Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

"I have posted mulitiple news reports. First from Nov 12, 2007 where news reports say the image is seen at 8:41-8:43 pm. Then again several reports in March 13, 2009 where the police testify the image was 8:41 p.m."

They all report the corrected times.


"Please post evidence to back up your claim that the police moved the time to 8:41 p.m."

stewarthome quite clearly quoted the carabiniere's testimony about the correction.

 

[Katody Matrass]

"I don't think I remember Massei arguing it's Amanda in the video. Can you correct me again? "

No, it is not argued.
Because the prosecution did not push it, as they pursued their wrong timing theory.

So the narrative Massei created is all nonsense? The knife carried for protection, all those witnesses that heard scream and people running in various directions and saw AK and RS?

The prosecution should admit mistake and present a correct reconstruction this time?

 

[katy_did]

Paninaro:
"You mean Massei is just repeating the defence argument without stating his own interpretation?"

Yes.

I disagree on this one: although Massei doesn't say it explicitly (even in this instance, where we know the postal police were definitely wrong) I think he makes it clear which side he favours.

...the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers

I think the bolded part indicates that it is the Court which holds that what follows is correct, not the defence, although obviously it is the defence's position as well. The latter part of the paragraph seems to be very much Massei speaking, not the defence, who of course had far stronger reasons for believing the Postal Police arrived after the phone calls. After all, why pick on that one reason as to why the calls couldn't have been made while the Postals were there? I think Massei is saying: even without going any deeper into this, it is clear that the calls couldn't have been made while the police were there or they would have noticed them being made. And he dismisses the issue without even discussing the arguments put forward by either side (rather churlishly, in fact, considering the impact the allegations had on the suspects).

This is obviously a matter of interpretation to a large extent, because Massei doesn't (ever!) say directly: "The police were wrong, the defence were right" - even on as clear-cut an issue as this one. But this is pretty much as close as he gets to it, especially when read in the context of the report overall.

 

[Draca]

"Please post evidence to back up your claim that the police moved the time to 8:41 p.m."

stewarthome quite clearly quoted the carabiniere's testimony about the correction.

Kaosium and Dan O.,

Bolint has given his evidence as being a quote from stewarthome who was in court. Do the two of you also use this as your evidence or is there more you could provide?

Thanks Bolint, I don't accept that he is correct.

 

[Draca]

http://www.groundreport.com/Media_and_Tech/NYC-Super-Lawyer-Offers-Services-to-GroundReport/2939757

NYC “Super-Lawyer” Offers Services to GroundReport
by Ground Report for GroundReport Community June 23, 2011

We are pleased to announce that after our request two weeks ago for a volunteer attorney; one of the most prominent lawyers in New York City has stepped forward and offered pro bono counsel for GroundReport. He began his work this week and did discovery on a First Amendment issue involving one of GR’s citizen journalists who was challenging a powerful advocacy group regarding a controversial topic in the news. The attorney resolved the issue with a few phone calls to the ‘opposing’ counsel. The issue was resolved in GR’s favor due to the “plaintiff’s” misrepresentation of his relationship with the ‘opposing’ counsel. We are thrilled to have this resource available to us on matters of First Amendment rights and now have a person who can defend our reporters from harassment and attempts to silence their voices


This made my whole week. lol

 

[katy_did]

"I have posted mulitiple news reports. First from Nov 12, 2007 where news reports say the image is seen at 8:41-8:43 pm. Then again several reports in March 13, 2009 where the police testify the image was 8:41 p.m."

They all report the corrected times.

How do you know? The earliest reference I could find to the timestamp on the CCTV being wrong is from nearly a year after the murder; the first mention of the woman in the video is, as you say, just eleven days afterwards. Where's the evidence the police had come up with the 10-15 minutes fast theory at that stage? I reckon they were just so keen to get the "OMGZ we have a crystal-clear picture of Amanda entering the murder house", they probably weren't too worried about the timing of it.

stewarthome quite clearly quoted the carabiniere's testimony about the correction.

Did the police show the timestamp on the video in Court? I remember reading the conversation on PMF trying to figure that out, and I'm pretty sure that was never specified. (ETA: in fact I seem to remember that you asked him that question specifically but he didn't answer it, which was very frustrating reading!).

I'm undecided on this point, and not too sure whether it's the corrected or uncorrected time the police refer to. I'd sure like to see the actual timestamp, though. I wonder if Charlie Wilkes or Bruce can confirm whether the defence had the full CCTV footage, or just the cropped version given to the media?

 

[Katody Matrass]

http://www.groundreport.com/Media_and_Tech/NYC-Super-Lawyer-Offers-Services-to-GroundReport/2939757

Interesting! So the lovely bunch made a move to silence Bruce Fisher?
"powerful advocacy group" - I like that wording

 

[bolint]

"So the narrative Massei created is all nonsense?"

Some of it is surely not convincing for me.

"The knife carried for protection"

I dont believe it.

"all those witnesses that heard scream and people running in various directions"

Don't know. I think that the murder was earlier, between 21:00 and 22:00

"saw AK and RS?"

Don't know. I think they were out at some time so it was possible to see them. But I don't beleive that they were staying at the basketball court for two hours and then went to the cottage.

 

[bolint]

"I don't accept that he is correct."

It's a matter of time and you will accept it.

 

[Paninaro]

Did Marsi mention when Raffaele said that they were waiting for the Carabinieri? Was it right when Marsi arrived?

Massei report:

As soon as they arrived, the young people – Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – said that they were waiting for the carabinieri whom they had called since ‚coming back to the cottage in the morning because they had been away for the night‛ and finding ‚the entrance [15] door open and then the window broken‛ (see declarations by Battistelli, hearing of February 7, 2009, page 64).

(bolding mine, translation p.28)

So the pair was so suprised by the arrival of the Postal Police that they immediately decided to lie and say to the Postal Police that they had called the Carabinieri. Knox and Sollecito then proceeded to make this lie come true by sneeking inte a room for Sollecito to call 112? It doesn't seem very likely compared to the scenario where Sollecito already called 112.

Inspector Battistelli recalls that when he arrived with assistant Marzi ‚they told us they were waiting for the police because they had found the door open [85] when returning to the house in the morning and the window broken, and they took me to see the broken window in Romanelli’s room‛ (Hearing on February 6, 2009, page 64, pages 86, 87). Neither of them asked him to break down the door of Meredith’s room (page 114). Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith’s door was locked (page 118). On this point, it is possible that Battistelli’s memory is not precise. It does indicate how no importance was given to the locked door by Amanda and Raffaele when Battistelli arrived with Marzi shortly after 12:30 pm, and this is confirmed by Fabio Marzi, who recalled that "we were told that they were waiting for the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house ... Amanda told me that they had found the door open and there were bloodstains, which she showed me in the bathroom‛ (hearing on February 6, 2009, pages 122 and 123). The same Marzi also stated that ‚the problem of the locked room was raised when the other youngsters arrived‛ (p. 130).

(bolding mine, translation p.92-93.)

"Battistellis memory is not precise." Yeah, right. The Postal Police arrived shortly after 12.30, Knox and Sollecito told them they were waiting for the Carabinieri, but then waited until 12.55 to make the alibi call. Then they hoped that nobody would notice.

 

[Katody Matrass]

"So the narrative Massei created is all nonsense?"

Some of it is surely not convincing for me.

"The knife carried for protection"

I dont believe it.

"all those witnesses that heard scream and people running in various directions"

Don't know. I think that the murder was earlier, between 21:00 and 22:00

"saw AK and RS?"

Don't know. I think they were out at some time so it was possible to see them. But I don't beleive that they were staying at the basketball court for two hours and then went to the cottage.

So Hellmann should drop Curatola from his motivation and agree with the defense on the ToD. What about the media playback at 21:26? How to tackle this one?

 

[bolint]

"Did the police show the timestamp on the video in Court?"

Of course, the whole recording was discussed.
It was a stale situation.
The prosecution was not interested because they had other time theory, and the defence naturally was not interested in moving this time away from 20.41 as Amanda had alibi for that period.
At the same time they were, however, fighting about the postals arrival timing.

 

[bolint]

"So Hellmann should drop Curatola from his motivation and agree with the defense on the ToD."

Depending on what Curatolo said exactly.

"What about the media playback at 21:26? How to tackle this one?"

Raffaele started to play the Naruto cartoon. Amanda was not there.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I thought you'd know by now how many posts you needed before you could post a link.

Ahh crap, you got me on that one, that's actually a fair and good point

 

[Paninaro]

This is not true. They withdrew in Amanda's room at some point (see Paola Grande testimony).
But anyway, I also think that at the trial they at least guessed that there was a problem with the timing.

Paola Grande is said to have arrived with Filomena Romanelli at 1300, about the same time their boyfriends arrived. The phone call to 112 was made at 12.55. She couldn't have seen them withdrawing into Amanda's room to make the call at 12.55. What is her testimony you're referring to? Battistelli and Marsi knew that when they testified about arriving at the crime scene around 12.30 they were way of. They must have known that Filomena and the others arrived soon after them. They must have known there was no time for Sollecito to sneak away and make the 112 call.

The Carabinieri arrival argument regarding the time stamp is very convincing an I have not seen any attempt from anyone trying and refute it. So then the conclusion must be that Battistelli and Marsi are deliberately trying to mislead the court regarding the time of their arrival?

 

[Katody Matrass]

"What about the media playback at 21:26? How to tackle this one?"

Raffaele started to play the Naruto cartoon. Amanda was not there.

Basing, I presume, on the clear CCTV still showing her. Did she take the kitchen knife with her?

 

[katy_did]

"Did the police show the timestamp on the video in Court?"

Of course, the whole recording was discussed.
It was a stale situation.
The prosecution was not interested because they had other time theory, and the defence naturally was not interested in moving this time away from 20.41 as Amanda had alibi for that period.
At the same time they were, however, fighting about the postals arrival timing.

But do we know that for sure? As I said, I'm sure you asked Stewart Home whether or not the timestamp was visible on the video shown by the police, and he didn't answer, despite my practically yelling at the screen a year later ordering him to. If no one in court was interested - and since the police were anyway claiming it was Meredith - how do we know they didn't just show the cropped version and no one objected?

BTW, Stewart Home also says, of Bongiorno's presentation, "She used the images with supposedly Rudy in the CCTV around 8:40pm" - real time or adjusted time? Assuming he actually means 19:40, this is the actual timestamp, not the adjusted one.

This video gives the timing of Meredith's sighting as 20:53, which contrasts with the early reports of 20:43, and the later ones of 20:41. Real time or adjusted? Without the timestamp, I think it's difficult to say for certain.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium, Dan O. and Bolint.

I have posted mulitiple news reports. First from Nov 12, 2007 where news reports say the image is seen at 8:41-8:43 pm. Then again several reports in March 13, 2009 where the police testify the image was 8:41 p.m.

Please post evidence to back up your claim that the police moved the time to 8:41 p.m. because they thought the clock was fast.

Draca, that is the evidence.

It's a question of when they realized the timestamp was off and made the mistake. If there is evidence that the actual timestamp read 8:41-8:43 then that would validate your theory, but did any reporter actually see the video, or did they just report what the cops said? I'm guessing the latter, as otherwise they wouldn't have been reporting idiotic things like the 'image was clear cut' as they did in that Fox/Times piece from November 12th.

So what I'm thinking is the cops recovered that video pretty quickly after the murder, it is kind of an obvious thing to want to look at, and then being putzes they were got the time wrong then. As a result they start looking at the phone records, which with that mistake would indicate Raffaele made the call after the Postal Police arrived. Then they see the picture of the figure--that must be Amanda being as Meredith wouldn't have left yet.

Your interpretation makes sense too, that call being cut off is a powerful indication as well, and if the cops had already made the mistake with adjusting the time then that figure and the call going unconnected don't correlate. I understand where you're coming from, that call would have had to have been attempted before she left for home, or on the way, and as it never got finished. However, if I remember correctly, the signal generated by that phone never reached a tower, the only record of it being attempted resided inside the phone. If that is true, then the odds of it being because she cut it off were extreme, fingers faster than the speed of electrons! The far more likely alternative is that the signal was blocked, and is that more or less likely on the way home or in her cottage? At any rate it's not actually an indication of her being surprised if the signal was interfered with, no matter where it happened.

I think the telling piece is that they must have insisted to Raffaele during the interrogation that he called the carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived, being as we know he didn't actually do that, they probably had a reason for thinking so, and that would be if they were looking through phone records and noticed the call would have seemed to come after the time they adjusted the camera timestamp to.

This is all about when they made the mistake, right? It seems to me they made the mistake in the time adjustment just about as soon as they had the information, that's why I think the actual timestamp on the camera was ~8:53, and they simply told reporters their mistaken adjustment that it happened at 8:41, and maybe even got mixed up once and told someone mistakenly 8:43.

The only actual evidence that will solve this conundrum is a picture of what that timestamp actually read, otherwise we're just trying to piece it together from other indications and I think overall it 'fits' best if the timestamp read 8:53 and the actual time of the figure in the video was 9:05.

 

[Kaosium]

Agreed.

The issue of how many phones Battistelli had with him was brought up in court. It was important for the Carabinieri phone call argument. Luca Altieri saw two phones on the table in the cottage - Battistelli argued he brought only one of those.

Well, that solves it! Battistelli lied!

As I recall Altieri was adamant about two phones, and then Battistelli claimed one of the phones he saw was his own. Is there any reason, outside Battistelli saying so, to believe he wouldn't have had both phones with him?

 

[katy_did]

So what I'm thinking is the cops recovered that video pretty quickly after the murder, it is kind of an obvious thing to want to look at, and then being putzes they were got the time wrong then. As a result they start looking at the phone records, which with that mistake would indicate Raffaele made the call after the Postal Police arrived. Then they see the picture of the figure--that must be Amanda being as Meredith wouldn't have left yet.
[...]
I think the telling piece is that they must have insisted to Raffaele during the interrogation that he called the carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived, being as we know he didn't actually do that, they probably had a reason for thinking so, and that would be if they were looking through phone records and noticed the call would have seemed to come after the time they adjusted the camera timestamp to.

But if this were the case, wouldn't they have used the CCTV as evidence early on, in front of Matteini? IIRC, they did claim the 112 call was made after the postal police's arrival, but as evidence they gave Battistelli's statement and something about a police log book; I don't think they mentioned the CCTV time (quite a coincidence, when you think about it, that they got it wrong in a way that confirmed their earlier theory...).

I'm ambivalent on the whole timing thing, probably lean towards 20:53 - but with so many different times being mentioned, and the adjustment or otherwise not specified, I think only the actual footage would properly settle it!