that the 8:43 p.m. photo was AK arriving home, she actually had a witness at Raffaele's apt at that time. Later when the denfense showed the clock was slow the police stopped mentioning the CCTV. It would show the image of what is likely MK arriving home around 8:53 p.m. Perfect time for her to arrive home and start making the 8:56 p.m. phone call that never connected.

 

[Kaosium]

From other released images, we know the car park camera puts a timestamp on the bottom of the frame. But the only video available to the public has the bottom of the frame cropped. Press reports indicate the time was 8:43 pm. We know the prosecution believed the camera time was 10 minutes fast. If they adjusted the time reported to the press, the camera time would be 8:53 pm. The defense later proved the camera is at least 10 minutes slow. So the actual time the woman appears is 9:03 pm. A time that fits nicely with Meredith leaving Sophie around 8:55 pm.

Thank you Kestrel, I was just wondering to myself about something that has been disproven.

Whether the camera was slow or fast is another study in 'constructive incompetence' that beggars belief, especially when they moved it in the opposite direction which happened to coincide with what they needed for the attempt to pretend Raffaele called the Carabinieri after the postal police arrived.

 

[Draca]

It's like, man, they are in on the conspiracy theory

- Or they are au fait (and know the court also are) with the testimony which puts the possible meal start time as late as 7 [or indeed, for completeness, as early as 5.30 or 6].

- Or, dare I say it , the defence experts haven't perused one of the more ridiculous conspiracy theory 'sciency' threads on JREF and aren't aware that ToD was at no later than 9.05* or 8.05 or whatever you're having yourself.

*give or take 25%

The first option seems most likely given the other obvious points they have missed

It's like clear and all from the English friends testimony that they like started dining around 6:00 p.m. or even earlier.

 

[platonov]

No expertise required - just a will to win

It's like clear and all from the English friends testimony that they like started dining around 6:00 p.m. or even earlier.

Well, get onto the defence teams and point that out.

Oh wait, that wont work, they are in on it.

We are back to the Deniable covert ops/101st MAM.

Are you up for it ?

PS Bring a videocam - this would be a great pilot for "v_p & LG investigate"

 

[RoseMontague]

Yes, his numbers make sense to me, but then again I read them from front to back, not back to front....



In October when I was looking for it the one on the Seattle PI didn't have Italian words in brackets, as the PMF version of that time did, and I for one found it easier to read. It is possible that they went back and got rid of all those insertions, however I've not checked it since. I'm hoping someone will tell me where I can find that old version.

As for perfidy, I wrote a post about two weeks ago in the main thread to the (since banned) fellow with the charming username indicating outside the curious changing of words regarding Filomena's tidiness or memory, that the mistakes made in the translation were minor and appeared to me to be neutral and in good faith. Others disagreed with my assessment, but I stand by it.

Stop trying to make trouble!

The only other information that has come out about this is Machiavelli's statement to the effect that the majority of the translation was done by non-Italian speakers. I had not understood it that way originally and this tends to explain some of the mistakes I have pointed out.

He also had no interest in trying to get those errors fixed.

 

[Dan O.]

The police didn't know that the CCTV was 10-12 minutes slow at the time they leaked to the press that the 8:43 p.m. photo was AK arriving home, she actually had a witness at Raffaele's apt at that time. Later when the denfense showed the clock was slow the police stopped mentioning the CCTV. It would show the image of what is likely MK arriving home around 8:53 p.m. Perfect time for her to arrive home and start making the 8:56 p.m. phone call that never connected.

The problem I have with this is that you are demanding a very narrow coincidence with Meredith calling her mom and Rudy initiating the attack. The cottage has good cell coverage from multiple cells so the chance that Meredith's phone was unable to connect from the cottage is nearly nil. So to account for the failed call, Meredith's call would have to be canceled almost immediately after the call was initiated. The reaction time to recognize that something is happening and take the unrehearsed action of canceling the call could be longer than the time it take the phone to connect to the network.

If the CCTV time is allowed to slide an additional 10 minutes, it means that Meredith would have attempted the call before she crossed the street to the cottage. It is theorized that there could be dead spots in the narrow canyon-like streets on the path Meredith was taking home. This could be tested by taking a walk through those streets and checking the cell company records to see if any micro-cells had been added or serviced in that area.

Have we ever seen the service notes from the officer that collected that video? The time stamp on the video would be know to be of critical importance. The officer making the collection would verified the time on the CCTV system. We already know how the postal police are obsessive about time because they can look at their watch once and remember the exact time when they testify two years later.

 

[katy_did]

The police didn't know that the CCTV was 10-12 minutes slow at the time they leaked to the press that the 8:43 p.m. photo was AK arriving home, she actually had a witness at Raffaele's apt at that time. Later when the denfense showed the clock was slow the police stopped mentioning the CCTV. It would show the image of what is likely MK arriving home around 8:53 p.m. Perfect time for her to arrive home and start making the 8:56 p.m. phone call that never connected.

I've wondered about the same thing, Draca. Although the police made the claim in court that the CCTV was ten minutes fast, they obviously never had any evidence to support that theory (they can't possibly have had, since they were wrong and it was in fact ten minutes slow). Since the CCTV was leaked very early on (even before Rudy's capture, IIRC) it seems unlikely they'd come up with the 'ten minutes fast' idea at that stage. After all, it's not like it was some objective, factually based theory or anything. So it seems more likely the time mentioned early on was the actual timestamp, at least assuming it did have at least some factual basis and wasn't completely made up (like the bleach receipts!).

It's strange that there's no image of the CCTV footage which has the timestamp, and that it doesn't seem to have been very much discussed at all. If the person is Meredith, then it would give a very accurate idea of when she arrived home, yet the timing has been left very vague.

 

[Dan O.]

For the prosecution to state at any time that the camera time was off they would either need documented evidence of the time difference from the time the video was collected or they needed to shift the time to make the evidence fit their theory and they simply lied about the time correction. If anyone wants to present the evidence that the prosecution was simply lying out of their collective asses in this instance I'll find it easy to accept. However, without any such evidence I'll presume that there was documentation collected on the time difference but the direction of the shift was mistaken or inconclusive.

 

[katy_did]

double post

 

[katy_did]

For the prosecution to state at any time that the camera time was off they would either need documented evidence of the time difference from the time the video was collected or they needed to shift the time to make the evidence fit their theory and they simply lied about the time correction. If anyone wants to present the evidence that the prosecution was simply lying out of their collective asses in this instance I'll find it easy to accept. However, without any such evidence I'll presume that there was documentation collected on the time difference but the direction of the shift was mistaken or inconclusive.

The prosecution didn't present documented evidence of the time difference, they called a police officer to the stand who testified that the CCTV was 10-15 minutes fast. Their claim was based on his evidence. Here's a post from Stewart Home on PMF, who was in Court on the day the police witness (Mauro Barbadori) testified:

The witness was there to testify about the CCTV images stating that it was only possible to make out that there was a person and it could not really be used for identification unless it was a very clear image. The argument was over the system that caused the CCTV to start filming. If a person walks by on the street or a car passes by the road, the CCTV is not activated, but if they come in the garage whether it be a car or person, the CCTV begins recording and continues at least 30 seconds AFTER the car or person has left the "radar" area. Hence you will see scenes of people walking on the street and cars going by only if a car or person set the CCTV off and then left the field of vision.

There was testimony that a person with a white or light colored jacket (lt. blue for example) was captured by the CCTV and believed to be Meredith...but that could not be verified. How could they say it was Meredith?..it was agreed identity could not be confirmed. The carabinieri stated that the time on the CCTV was actually 10 minutes late..hence an image captured at 8:50pm was really captured t 8:40pm.

Buongiorno used slides of the CCTV taken on Nov 2nd at 1:55pm where there was a carabinieri caught walking and shortly afterwards a carabinieri car (you could see the strip on the pant leg and the name carabinieri on the car) hence trying to show that they came much later to the crime scene then previously stated. The CCTV was triggered by a black fiat punto that stopped in from of the entrance and moved on...the carabinieri were then seen in the footage... but it proved little. They could have been there well beforehand.

It really did not go anywhere... she did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late, how it worked, where it was located etc. She also complained that there were people captured by the CCTV that night that the carabinieri did not thorougly check out. She used the images with supposedly Rudy in the CCTV around 8:40pm. This was actually the first testimony of the day.

Two days after this, Bongiorno showed the presentation with footage of the postal police/Carabinieri which refuted the police claims, and proved the CCTV was ten minutes slow. The prosecution in their closing argument dropped the 10-15 minute fast theory, and started saying that maybe the CCTV timestamp was only 5 minutes fast, but at any rate Sollecito still called 112 after the police arrived (to his credit, Massei didn't buy it).

In my view, the police used Battistelli's claim that he arrived at 12:35 as their starting point: they used his statement to verify the CCTV time, not the other way round. Hence if CCTV footage showed him arriving at 12:47 but he said he arrived at 12:35, then clearly the timestamp must have been 10-15 minutes fast. The first time the 'ten minute fast' claim about the CCTV was made was nearly a year after the murder, in August or September of '08 - I think it unlikely they had come up with this theory only a week and a half after the murder, especially since the early claims about the 112 call used police statements as evidence, not CCTV footage.

If the defence hadn't come up with rock solid evidence proving the CCTV was slow, the police would have quite likely convinced the Court that the CCTV was fast and that Sollecito had called 112 after the police arrived. It is a bit much to pass this one off as yet another unfortunate mistake, in my opinion.