Quote:
Originally Posted by 239
We know when the Caribinieri got there because you can see a car on the CCTV tape that says Caribinieri in giant letters on the side of it.
|
Change pant led to car and the same argument stands. More than one car arrived. There is no way to know if that car has anything to do with the phone call.
Quote:
|
The importance of the arrival of the caribineiri in terms of the timestamp is that we know when the HQ called looking for directions and everyone agreed that they stayed on the phone with them until they arrived I'm pretty sure.
|
No. I like how you already included the "pretty sure" because you know you are full of ****.
What we know is that Amanda gets a call from a landline.
The claim by Amanda's side is that it is the police asking for directions. We actually have no proof of this
If for arguments sake we assume it is the police calling for directions that still doesn't prove the CCTV clock is slow since it could be car #2 that is lost, it could be car #5, etc.
Remember at this point we have two calls into 911 -- one by the postal police who reported a possible murder and one from Raffaele which would have been super low priority. Only an officer responding to Raffaele's call would have Amanda's number. Someone responding to the Postal Police request for backup would not have Amanda's number nor would they call her.
link doesn't go anywhere
Quote:
|
Her mom was not well at the time, that's my understanding and they kept in close contact. Either way it's logical she would have retried the call that failed.
|
She had spoken with her mom during the day. She was coming home to visit her mom in two days. Unlike Raffaele who for some strange reasons speaks to his farther 6+ times a day most young twenty-somethings are quite attentive if they speak to their parents once a day.
Her mom was not sick in the sense that you are implying. Her mom has a diabetic condition that is chronic and she is always at risk of suddenly turning for the worse. She was as sick then as she is today but as much as she is fine today she can be in bad shape tomorrow.
Quote:
|
The fumbling was over two minutes if not less. The connection at 10:13 was not initiated by the user of the handset, it was an incoming picture message if I remember correctly.
|
No. We don't now what the data connection was. There are two possibilities -- it was MMS message preview and someone declined the actual MMS without receiving it because they didn't want to pay the data charge or it was a WAP connection. In both cases that requires human interaction.
So there was human interaction with the phones from 9:58pm to 10:13pm.
Quote:
|
Yes Massei gets this wrong and in Raf's appeal they explain why. It's clear the phone was on the move at this point because Meredith's phone had never connected to this cell while she was at the cottage right?
|
No. The phone had connected to this cell previously. Most of her calls to her mother actually connect to this cell.
This is not an issue for Massei to get wrong or right. This is an issue for the expert from the postal police to get wrong and right. He tested the various locations to see what cells cover the cottage and from Meredith's room he got a signal for cell 30064.
Lastly, there was no mobile phone evidence at the appeal. We have covered this multiple times so why do you keep lying about stuff. The appeal dealt with only four items-- Curatolo, the knife DNA, the bra clasp DNA, and the prison yard conversations-- there is no other evidence discussed at the appeal.
Quote:
So after she'd been arrested for murder and written that she was pressured in a letter to police she told her mom she wasn't pressured?
Amanda wrote this shortly after the interrogation in a letter *to the police*
|
Yes. The letter to the police is a lie. She is trying to fix what she did and now regrets. The conversation with her mom is just mom and daughter talking. The problem is the Knox family didn't realize that in Italy an investigator has complete discretion when it comes to surveillance and phone taps.
Quote:
|
Why didn't they launch an investigation into her allegations.
|
That isn't how it works in any jurisdiction. Further, they did launch an investigation and they charged Amanda and her parents as a result. The trial is in 2012.
Quote:
|
Does that mean it didn't happen?
|
It greatly decreases the credibility of the claim. When combined with the fact that Amanda when asked who hit claims she doesn't know and can't even identify if it was a woman or a man is pretty short on details.
She also said nothing to the US consulate who came to see her a few hours after this happened. So Amanda is afraid to complain to the Italians but here you have the United States coming to check on one of their own. Why would she not mention she was abused?
The case has been investigated by the normal international human rights groups and they all say nothing bad happened. Amanda's lawyers say nothing bad happened.
Now don't get me wrong they called her a stupid liar but this is a police interrogation not a debate at Harvard. Calling a suspect stupid or a liar is not considered abusive.
Quote:
|
So her lawyers disagree with her own written word and her spoken testimony?
|
Yes. Her lawyers are not about to make fools of themselves to advance something they know is not true. Much like Raffaele's original defence expert quit a lawyer would typically walk away from a case rather than advance what they know to be bogus claims and damage their own reputations.
Quote:
|
Honestly I can't tell wtf is going on in those links. It appears to me she was charged because she claimed the cops hit her. Every link that mentions a 14 or 9 hour interrogation is stating as fact not as something Amanda said or her family said.
|
Amanda was in jail and not giving interviews. So yes her family went around telling everyone that it was 9 hours or 14 hours depending on which family member you spoke with.
You denied that her family and supporters manipulated the US media into reporting false information about the interrogation. Do you now admit that the Knox family manipulated the US media into lying and creating a story where it would be easier for the public to accept that the confession was a false confession?
Quote:
|
I've always been pretty straight on the times.
|
No. You have refused to answer. You know the answer but you have never actually said it choosing to sidestep the question.
How long did it take Amanda to confess to being at the cottage the night of the murder?
Quote:
|
I think it's safe to say that's what happened, *especially* when you consider how far Massei bends to make the prosecution case make sense.
|
Massei doesn't. He writes about the postal police and how could they not see the calls to 911. There is no need to discuss that if the CCTV had been presented in court. He would have mentioned the CCTV presentation and he doesn't.
The police expert who testified that the CCTV shows the postal police arriving before the call was made happened on March 13 2009. The name of the expert was Mauro Barbadori. This is how you make points when people disagree with you and want proof. I have a date and a name. You can easily now verify this. If you wish you can even pay a small fee and get the transcript of the testimony. You have provided nothing. I will settle for a date or a name just so I can have something to go with. I have already spent a lot of time reviewing the court schedule and no witness for the defence took the stand and made this presentation.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
