Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Strozzi]

I'm saying that it was something he didn't think was that important and let it go, but he didn't say that the calls made to 112 were clearly made before the PP arrived. Why did he repeat the defenses assertions on the calls instead of just saying that they were made before PP arrival?

I picked up on that the first time I read it because of the way Massei wrote his words. It looked to me like he did not want to call attention to the prosecution's error. Massei corrected the error and moved on, without writing that the prosecution was WRONG, allowing the prosecution to save face.

 

[RandyN]

I understand Grinder. But the truth is Nencini only really allowed the new evidence that the ISC demanded to be looked at. It did and that didn't really shine any new light on the case and if anything the testimony from the analyst from the RIS was very positive for the defense.

Don't misunderstand me Grinder, I don't know how this court case is leaning. But I really believe that no one else here knows either.

I thought the ISC complained and demanded that many areas were not properly considered in the appeal trial. And so many other factors should have been looked at. Sure there was Alessi and the 36I sample but they also wanted the sex game gone wrong thing examined (which has check out the semen stain written all over it) and yet that was ignored by the prosecutor. Rather he is granted freedom to present already disputed and disproved information such as the call to Cabs while the postal are there...I guess if you are allowed to do that in court why bother with facts? Just keep restating lies. And why not ...if the judge does not seem to mind and the defense sits mute???

Massei courtroom behavior led me to think he would convict although before that actually happened I could see no way possible for him to do that given the complete absurdity of the case...and yet look what happened.

Hellmann while rejecting most defense requests ...a full day of no, no no with a couple of yes at the end and the yes to review DNA was the important yes. These judges made a point to ask questions when odd things were brought up and in this case the odd things have always emanated from the prosecution. They asked about the control data sheets, they asked Guede if he understood all the words in his own letter, they asked the disco owners about holidays and bus and etc...so the wind seemed to blow toward acquittal.

This case now? Reminds me of Massei frankly. Allowing phone call testimony or argument or presentation about that which has been completely disproved seems predictive. Meanwhile, these judges seem uninterested in asking questions themselves which they are allowed to do...that plus the illogical incomprehensible motivation report and orders from the ISC make this a Massei trial. Don't forget they didn't even blink at calling Guedes trial conclusive proof that multiple attackers were involved and that can be used in this trial meanwhile AK nor RS has ever had a chance to cross examine that preposterous fact-less assertion even if it could be used as proof that they were the "others". These clowns are going to convict. I'm going 75 -25...right now. RS better get his azz on a secret boat out of there. I also could see them convicting AK meanwhile freeing RS. They have acted this scummy all along...why expect more from the pig simply because you move him to a different city? These are really bad people!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Massei on the arrival of the postal police

"These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi...Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." (p. 27)

 

[AmyStrange]

I see from Barbie's tweets that Knox's defense gets one more rebuttal.

I know what I want is irrelevant. I'll say it anyway. I want the defense to present a powerpoint presentation: one page for every accusation with clear, simple bullet points that refute the accusation. Very clear, very simple.

Have they ever presented something like that?

-

I'm with you there W. If memory serves, I don't think they ever have.

If they did that, I would then guarantee a not guilty verdict. That would be hard to explain away in a motivation's report. I would start with the duodenum and end with it, no pun intended.

And as always, that's just my opinion,

d

ETA I'd like for Raffaele's lawyer to do it. She got the jurors laughing the last time, even after Maresca's disgusting display. That's how I was able to guarantee the not guilty verdict last time. Just sayin...
-

 

[Grinder]

The first call was 12:51:40 not 12:42, which could easily be considered just before 1 pm.

It seems to me that Massei really didn't make a clear statement on the order of these events.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There are time stamped photos from the parking garage camera showing the Postal Police car pulling into the parking structure, and a few minutes time stamped photos showing the blue uniform pantlegs of the first of the Postal Police walking past the parking garage entrance heading towards the house. That happened at 12:58:52 pm. (8 seconds before 1 pm). Those time stamps are the garage camera's actual displayed times, not yet corrected.

No, that's mistaken. The uncorrected time is 12:48:52 and the pant leg is not distinctive or in color.

Later, when the Carabinieri arrived, the camera caught the distinctive striped pant leg, time-stamped 13:22:16, and the car labeled Carabinieri, time-stamped 13:22:38. That is before they made a 5 minute call to get driving directions, starting at 13:29, which is how we know the time stamp was at least 10 minutes slow.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm saying that it was something he didn't think was that important and let it go, but he didn't say that the calls made to 112 were clearly made before the PP arrived. Why did he repeat the defenses assertions on the calls instead of just saying that they were made before PP arrival?

It's your reading of that sentence which leads you to that conclusion, mainly due to the choice of "according to" by the PMF translator. Try 'in accordance with' instead if you believe "according to" can only mean to attribute something.

After all why would he preface it with 'it can be held' if all he meant to do was represent what the defense said?

The main point of my last post on this was that Massei didn't say the calls were of too long a duration he says that's what the defense said.

Heh, heh, heh.

That's not exactly what Massei wrote, is it? Why don't you go back and look at exactly what Massei wrote and then put this 150 page defense presentation into your pipe and smoke it?

Isn't that pretty much the ultimate falsifier of your contention that Massei is just repeating the defense assertions?

At about 1:00 pm Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola Grande and their boyfriends Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri arrived at the house in Via della Pergola.

This was after the PP arrived so he has them there before 1 pm but I don't see by how much before.

Well, we know they didn't get there before the Postals, who are seen walking into the entrance of the cottage grounds from 12:48-12:49 on the camera timestamp, about 12:59 or so in real time. So from that we can deduce that 'at about 1:00 PM' means a little after 1:00.

I realize that he accepted for the purposes of the report that they arrived later and the calls were made before. I've looked for a spot where he deals with point head on and can't find it.

He doesn't, he dismisses it in a parenthetical aside.

I couldn't find this in Massei.

You won't, you'll find it in the link above though, this will help you with it. Use the picture below as a reference, the red lines at the top left are the field of view of the camera, thus the far right part of the pictures is the edge of the entrance.

​

Very briefly, the Carabinieri are clearly shown arriving at 13:22 on the camera timestamp. However they called for directions at 13:29 according to p) the cellphone records, which is the exact time, and spoke for five minutes, meaning they hung up at 13:34. Even if you figure they stayed on the phone as they walked up to the door for about a minute, the time stamp on the CCTV camera must be 11 minutes fast, which we'll round down to ten minutes as it's easier to figure.

From my reading of Massei I don't see where he debunks the possibility. I think people here accept, as do I, that Raf made the calls before the PP actually arrived. Clearly from this new trial, not everyone agrees. I'm sure the defense will quote Massei debunking and that will be that.

All they need from Massei is the arrival time he gave and the cellphone records. The fact that this prosecution resurrected it shows their fundamental dishonesty or complete cluelessness.

 

[davefoc]

I see from Barbie's tweets that Knox's defense gets one more rebuttal.

I know what I want is irrelevant. I'll say it anyway. I want the defense to present a powerpoint presentation: one page for every accusation with clear, simple bullet points that refute the accusation. Very clear, very simple.

Have they ever presented something like that?

-

I'm with you there W. If memory serves, I don't think they ever have.
...

-

I am also with you Wildhorses. I think an approach like that is an almost essential element of defending a case like this where the prosecution is not constrained to restrict themselves to theories that are possible. The prosecution is obviously throwing the spaghetti on the wall and it doesn't matter to them that some of that spaghetti has been categorically been shown to be false. Their strategy is to present so many claims that point toward guilt that a juror member might be inclined to think that even if one particular claim was far fetched there were so many of them that some of them must be true.

LondonJohn posted a pretty good list of every substantive argument that AK/RS are guilty. LJ's idea there, as I understand it, was that the defense needed an organized attack on every item in that list and the only way that a defense like this can be reliably presented to a jury is with a list in my view. The defense should be able to point to the ten or so things in a list like LJ posted and say that they have categorically disproved every item in that list. I think they should say something like that even if it is a bit of a stretch to claim categorical disproof of every item. Some of the items in the list are so laughable that a jury member might easily assume that laughable nature of some of the items extended to every item.

And that is the disadvantage of the throw the spaghetti on the wall prosecution scheme. If the defense can disprove some items with unassailable proof the credibility of the prosecution can be damaged to the point that a jury just will not find a defendant guilty.

Of course, all of this assumes that the jury in this case is really involved in a search for truth. I think that is an open issue. The supreme court decision has suggested a much deeper corruption in the Italian system than I would have suspected.

 

[Wildhorses]

delete

 

[Wildhorses]

Uh-oh, my timing doesn't match Kaosium's.

Uh-oh, that prob means I got it wrong. I don't have time to check. I'll figure it out later and delete my post.

Boy, do I feel stupid.

 

[Dan O.]

That is not the case in the picture on IA. Do you have a different picture?

You are quire right, thanks for checking. The bedding folds around the corner of the table but is not caught in the drawer. There would be no indication that the drawer was opened since the bed was made (if you call that made). I can now go back to my original thesis that Rudy would not turn on the light in Filomena's room because that would highlight the broken window. Without light to see what he was doing, he would skip the room of entry or perhaps save it for last so as not to call attention to the break-in while he is there. I could be over analyzing this though as criminals are typically not that bright.

No, I don't believe they had a date. He could have used the bathroom, then helped himself to the juice, at which point Meredith might have suggested he was welcome to move along for the evening. On the other hand, he may not have asked to use the bathroom; he may have asked for a drink, and then had to use the bathroom, implying he would leave when he was finished.

It is probable he combines elements of reality with elements of his imagination in his account of what happened. Wouldn't there be signs of a struggle in the kitchen or hallway, though, if anything happened there?

Picture yourself covered in printers ink. Everything you touch will leave behind some of that ink and when the CSI team come in they will be able to see that ink on everything you touch with their famous blue lights. This is the way most people think it works based on popular TV crime shows. And it would work this way if the world wasn't covered in thousands of colors of DNA ink.

Rudy believes there is evidence that shows he fell on his butt in the kitchen and his handprints are on a chair and the drying rack. Even if they didn't find that evidence at first, they could have gone back to the cottage with the Luminol spray to look for it after Rudy gave his statement just as they had the day after Amanda testified that she had walked on the blood stained bathmat with bare wet feet the day before the investigators return to the cottage in December. These are elements that are "presumptively verifiable". The person giving the statement can presume that the investigators have the ability to verify the validity of the statement. I consider these statements to be strong facts unless there is evidence against them.

Rudy had to become sexually aroused at some point, in order to have left his calling card. The question is whether he was aroused at the thought of getting with Meredith and then tried to make it happen, or did he attack Meredith and that aroused him?

We don't know which of 12 of more appendages Rudy used to violate Meredith. We only know that the forensics say he did and Rudy admits it in his oral sex story. The presence of semen was tested and found to be negative. This says that one appendage in particular is unlikely. Rudy's statements in the Skype call also confirm this. If there was only digital penetration, there doesn't have to be arousal. But then there is the possible semen stain that was never tested...

 

[Paninaro]

Crini claims according to Machiavelli that "Battistellli arrives on foot ten minutes earlier than postal police car."

Is that correct?

What I meant here is if Crini now claims that Battistelli arrived earlier than the other postal police officer and that it is this other officer that can be seen in the time stamped parking garage camera photos. Which would the mean Battistelli could have arrived before Sollecito made his call, even if the defence theory that the clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow?

 

[Bill Williams]

What I meant here is if Crini now claims that Battistelli arrived earlier than the other postal police officer and that it is this other officer that can be seen in the time stamped parking garage camera photos. Which would the mean Battistelli could have arrived before Sollecito made his call, even if the defence theory that the clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow?

All things are possible, I guess.

The trouble is, Mignini after about two years of claiming this, and eventually taking it to trial in 2009; the Judge eventually did not believe it. Even the convicting judge put together a time-line that had the postals arriving, "just before 1:00 pm."

Dan O. provided a timeline up thread, that (in my books) is the skeleton in this case, onto which the evidence should fit.

The problem, ultimately, that Judge Massei ran into, as witnessed by his 2010 motivations report, is that he had to use way, way too many, "could haves", "probablies", and "if it didn't happen this way I'd be at a loss to explain..."

Sooner or later - not on AK and RS for justice's sake, but also the Kerchers' for mercy's sake deserve a release from, "it could have happened."

 

[Kaosium]

Uh-oh, my timing doesn't match Kaosium's.

Uh-oh, that prob means I got it wrong. I don't have time to check. I'll figure it out later and delete my post.

Boy, do I feel stupid.

No, you're not stupid. Like the Carabinieri later, the postal police got lost trying to find the cottage. The street changes names or something making it hard to find. The postals first drove by the garage at 12:36 on the camera timestamp, which was about 12:46-8 in reality, but then parked the car, walked around and didn't get to the entrance until 12:48 on the time stamp, 12:58 PM to 1:00 PM in reality. They're in no hurry, they're just delivering phones, they know nothing about a murder.

 

[Kaosium]

What I meant here is if Crini now claims that Battistelli arrived earlier than the other postal police officer and that it is this other officer that can be seen in the time stamped parking garage camera photos. Which would the mean Battistelli could have arrived before Sollecito made his call, even if the defence theory that the clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow?

Unbelievable. They are utterly without any shred of integrity.

 

[Bill Williams]

What I meant here is if Crini now claims that Battistelli arrived earlier than the other postal police officer and that it is this other officer that can be seen in the time stamped parking garage camera photos. Which would the mean Battistelli could have arrived before Sollecito made his call, even if the defence theory that the clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow?

Unbelievable. They are utterly without any shred of integrity.

But Kaosium, you obviously do not understand, and are weighed under by confirmation bias....

...... because there's, "all the other evidence." But wait - all the other evidence is based on, "it could have," or "it's possible that,"...... or Machiavelli's favourite, "it's compatible with."

However look how it shifts when either Mignini or Rudy is the subject of criminal investigation. Mignini was not prove guilty of abuse of office "beyond a reasonable doubt," Machiavelli tells the world. And just because Rudy was caught breaking into lawyers' offices and kindergartens.... people are asked to prove he's guilty before linking him to the cottage break-in.

You confirmation bias will be your undoing!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What I meant here is if Crini now claims that Battistelli arrived earlier than the other postal police officer and that it is this other officer that can be seen in the time stamped parking garage camera photos. Which would the mean Battistelli could have arrived before Sollecito made his call, even if the defence theory that the clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow?

I'm waiting for the 1,000 word essay purporting to "prove" something along these lines.

But it's not what the prosecution said at the original trial. They showed the picture of the car and said the clock was 10 minutes fast. They didn't try to say they arrived at different times, or that one of them got out of the car before the photo was taken, because they had not yet seen Bongiorno's analysis.

 

[Wildhorses]

No, you're not stupid. Like the Carabinieri later, the postal police got lost trying to find the cottage. The street changes names or something making it hard to find. The postals first drove by the garage at 12:36 on the camera timestamp, which was about 12:46-8 in reality, but then parked the car, walked around and didn't get to the entrance until 12:48 on the time stamp, 12:58 PM to 1:00 PM in reality. They're in no hurry, they're just delivering phones, they know nothing about a murder.

I don't have time to figure this out now. It was all very clear to me five years ago, but right now I'm still missing something.

I have convinced myself that the PP were just rolling by at the 12:36 timestamp. I was mistaken to think they parked at that time.

And I found CCTV clips of people crossing the street at the 12:48 timestamp. But I need to be reminded: how do we know those people are the postal police?

 

[Wildhorses]

What I meant here is if Crini now claims that Battistelli arrived earlier than the other postal police officer and that it is this other officer that can be seen in the time stamped parking garage camera photos. Which would the mean Battistelli could have arrived before Sollecito made his call, even if the defence theory that the clock was 10 to 12 minutes slow?

The CCTV clock being slow is only a "theory" if you believe the Carabinieri called Amanda for directions AFTER they arrived at the cottage.

Any reason to believe that?

 

[Kaosium]

I don't have time to figure this out now. It was all very clear to me five years ago, but right now I'm still missing something.

I have convinced myself that the PP were just rolling by at the 12:36 timestamp. I was mistaken to think they parked at that time.

And I found CCTV clips of people crossing the street at the 12:48 timestamp. But I need to be reminded: how do we know those people are the postal police?

They head straight across, (from the CCTV perspective) directly to the entrance of the cottage grounds. As pointed out in the presentation, the ones going along that road go diagonally across, again from how it looks on the camera view.