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

[Grinder]

Who would ever care about what some Italian "judge" would say. As far as I can tell, they are just a collection of perverts, clowns and idiots, who obviously didn't even go to any kind of actual law school.

Do they sell law degrees in the AutoGrill?

And that's why Massei's opinions or alleged opinions are of little to no value.

 

[bolint]

Have you had a chance to read Barbadori's testimony about the CCTV Time?

Not at that time. Only from stewarthome2000's report was I informed then that Bongiorno made "mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late"
Much later I read Barbadori's hearing and understood why.

But interestingly the 10 minute is right, only the sign was screwed up.
And it must have been obtained by those police people who seized the recording, because once the recording is stopped and the storage is removed there is no way to compare it to the real time. Time difference then can only be deduced by identifying recorded events with known real time.

 

[Diocletus]

Right his grabbing the bars really made it harder, not.

There is a cut from one camera to another on the second climb that you probably missed.

I think that the point of the reference to the Youtube video is that it is now impossible for Nencini to write that the climb was "impossible" (unless he wants to look like a complete idiot to all of the Youtube-watching world, which he doesn't).

So the climb was possible. There is glass under the clothes. What else does he have? The nail? The scuff marks? Not a problem for climber guy.

So what now? Are they going to say that there was a staged break-in beyond a reasonable doubt because Rudy didn't stuff his pockets with Filomena's cheap jewelry before he took a crap, and the cops didn't happen to see any backward-flying glass outside the building during their smoke break?

I think not. I think that the staging issue can be decided only if they independently decide that Knox/Sollecito killed Kercher, and it cannot be decided preliminarily and then used as evidence to support a finding of guilt for the murder.

Proviso: I have serious reservations about the intelligence of these people.

 

[Bill Williams]

When you see the demonstration, it becomes clear that the bars (on today, not there on Nov 1, 2007) are an impediment to climbing, not a help.

Right his grabbing the bars really made it harder, not.

There is a cut from one camera to another on the second climb that you probably missed.

Decidedly not the point. The bars made it more difficult (but far from impossible) for the climber to settle in on the ledge outside the window. But from my eye (the one without the pirate patch!) if the bars had not been there, that would have made no difference to the climb itself, and would have made it easier for a climber to see to all the sundry tasks of clearing out broken glass, etc.

Fortunately we all can watch and assess for ourselves. My hope is that Nencini takes a peek at it...

 

[Dan O.]

Not at that time. Only from stewarthome2000's report was I informed then that Bongiorno made "mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late"
Much later I read Barbadori's hearing and understood why.

But interestingly the 10 minute is right, only the sign was screwed up.
And it must have been obtained by those police people who seized the recording, because once the recording is stopped and the storage is removed there is no way to compare it to the real time. Time difference then can only be deduced by identifying recorded events with known real time.

Are the parking lot attendants (SIPA) members of a police force? It seems that they operate under the government but I don't find mention of their attendants being police.

The time on the equipment can be recovered up to the point where somebody resets the clock. Even then if the system keeps a log of the change the previous time can be recovered. But we can't say in this case because nobody bothered to document what equipment was used which is standard procedure in most parts of the free world.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bar none

Right his grabbing the bars really made it harder, not.

There is a cut from one camera to another on the second climb that you probably missed.

When one does not use the bars, their presence made it harder to climb and to perch. Yes, the video cut away momentarily, but so what?

 

[Bill Williams]

When one does not use the bars, their presence made it harder to climb and to perch. Yes, the video cut away momentarily, but so what?

Yes, that's what I saw, too... and this is a better way of putting it...

Point is, it was no sweat at all to climb to the ledge and sit there, even without touching the bars on the bedroom window. It was also no sweat to manipulate the shutters... leaving Massei's own description of the "difficulty of the climb, and no one would do that 3 times".... well, as a bit of an exaggeration (!) from someone who didn't even bother to simulate it...

 

[Diocletus]

Structure of Nincini Analysis

You might recall that the first issue that Massei discussed was the staged break-in. He then used his finding on that as the springboard to find guilt for the murder.

Normally, however, a judge would first analyze alibi, and I would think that Nencini will have to do that because the staged break-in isn't a strong enough argument to hold up a murder conviction anymore.

Alibi consists of basically two elements: 1) TOD, and 2) defendants whereabouts. It seems to me that Nincini has to go way out on a limb if he wants to posit a TOD anywhere later than shortly before the 10:15 phone-fiddling calls. I don't get the sense that Crini pushed back too hard on this.

The problem that Nincini now faces is that we have someone using Sollecito's computer, certainly as late as 9:26.

So, even if he wants to ignore a bunch of other evidence (screensaver, coat and shoes on, etc.), the hard facts are going to limit him to a window of basically 9:30 to 10:00 if he wants to "get" the defendants. It's gonna be tough to write that opinion.

 

[Rolfe]

No, I was pointing out that your argument is circular. You are saying "don't take the temperature because the TOD estimate will be imprecise", but the truth of this statement depends on the actual TOD. Imagine, for example, that the murder had ocurred at 6am?

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that a ToD based on body temperature is going to have a wide margin of error and might well be completely useless.

However, the fact is that the temperature was eventually taken, and this was then used to estimate ToD. The margin of error was very wide indeed. But it seems the investigators just lumped for the mid-point and said, bingo.

If the temperature was going to be used to estimate ToD, it should have been taken as early as possible to minimise the error. If it was completely useless, it should not have been used. You can't have it both ways.

Rolfe.

 

[MDDVS]

It's perfectly reasonable to point out that a ToD based on body temperature is going to have a wide margin of error and might well be completely useless.

However, the fact is that the temperature was eventually taken, and this was then used to estimate ToD. The margin of error was very wide indeed. But it seems the investigators just lumped for the mid-point and said, bingo.

If the temperature was going to be used to estimate ToD, it should have been taken as early as possible to minimise the error. If it was completely useless, it should not have been used. You can't have it both ways.

Rolfe.

Does the error depend on the time after death? More specifically, does the error increase with time?

 

[snook1]

I just learned that the defense did not show to Nencini the short video with a young man climbing up the wall. Maori asked the judges to view it on YouTube. I mean...I'm kinda speechless. But at the same time, maybe he didn't want to show it to them and redirected them to the YouTube site, simply beacuse he thinks that everyone knows already that the climb IS possible and if Nencini thinks it isn't, then he will most probably search for the video.

I spoke to both Amanda and Raffaele via email few days ago and both confirmed that they linked the video to their lawyers. I guess they decided it would not be a good idea to show it. Maybe there were some copyright restrictions, since it's a clip belonging to a UK documentary?

Anyway, people are IIP are divided on the topic of the verdict. Some of them are saying that it should be regarded as positive that Nencini allowed Amanda's letter to be read out loud and the fact that he read it himself only added more postitve vibes, but I'm not sure if that's the case. Maybe he just wanted to read it out loud himself so after the conviction no one will be able to say that they were against anything the defense would ask for.

Oh, and btw, here's the YouTube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs

 

[JREF2010]

So, even if he wants to ignore a bunch of other evidence (screensaver, coat and shoes on, etc.), the hard facts are going to limit him to a window of basically 9:30 to 10:00 if he wants to "get" the defendants. It's gonna be tough to write that opinion.

If one thing these Judges can do is write up the most fictional creative theories ever known. I recall Massei including how his vision was of Raffaele walking around picking up the rock from the driveway, etc..

If this is how it works in Italy courts, then any crime can be solved without evidence.

 

[andreajo]

I just learned that the defense did not show to Nencini the short video with a young man climbing up the wall. Maori asked the judges to view it on YouTube. I mean...I'm kinda speechless. But at the same time, maybe he didn't want to show it to them and redirected them to the YouTube site, simply beacuse he thinks that everyone knows already that the climb IS possible and if Nencini thinks it isn't, then he will most probably search for the video.

I spoke to both Amanda and Raffaele via email few days ago and both confirmed that they linked the video to their lawyers. I guess they decided it would not be a good idea to show it. Maybe there were some copyright restrictions, since it's a clip belonging to a UK documentary?

Anyway, people are IIP are divided on the topic of the verdict. Some of them are saying that it should be regarded as positive that Nencini allowed Amanda's letter to be read out loud and the fact that he read it himself only added more postitve vibes, but I'm not sure if that's the case. Maybe he just wanted to read it out loud himself so after the conviction no one will be able to say that they were against anything the defense would ask for.

Oh, and btw, here's the YouTube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs

I thought about it and wondered Maori was trying to get the judges googling and viewing not just that video, but also other information related to the case that is on the web. Once you get looking, one thing can lead to another.

 

[bolint]

Are the parking lot attendants (SIPA) members of a police force?

I don't think so. But there had to be some police people (most likely Barbadori) who actually went there and seized the recording, with the cooperation of SIPA personnel. It was at that time they should have determined and recorded the time difference.

"The time on the equipment can be recovered up to the point where somebody resets the clock."

I'm not at all sure they took the whole equipment. Only the recording.

 

[Dan O.]

CCTV time in the News

In trying to reconstruct the CCTV time I tried to gather all news reports that mentioned the time (this was before the transcript was available).


News reports

• 2007-11-12 Corrier (it)
  PERUGIA - On the evening of November 1 Amanda Knox returned home at 20:43. His entry was recorded by the camera which is located in the parking lot in front. The images are quite sharp, capturing the details. You see the young through the door. Wear light-colored clothing, the skirt has. She is alone.
• 2007-11-12 Telegraph
  A camera in the carpark opposite Miss Kercher’s house has a "clear-cut image" of 20-year-old Amanda Knox, from Seattle, on the premises, according to police.
  The CCTV footage apparently shows Knox entering the driveway of the house at 8.43pm on the night, wearing a light-coloured skirt.
• 2007-11-13 Independent
  Police revealed that Amanda Knox was picked up by CCTV cameras situated above the building where she lived with the Leeds University student, contradicting her previous claims that she had spent the night with her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
  The images appear to show Ms Knox wearing a light coloured skirt and top entering the building at 8.43pm on 1 November, the night Ms Kercher was killed.
• 2008-02-28 Sky News
  Cameras overlooking the 'House of Horrors' as it has been dubbed have captured US student Knox at 20.43 on November 1 dressed in a light coloured skirt and top.
  A police source in Perugia, where Meredith was studying, said: It will be interesting to see what she has to say when we show her the footage.
• 2008-09-23 in the Studio Aperto video the narrator says 20:53 for the woman (bolint@JREF CP2:12805)
• 2008-09-24 Perugia Shock
  Studio Aperto aired today some frames of the garage video showing at about 8.31 a guy going out of the garage and at 8.41 a 'white spot' going towards the house.
• 2008-09-25 Telegraph
  links to Corrier (video)
• 2009-03-13 Affaritaliani (it)
  After a few minutes a new image from passaggio.Sempre, November 1, around 20:41, you can see the image of a person, wearing a light colored jacket, which is rapidly disappearing shortly after. Picture that, according to the reconstruction of accusation, could refer to the return home of Meredith Kercher the night of the crime, although the lack sharpness is not possible to establish with certainty.
• 2009-03-13 L'Unione Sarda
  The assistant then described the pictures taken at 20:41 on November 1, with a person "who allegedly could correspond to Meredith." Barbadori explained that the cameras in the area of ​​the murder house and along the path followed by Kercher up the house of English friends, where he dined before being killed are used to control traffic and thus are activated only if there are no cars or people on the move. Sollecito's defense, however, has questioned the manner in which they were identified times of the images.
  Lanazione
  During the deposition assistant Mauro Barbadori, in service to the Perugia flying squad, have been made ​​to see in the classroom to the Court of Assizes some of the images captured by a camera in the car park opposite the house where he was killed Meredith Kercher.
  Sollecito's defense however contested the manner in which they were identified times of the images.
• 2009-03-14 Sky News
  They were timed at 8.41pm on the night Meredith was last seen alive and minutes after she had left a friend's house to return home.
  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.
• 2009-09 Oggi [1] (on earlier sighting)
  (Caption) Nella sequenza, ecco il filmato di cui Oggi e entrato in possesso. E stato realizzato la sera del 1º novembre 2007 dalla telecamera del parcheggio di via della Pergola. 1. Un giovane compare nell'inquadratura. 2. Cammina verso l'uscita: indossa un husky scuro e delle scarpe con un'inconfondibile striscia bianca. 3. Oltrepassa la sbarra. 4. Va verso via della Pergola. 5. Quasi mezz'ora dopo, riappare nell'inquadratura (nel cerchietto). Da notare l'orario del nastro: l'orologio segna prima le 19.41 e poi le 20.10. Gli inquirenti scopriranno che, in realtà, era dieci minuti indietro.
  (Google translation) In the sequence, here is the movie whose Today and came into possession. It was realized on the evening of 1 November 2007 by the camera of the car park via della Pergola. 1. A young man appears in the frame. 2. Walk towards the exit: wearing a husky and dark shoes with an unmistakable white stripe. 3. Beyond the bar. 4. He goes to Via della Pergola. 5. Almost half an hour later reappears in the frame (in the circle). Note the time of the tape: the watch marks the first 19:41 and then 20.10. Investigators discover that, in fact, it was ten minutes behind.

I started on this project in May/June 2011 and from the news deduced that the true time on the tape would be 20:53. On about June 22, 2011 (in continuation part 2) this was discussed here and bolint added the Studio Aperto reference.


It turns out that the true timestamp on that image was:

01 Nov 2007 - 20:51:36.17 - Telecamera 7 : ING. CENTRALE​

 

[bolint]

I spoke to both Amanda and Raffaele via email few days ago and both confirmed that they linked the video to their lawyers. I guess they decided it would not be a good idea to show it.

There is a reason.
The climber uses the grid which was not there at the time of the break-in.
Also, he uses his shoes to climb on the wall of which there was no trace at the time of the scene inspection.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think so. But there had to be some police people (most likely Barbadori) who actually went there and seized the recording, with the cooperation of SIPA personnel. It was at that time they should have determined and record the time difference.

ANSWER - It was probably done by the coach of SIPA , that is, the technician from whom I acquired the images of parking lot that is the one who told me this figure .​

Assuming Barbie isn't just lying to cover his butt that has been clearly exposed here.

I'm not at all sure they took the whole equipment. Only the recording.

Elsewhere they talk about these recordings being on tape. They could have even been copied. If it's analog tape the timestamp would be in the video. Digital recordings put the timestamps in a secondary stream that gets reimaged during playback. They wouldn't take the whole equipment unless doing so would inconvenience the defense.

 

[Dan O.]

There is a reason.
The climber uses the grid which was not there at the time of the break-in.
Also, he uses his shoes to climb on the wall of which there was no trace at the time of the scene inspection.

Compare the evidence collected by the police at the time of the crime with the evidence of scuff marks on the wall after the videoed clime.

 

[snook1]

I thought about it and wondered Maori was trying to get the judges googling and viewing not just that video, but also other information related to the case that is on the web. Once you get looking, one thing can lead to another.

I can already imagine Nencini lurking at PMF(s). They would ban him, for sure.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is a reason.
The climber uses the grid which was not there at the time of the break-in.
Also, he uses his shoes to climb on the wall of which there was no trace at the time of the scene inspection.

Given the discussion here maybe it is just as well that it was not shown.

True, the first time the climber uses the upper bars. The bars leave his centre of gravity so that he uses his feet on the wall.

THEN he shows how it's done without grabbing the bars. This is where the bars are an impediment. ... his body still leaves CoG at an awkward place, but point is it's still very doable.....

.... and would have been easier if the bars hadn't been there! The court should have been shown a demo without the bars there.