Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Planigale]

From:http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Michele_Battistelli's_Testimony_(English)

Battistelli testified that he looked at the clock when he left the offices of the Postal Police and that it was noon. Asked a second time he said 12:00pm, maybe 12:05pm
He estimated the travel time as 20 minutes because they originally were unable to locate the cottage and had to spend a few minutes looking for it. They had to do a loop and then Battistelli got out of the car and looked on foot. Battistelli estimated it took 10 minutes to get to the general area. Asked a third time about estimated arrival, he said it took 10 minutes to get to the University of Foreigners and then the rest of the time was spent looking on Via della Pregola.
Battistelli estimated that they arrived around 12:30pm because when he entered the cottage he looked at his watch and noted the time and it was 12:35pm and some time had been spent talking to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito outside. Asked by the defense why they should trust his time estimate, Battistelli responded that because he had looked at his watch.

So Battistelli has no documented record of when he left. '12.00 maybe 12.05'.
He has no documented record of when he arrived he recalls he looked at his watch, he recalls it was 12.35. Was this a digital watch or was it analogue was it actually somewhere between half past and quarter to? How accurate was his watch?

What this testimony clearly shows is there was no contemporaneous record of events or timings. This is all dependant on his recall. Recall of events that would have been unimportant at the time, but became significant later, after 'traumatic' events that would have dominated his thinking making prior recall uncertain.

The problem is his recall does not fit with events that have documented timings i.e. the phone calls. It requires the police to not notice several calls that Sollecito / Knox made.


It is also is part of a fatuous argument about Sollecito and Knox calling the carabinieri after the postal police arrive. Fatuous because everyone accepts that Knox had told Romanelli about the breakdown before the police arrived and could not know that Romanelli would not call the police herself. (Why not? She was 'in charge' of the flat, a native Italian speaker, her room was broken into, why was she reluctant to involve the police?)

 

[Planigale]

The timeline is the lady reported finding the phones in her garden. The police went to pick them up and were assigned to return them to their owner, one of whom was Filomena.

From court testimony: [source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Michele_Battistelli's_Testimony]
MB:
Around noon, I was in the office and the then ruling Bartolozzi sent me in Via della Pergola to track Filomena Romanelli, as they had been found a phone, I was told just in broad terms, was found a phone registered to her, then since there ... then we made the checks, since there had been complaints of theft or loss relative to that phone, we went in search of this Romanelli to know.
GM:
At 12.00 you started roughly?
MB:
Yes, approximately at 12.00.
GM:
He looked at the clock?
MB:
Yes, I was just back for another service.
<snip>
GM:
And you arrived at that hour, roughly?
MB:
At about noon and a half.
GM:
The again, he looked at his watch, he looked, you looked at the timetable for the case of the parking cameras?
MB:
We do not.
GM:
So around 12.30?

You saw my previous post in which I showed that Battistelli wrote up his report on the 2nd Nov 2007, when he got back.

As you can see, he built in a lot of slack. What should have been a 10 minute drive at most took thirty minutes, because they went round the block twice.

Bagels, Bill and acbytesla are seriously claiming Battistelli set in motion the police corruption, even though the body wasn't even yet found. All he was doing was delivering a couple of standard mobile phones. Yet bagels is convinced he took one look at 'the American' and thought, having powers of clairvoyancy, "Right, I'm going to deduct ten minutes from my real time of arrival".

In any case, even if it took the police a whole extra ten minutes (40" to drive a very short distance), that still only puts the time forward to 12:45. Raff's call wasn't made until 12:51, and then it was to his sister in the Carabinieri. Amanda rang Mom, Edda at 12:47. Edda urged her to call the police, yet Amanda didn't call the police once.

Massei did not consider Battistelli to be a liar. Having wisdom, he thought, "Do you know what? Shirley Conran once remarked, 'life is too short to stuff a mushroom'."

He threw the pair a crumb of comfort in the midst of their embarrassing self-incriminating behaviour...and found them guilty, as charged.

This is untrue.
Amanda called the police (Carabinieri) once. The argument is at what time did the postal police arrive. Everyone (except you?) accepts she phoned the police. The call is documented.

You know that Knox called the police so why do you state something that you know is false? You do your case no favour by continually saying things that are untrue.

 

[Planigale]

They said they did.One thing is for sure, try handing in your phone as lost to a police station and see how long it takes to get back to you. It will be a lot longer than 2 hours.

The idea that the police are going to have a phone handed in, looked it up on a database and cry "Mama mia! A young lady is without her phone. It is mid-day on a weekend, we must drop everything and immediately race to the address she gave when she bought the sim card on the remote chance she is still living there and is at home. Let us pray we are not too late and she has not drowned herself in despair!"

I mean would the address in the database even be where Filomena was living then? I thought she only took on the lease a 3 or 4 months before hand.

Meredith's Italian phone is a fiction. Knox only called it once - on the morning of the 2nd. It was never used to determine Kercher's location or cell tower pings. It has one appearance and one appearance only.

The moment Filomena got her phone back she immediately rang her lawyers - who I understand are connected with the whole Monster of Florence/Narducci fiasco. They advised her to get Knox to lie for her and promised to fix up the postals.

One of the interesting down the memory hole early newspaper reports is this
https://web.archive.org/web/20071105014001/http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,2204663,00.html



Which at least would explain why they received a toilet bomb hoax call and sent the postal police to immediately search the garden and not the toilet.

The Postal Police had Filomena's phone already and Knox was talking to them in those 3 calls 12:00-12:34.
The last call was "we can't find your house."

Once that is established who cares if a man walking along a road at 13:22 has a pink stripe on his trousers or fortunate enough to possess arms?

No read the testimony. It is recall and estimate. There was no contemporaneous record. There is no log of activities, e.g. 12.03 departed base for X. 12.31 arrived X. 12.37 contacted resident of flat Sra Knox - american. Sra Romanelli not at home but coming. 12.39 Sra Knox reports break in advised that as we are postal police she should phone the carabinieri to deal with this.

 

[query grind]

No read the testimony. It is recall and estimate. There was no contemporaneous record. There is no log of activities, e.g. 12.03 departed base for X. 12.31 arrived X. 12.37 contacted resident of flat Sra Knox - american. Sra Romanelli not at home but coming. 12.39 Sra Knox reports break in advised that as we are postal police she should phone the carabinieri to deal with this.

Planigale, I have the courtesy to quote and reference to testimony/findings that support my point of view. Why don't you return that courtesy?
The time - right or wrong - had certainly been documented by the 8th November.

One of the interesting things I find about continuing this discussion is I think at the time of her acquittal Knox was under the delusion she had a great debt to a small number of people who were moved by her innocence to advocate on her behalf.
What, I hope, she is coming round to realise is that she was a bug-light that attracted the attention of a small number of rather peculiar and unpleasant people who appear strangely indifferent to a crime which involved smashing a young woman's head into a closet and anally raping her. And were so indifferent as to who perpetrators were, they can within a hairs-width of sending her back to prison for another 20 years.

Out of curiosity, Planigale (while you are looking up that bit of testimony), which category would you place yourself in?

 

[Planigale]

Planigale, I have the courtesy to quote and reference to testimony/findings that support my point of view. Why don't you return that courtesy?
The time - right or wrong - had certainly been documented by the 8th November.

One of the interesting things I find about continuing this discussion is I think at the time of her acquittal Knox was under the delusion she had a great debt to a small number of people who were moved by her innocence to advocate on her behalf.
What, I hope, she is coming round to realise is that she was a bug-light that attracted the attention of a small number of rather peculiar and unpleasant people who appear strangely indifferent to a crime which involved smashing a young woman's head into a closet and anally raping her. And were so indifferent as to who perpetrators were, they can within a hairs-width of sending her back to prison for another 20 years.

Out of curiosity, Planigale (while you are looking up that bit of testimony), which category would you place yourself in?

My interest was that the forensic science was clearly bad science verging on woo. As a scientist myself I have an interest in the misuse of science. I do not believe in a conspiracy. i believe that there were system failings, individual incompetence and a desire to find evidence to support the prosecution that led to biased reporting by the forensic scientists. This is a broader issue than this individual case. (We have seen issues in the US with regards to bite evidence and hair analysis). This is something that all citizens should be concerned about. I do think the UK has done a great deal to improve forensic science in the past few years, but I think there needs to be support for academic forensic science to validate new techniques. (E.g. how likely is tertiary transfer in trace DNA evidence?)

I think the quality of the police investigation was poor they jumped to conclusions then pursued the investigation with a closed mind.

I suspect if I met Knox and Sollecito I would not like them. I have little interest in them as individuals, but do think they were wrongly prosecuted.

I think that a great deal of the police attitude towards Knox was sexist, with traditional views about good girls and bad girls. This was then reflected in the leaks to the press.

I abhor sexual violence and any violence.

My personal opinion on the evidence given in the court records is that Guede raped and killed MK. I think he most likely was a sole perpetrator. There are some oddities in the case that were never fully explored, there might have been an accomplice.

I think that publicising the errors made may result / have resulted in changes in the systems to prevent similar errors occurring in future.

 

[Planigale]

Planigale, I have the courtesy to quote and reference to testimony/findings that support my point of view. Why don't you return that courtesy?
The time - right or wrong - had certainly been documented by the 8th November.

One of the interesting things I find about continuing this discussion is I think at the time of her acquittal Knox was under the delusion she had a great debt to a small number of people who were moved by her innocence to advocate on her behalf.
What, I hope, she is coming round to realise is that she was a bug-light that attracted the attention of a small number of rather peculiar and unpleasant people who appear strangely indifferent to a crime which involved smashing a young woman's head into a closet and anally raping her. And were so indifferent as to who perpetrators were, they can within a hairs-width of sending her back to prison for another 20 years.

Out of curiosity, Planigale (while you are looking up that bit of testimony), which category would you place yourself in?

Testimony as above.

From court testimony: [source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...27s_Testimony]
MB:
Around noon, I was in the office and the then ruling Bartolozzi sent me in Via della Pergola to track Filomena Romanelli, as they had been found a phone, I was told just in broad terms, was found a phone registered to her, then since there ... then we made the checks, since there had been complaints of theft or loss relative to that phone, we went in search of this Romanelli to know.
GM:
At 12.00 you started roughly?
MB:
Yes, approximately at 12.00.
GM:
He looked at the clock?
MB:
Yes, I was just back for another service.
<snip>
GM:
And you arrived at that hour, roughly?
MB:
At about noon and a half.
GM:
The again, he looked at his watch, he looked, you looked at the timetable for the case of the parking cameras?
MB:
We do not.
GM:
So around 12.30?

No reference to contemporaneous record all estimates and recall.

 

[query grind]

You are cherry-picking the testimony as it is clear both he and his supervisor wrote reports of that afternoon

GB:

Look here instead actually turns out that she entered the room, and even then were made of the findings on the shoes.


MB:

I do not know where it is that I have entered. I have not entered, and I wrote it in two different reports. The assessment was made on the shoes, then Dr. Chiacchiera asked me ...


GB:

So you exclude to be entered?


MB:

I exclude categorically.

and

MB:

Yes, but I have not seen fit, because then the story is what it was, and then at that moment when you write these reports of inaccuracies there may be definitely.


GB:

It 'true that in this report that she says with inaccuracies but she is very precise in other details, for example says "At 12.35 pm". Why this precision in the timetable and then would the wrong sequence?


MB:

Accuracy because I was safe because I looked at the clock.


GB:

And excuse me, however, he was not sure he had found one mobile phone?


MB:

I phones have not seen them, I was only sent by the executive, I heard the second phone from the phone call that I made when I was already there, in Via della Pergola. Now when I wrote the record I all these references do not I made them.


GCM:

The record when it wrote that?


MB:

After, the whole process. I went in the office, in the afternoon I think.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are cherry-picking the testimony as it is clear both he and his supervisor wrote reports of that afternoon



and

Yes, but HE WAS WRONG IN HIS TIMING.

It doesn't matter why he was wrong. But he was wrong.

And why on Earth would you think that somebody writing a report a few hours later would necessarily be able to accurately recall timings? Unless something lodged firmly in his mind to fix a particular timing to a particular event (for example, hearing an hourly news bulletin, or receiving/making a call on his mobile phone whose time he could look up accurately), then a margin of error of 10-20 minutes is, IMO, entirely feasible and plausible.

And then one also needs to add in the fact that when he arrived at the cottage it was a rather dull, routine "return a phone" errand (albeit with the chance of doing a favour for a young woman....), so there's little or no reason why either of the Postal officers would have been either on their guard or having any need to be conscious of timings; but then events escalated into a major murder incident - thereby throwing the thus-far quiet and dull day for the Postals into momentous chaos.

I find it entirely plausible and reasonable, for all of these reasons, that even if the Postals filled out their reports later that same afternoon, they were guestimating at best about the initial timings, and that there was every chance that they would get those timings wrong.

And that's exactly what DID happen. They got the timings wrong. That's more-or-less provable beyond doubt by other evidence (including the arrival of Filomena and the others, and the incontrovertible timing of Knox's and Sollecito's calls to mother/sister/Carabinieri, which simply could not have occurred while the Postals were inside the cottage). And then once they'd fixed their (incorrect) timings on the record, and especially once these (incorrect) timings became relevant to the police and prosecution case, they refused to back down.

The Postal Police officers arrived at the cottage some time around 12.50-12.55pm. All the credible, reliable evidence (especially where there are incontrovertible timings such as the times of phone calls) shows conclusively that this has to have been the case. The incorrect recall of the officers themselves can safely and reasonably be viewed as unreliable and disregarded.

 

[LondonJohn]

No read the testimony. It is recall and estimate. There was no contemporaneous record. There is no log of activities, e.g. 12.03 departed base for X. 12.31 arrived X. 12.37 contacted resident of flat Sra Knox - american. Sra Romanelli not at home but coming. 12.39 Sra Knox reports break in advised that as we are postal police she should phone the carabinieri to deal with this.

Exactly. If either of the Postals had been looking at an accurate time source and keeping a contemporaneous log based on those timings, in the manner you describe here, there would be little dispute over their timings (once it was established that a) the time source was indeed accurate, and b) the log truly was contemporaneous). Or even if something with a provably-accurate time stamp had happened at a key moment (e.g. if either of the Postals had made a timed radio call to their base just as they were getting out of their car to walk up to the cottage), this would serve as an equally accurate time guide.

But neither of those things happened. And there's no reason to think that they OUGHT to have happened - after all, as the police entered the cottage, they were doing nothing more than a dull bureaucratic errand for which timings had zero relevance or importance. So even if the Postals had simply returned the phones as expected and gone away, they'd probably have been hard-pressed to recall the timing of their arrival at the cottage with any degree of accuracy even hours later. What impacts the situation further still is the enormity of what actually did happen once the Postals got inside the cottage. Their whole day changed in a shattering and traumatic way that they'd never anticipated. And IMO that would make it even less likely that they would be able to recall their arrival time with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Samson]

Leila Schnepps put this to bed years ago. As an unlikely guilter, she corrected her battalion in precise and inviolable terms. It was a tour de force of analysis that I never forgot. Don't expect detail from me now though.
(she did the same for Pistorius' account that validated his story)

 

[bagels]

Leila Schnepps put this to bed years ago. As an unlikely guilter, she corrected her battalion in precise and inviolable terms. It was a tour de force of analysis that I never forgot. Don't expect detail from me now though.

Yes she did and the major points have already been posted in this thread just on the last page. A non disingenuous poster would merely have to scroll up to understand why a 12:35 arrival time is impossible and the CCTV clock had to be at least 8 minutes slow. These are closed issues. The only thing interesting about the 112 call timing is why some people create an impossible fantasy timeline for themselves when it isn't even necessary from a PGP perspective.

 

[bagels]

The Postal Police had Filomena's phone already and Knox was talking to them in those 3 calls 12:00-12:34.
The last call was "we can't find your house."

This is literally something you just made up. It never happened. If you actually believe this thing that you just made up today happened you have issues beyond this case.

 

[acbytesla]

Planigale, I have the courtesy to quote and reference to testimony/findings that support my point of view. Why don't you return that courtesy?
The time - right or wrong - had certainly been documented by the 8th November.

One of the interesting things I find about continuing this discussion is I think at the time of her acquittal Knox was under the delusion she had a great debt to a small number of people who were moved by her innocence to advocate on her behalf.
What, I hope, she is coming round to realise is that she was a bug-light that attracted the attention of a small number of rather peculiar and unpleasant people who appear strangely indifferent to a crime which involved smashing a young woman's head into a closet and anally raping her. And were so indifferent as to who perpetrators were, they can within a hairs-width of sending her back to prison for another 20 years.

Out of curiosity, Planigale (while you are looking up that bit of testimony), which category would you place yourself in?

This is so typical. Resorting to ad hominem attacks with innuendo. I'd say they are veiled attacks of people that see the obvious miscarriage of justice. But there is no veil.

The truth is however, it is those people that are attacking Amanda that are indifferent. Indifferent to the facts, the evidence and the truth. A moron can easily see that Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher, probably alone and that Knox and Sollecito were not and COULD NOT BE INVOLVED.

So what is wrong with these people? They say they are for true justice yet they obsessively pursue the innocent. Time and again they ignore and actually defend Meredith's true killer. The burglar who left his hand prints, shoe prints and DNA in the very room that the murder took place. The burglar who fled the country. The burglar who told his friend that he was there and Amanda was not there. The burglar who went dancing after he killed Meredith. The burglar who never received or called, texted or e-mailed either Amanda or Raffaele EVER.

I'm not indifferent to how Meredith suffered. That is a tragedy, but imprisoning the wrong people for that injustice won't change that. Nothing will.

The question for you is where do you stand? Ignoring actual justice and pursuing the innocent? Or do you open your eyes and see the light?

 

[acbytesla]

DELETE

 

[query grind]

This is literally something you just made up. It never happened.

Here on Team Query Grinder, we like to call it "investigative amnesia". What was that all about anyway?

If you actually believe this thing that you just made up today happened you have issues beyond this case.

No no, I made it up around the end of 2014. Machiavelli will remember.

It would certainly explain why neither Knox, Sollecito or Filomena were ever able to give a coherent account of those calls. It would also explain why no-one ever seemed to use Meredith's Italian phone. And it would also explain why they managed to find the correct address and didn't dash off to wherever Filomena was living back whenever she brought that sim card.

 

[Vixen]

We're talking about Battistelli's testimony which was more than a year after the events. We're talking about what Judge Massei heard in testimony! (That you immediately launch into a strawman-conspiracy says all that needs to be said about your reasoning powers.)

Battistelli testified. Massei ruled. Massei said the P.P. arrived just before 1 pm. In 400+ pages of a motivation report, Massei simply could have said, "Despite what Battistelli mistakenly testofied to...." but he remained silent.

My view is that even Maseei knew he was dealing with the keystone cops. You believe Massei is corrupt.



Once again, you are accusing Massei of being corrupt.

Nonsense. In law, as in accountancy, there is a standard called "materiality". Massei asked himmself and his peers, "Is the issue of Battistelli's arrival material to the case?"

And, like the thousand and one other immaterial factors - like Hischam Khiri prancing about in a launderette washing all his clothes shortly after the murder - Massei used his professional judgement to concentrate on what was germane to the case, and ignore the peripherals, otherwise it would have been a 1,000 page report and a one-year long trial.

The timing may well have been an agreed issue in the trial. It was cross-examined minutely, with all sorts of experts brought in. At the end of the day, Massei determined it was not material to the issue of guilt.

 

[query grind]

Nonsense. In law, as in accountancy, there is a standard called "materiality". Massei asked himmself and his peers, "Is the issue of Battistelli's arrival material to the case?"

And, like the thousand and one other immaterial factors - like Hischam Khiri prancing about in a launderette washing all his clothes shortly after the murder

Well to achieve a truly Mensa level of accuracy, barging in and throwing in a pair of Nike shoes and barging out again.
We might also recall that luminol testing found no traces of Meredith's blood on Guede's floor and in fact absolutely zero of her DNA anywhere in his apartment.

Equally amazingly an empty box of Nike Outbreak 2 shoes suddenly materialised in Guede's flat a mere few weeks after the Sollecitos managed to locate a pair in Bari.

But I am sure that was just coincidence....

 

[Vixen]

These are your words, where you make the case for Judge Massei being corrupt....

As you have been told, this was a case of Massei bending over backwards for the kids. It was a case of whether or not the call was before or after was quite irrelevant to the verdict (=Guilty). By conceding minor issues to the defense, it was one less thing they could latch onto in an appeal.

Plus, he probably figured he might need Papa Raff's delicate surgery one day.​

As Martin Luther said to the Wicked One, in a vision, 'Take your hand away, [Bill], take your hand away!"

You'll note I called it good judgement and diplomacy, not corruption. Corruption is an act of deliberate perversity for personal or malicious gain.

 

[acbytesla]

Nonsense. In law, as in accountancy, there is a standard called "materiality". Massei asked himmself and his peers, "Is the issue of Battistelli's arrival material to the case?"

And, like the thousand and one other immaterial factors - like Hischam Khiri prancing about in a launderette washing all his clothes shortly after the murder - Massei used his professional judgement to concentrate on what was germane to the case, and ignore the peripherals, otherwise it would have been a 1,000 page report and a one-year long trial.

The timing may well have been an agreed issue in the trial. It was cross-examined minutely, with all sorts of experts brought in. At the end of the day, Massei determined it was not material to the issue of guilt.

I love it when one pretends to be an expert on every subject.

Vixen,
Where was Meredith's phone at 10:13 PM November 1st 2007?

 

[Bill Williams]

These are your words, where you make the case for Judge Massei being corrupt....

As you have been told, this was a case of Massei bending over backwards for the kids. It was a case of whether or not the call was before or after was quite irrelevant to the verdict (=Guilty). By conceding minor issues to the defense, it was one less thing they could latch onto in an appeal.

Plus, he probably figured he might need Papa Raff's delicate surgery one day.​

As Martin Luther said to the Wicked One, in a vision, 'Take your hand away, [Bill], take your hand away!"

You'll note I called it good judgement and diplomacy, not corruption. Corruption is an act of deliberate perversity for personal or malicious gain.

LOL! Yes, you called it good judgment. Apparently you think judges are allowed to use their judgement to alter the facts of a case. Others might call it corruption, but I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.