OK, I said shortly after, sorry. What is your source that their testimony is a little before 1pm and it was 8-10 minutes before the girls got there at one? Further if the boys arrived at 12:52 they should have seen Raf on the phone talking to the police, no?

lol, fabricated.

Give me a break, Henry. You seem to have forgotten that at 12:47 Amanda made a call to her mom, that no one saw. Nice try.

239,

I don't feel like engaging in a time consuming effort to document everything but if someone wants to go though the testimony of the four people present and the two police officers you can construct a really good timeline that would support what I am claiming better. For example, by doing this you'd get the exact time that Battistelli calls HQ and from that you'd be able to establish that Filomena arrived slightly before 1pm. Then from Luka's testimony you get when the boys arrived relative to the girls. That covers the window when all the calls were made. I am not going to advance this argument because I don't feel like doing the work but it is there for anyone who wants to do it.

How specifically?

I think you simply fail to understand what the prosecutors motivations would have been in this case. You're use of "out to get them" is myopic and assigns a specific intent that ignores the circumstances of the investigation and case.

I don't believe that, I showed you the police saying it. When they arrested Amanda, Raf, and Patrick they said "Case Closed" and that they admitted to what we already knew.

I'm not even sure what that means. I don't see how confirmation bias couldn't be an issue in this case. You have people who you believe have incriminated themselves and a number of circumstances such as the 112 call and the fact that Raf had shoes similar to Guede's fueling the case. After all was said and done that evidence wasn't real but it certainly would have produced the conditions that lead to confirmation bias, yes.

Huh? They apparently were convinced, partly because of text messages between Amanda and Patrick from the night of the murder, and also because of a meeting they observed between the two that they were conspirators. As far as the police's treatment of Patrick I'm pretty he said they roughed him up and I know I read one report somewhere that said they actually had a witness ready to testify that his bar was closed.

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about. Guede came to light when they identified his print in the murder room. They simply didn't know about him until the forensics started to come in. At that point, I'd say fueled by confirmation bias, they simply substituted Rudy for Raf.

When I talk about the case crumbling, the reality was they thought all along that some of the Nike prints were Raf's, but they weren't. When this got sorted is out is when they went back to the cottage to find the bra clasp. Do you get it now?

I'm really not following. There was confirmation bias because the police were convinced they were involved and ignored evidence that they weren't, specifically that Guede could have done it alone and all of the forensics were pointing to him.

No I'm not. I don't think the prosecution ever thought this would go to trial. I think they were convinced from early on that Amanda and Raf were guilty and they employed a number of tactics to try to break them and get them to confess.

I don't need to write out a 30 page speculative mess like Henry's mega post to state my beliefs. I wrote out what I think happened that night based on the evidence and no one responded to it.

In other words they need to prove the transfer, right?


Why and why are you ignoring the question about other contributors on the clasp?

So you're claiming it's a lie? Are you claiming that they didn't say they used only observation and psychology to determine guilt initially?

And what days were these stories told specifically?

No. This is not proving that contamination happened but rather proving that contamination is possible. Something can be possible and yet have not happened. If you can't prove that something is possible then you can't claim it happened.


Because it isn't relevant to anything being discussed.

Further the use of the plural in respect to contributors is wrong and you have been told this before so please don't try to sneak in these kinds of lies in. A truthful account of the data is that there is two possibilities -- no additional contributor or one additional contributor which is considerably less quantity than Raffaele and for which there is insufficient information to use the for identification.

I can't really see how this matters so do you have some sort of argument related to this? If not it would seem that you are just raising ignorant boogeyman arguments and that is really not useful.

I have no idea who the guy the quote even is. That was the first time I have seen his name. I find it suspect that none of this the legitimate news agencies even mention this and it only appears on blogs.

Nov 2nd. The night the body was found.

They wouldn't have asked questions about it, they would have asked questions about everyone's recollections to establish a timeline of events. As far as the rejection, since you have detailed knowledge of this hearing, can you tell us the grounds for it being rejected and exactly what the arguments were?

Shocking development. I think it's pretty clear, actually really really clear you're wrong, sorry.

You mean the car that says Carabinieri on the side? Probably not. So I assume you mean the postal police car?

The only partial picture of a car is of the car that says Carabinieri in giant letters on the side.

Again this just isn't right as I've demonstrated. If we know the call at 1:29 has the postal police on the phone with dispatch and the officers haven't arrived yet, that means that 1:22 on the CCTV camera has to be at least seven minutes later. It's really that simple.


That's a terrible argument I'm sorry. This was certainly the most damning circumstantial evidence that existed. It seems doubtful that the Judge forgot about evidence that would prove it.

Yes and there is absolutely no evidence that this happened.

I don't know the reasons or even if Massei is required to give reasons for rejecting a request for new experts and new evidence. I don't see why the reasons matter. We know all the requests were denied and we know that the when the court met next no new testimony was heard and the trial advanced to closing arguments.


No. Bad dog.

We just finished covering this. Unless you can connect the call to the specific car on the video you can't make this argument. The argument completely depends on the two being connected and you have failed to present any reason we should connect them.

Well there is a possibility Massei's mistake will get fixed at the next trial.

He actually makes another mistake related to the 112 call where he believes that there is only one call and that Raffaele was on hold when the reality is that there were two calls and Raffaele hung up the phone and called back.

Massei just got the calls wrong.

His dad said he lied about this particular issue or what? The reality is you purport to know that he offered this information freely and he says he didn't. Further he retracted that statement in front of the judge and said it was all BS because he was scared. You're free to not believe him, but it's not clear to me why you pretend like that didn't happen.

I never suggested you should read his book, can you go to one of the guilter sites you claim you never read and post the list of lies you have never read that must be the basis for you saying it's full of lies?

But I should be banned if I don't. Just to be clear you can't source Luca's testimony that you're basing your entire bs on. The same argument you say is crystal clear except it doesn't fit with all the phone calls. The same argument you apparently are arguing the Judge simply forgot to apply to some of the most damning evidence in the case instead siding with the defense.

OK.


Where does their complete testimony exist? If you can source all their testimony I'll happy go through it and construct your argument for you.

Except as I've demonstrated it doesn't cover the time when Amanda called her mom which no one saw and it's debatable whether or not it covers Raf's first call.

Henry has sourced things over and over and spent ungodly hours posting.

You never source anything and run in circles, so you should clearly be held to a different standard.

Henry has his well sources megapost, which you never responded to.

You have spent several days arguing about the CCTV but have yet to post any source of how the document was evidence.

Source and respond to the megapost and include your own theory or it is time for the banhammer.

His dad went on a popular Italian news talk show and was asked about Raffaele's claim that the police tried to pressure him to turn on Knox. His dad said that never happened and that it is a lie.

It is expected that Raffaele will be charged with criminal slander for including that in his book.

Actually you are a source for a lot of the information. Remember when you stupidly just believed Raffaele when he claimed to be writing e-mails the night the murder happened? You just believed it despite the lack of computer activity, the lack of ISP use, and the fact that they couldn't produce any of these e-mails. When someone is this ****ty at lying I feel insulted that they actually thought people were stupid enough to believe it.

I'm just asking you questions about your position so that I can understand what it is. Obviously, given every opportunity to explain your case, you choose to avoid stating your position.

For example, my use of "confirmation bias" is just a restatement of the term you used and I am merely asking you if that is what your theory is based upon. Yet, you say that it is not, but then later in the same post say it is.

You continue to lose every argument because your failure to advance your position is not compelling and unpersuasive.

Even to this day, I don't know whether you claim 1) a corrupt investigation; 2) a corrupt prosecution; 3) unfair trial; 4) a biased trial; 5) an improper trial; 6) incorrect evaluation of evidence; 7) improper collection and custody of evidence; 8) incompetent and/or corrupt experts; 9) jury pool tampering; 10) improper media bias; 11) improper application of law; 12) improper interpretation of law; or anything else.

OK, so list the ways transfer can happen and what the acceptable sources would be? I'm not a DNA Expert. It'd be nice if Stefanoni actually proved what material was on the clasp so we could be more specific in our discussion but she decided not to do that right?

How is it not relevant to anything being discussed? If there are other contributors on the clasp how did they get there?

I'm actually not clear on why the Forensic DNA Professors said the following:

It seems important to me.

So you don't know who Edgardo Giobbi is? OK.

And your source for these detailed stories being told on that night is what?

I never said I can't. I said I'm not going to. I'm also not advancing this argument. If I felt it was important I would do the work to document it and then I would advance it.

I am making a very basic argument using what we have from Massei.

I know that if I used other sources I could make a tighter argument.

I don't feel like doing the work.

So I won't make the tighter argument and stick with the basic argument.

If I decide it is worth it and I do the documentation then I can switch to the tighter argument.

This is very different than your behaviour where you have had the CCTV argument shown to be complete garbage and admitted you can't defend it -- then two posts later you claim it is irrefutable proof. That is why you should be banned.

You can order it from the .it site Poker Reference has linked to twice. Failing that you need to go though the stories written by newspapers that were present and look for quotes and content. It is a lot of work and mostly in Italian which is why I don't feel like doing it for something I don't see as important.

You haven't. Using Massei we only have a very basic framework so even saying +/- 10 minutes is likely too tight of a claim. We could likely get that to +/- 2 minutes if we did work but we haven't.

You seem to be under the impression that DNA is just DNA -- that isn't true. There are characteristics to the DNA which are relevant.

In this case the quantity of DNA is troubling for any defence arguments that it was secondary transfer. It is in the upper range of what is normal for touch DNA and so it had to come directly from Raffaele.

There really isn't any way to explain this as contamination. The quantity is simply too great for secondary touch transfer.


It is pretty clear that you are not even slightly familiar with DNA. I'm sure this was supposed to be a cheap shot but it makes no sense so you just look foolish.

The possible other profile likely has nothing to do with the murder. It likely got there when Meredith had sex on some other day.

I assume you mean C&V -- the experts who are going to be declared idiots by the SCC and banned from ever being experts again?


That isn't a reason. Why does it seem important to you?

Since I doubt you know what this possible profile is I will summarize it for you. There are three peaks that are just slightly above 50 RFU. Srefanoni classified them as noise because they are basically on the cutoff. Vecchiotti wanted to consider them real alleles. If we accepted them as real alleles we now have a faint profile with three alleles. You can't use this to identify anyone but you could use it to exclude people. Rudy would be excluded. So basically you wither have noise or you have a useless profile that you can't do anything with. So how exactly is this important?

There is no evidence that the postal police, Filomena, and the rest of the kids gave statements as to what happened the day the body was discovered? I don't believe that's right, Henry. That's why Massei constantly refers to a hearing transcript that's apparently hundreds of pages long from 2/6/09.

Shocking that you don't have the details. Yet the one person who was in the room, mentions nothing about any type of denial. Why would they even be allowed to put on the presentation if it was denied? Wouldn't Frank just say the set out to prove it but got denied?

Henry, you're wrong. Stop and think about it, this is simple logic.

If the call from 1:29:00 to 1:34:56 happened when no police were at the cottage and the police are shown on the video arriving at the cottage at 1:22:37 that would mean that the CCTV timestamp is slow. It has nothing to do with the phone call being related to that car at all. It couldn't be any simpler.

You argument needs to stay that we don't know if the 1:29 happened when the cops where already there. That's the only argument that works for you. Just trying to help.

Did the prosecution try to correct this issue at the appeal? If not, why not?

It seems that you're getting the calls wrong as well because the call from Amanda to her mom at 12:47:23 that lasts until 12:48:51 is just as important as it isn't seen by anyone. Why didn't anyone see that happen if they were there?

Don't be daft. There is no evidence that the statements contained the content you claim they do.

WTF are you talking about?

Are you denying that the Oct 9 2009 hearing was a procedural meeting to decide if new experts and new evidence would be allowed?

Are you denying that that the judge ruled no new evidence would be allowed?

You make ******ed statements that make no sense. The presentation was not put in. The jury would not even be present. The defence would present a brief outline of what the new evidence was and how they felt it would help the judge reach a conclusion. The judge would then decide if the evidence was worth hearing or even legal to hear. Massei decided it wasn't.

No. You are simply wrong. It is simple logic and you are just really stupid.

We have two items with time stamps -- a car on a video and a phone call.

You want to make the argument that the video timestamp is wrong.

The only way to do that is to establish that the car in the video is the car that radioed for directions.

If you establish that then you have established the either the CCTV timestamp is wrong or the cell network clock is wrong. Since the probability of the CCTV being wrong is millions of time greater than the cell network being wrong we can conclude the CCTV is wrong.

You can never accomplish this without establishing that the call was the result of the particular car needing directions. Failing that there is no argument here and this is just complete garbage.

I have no idea if they requested to have this reexamined. I never read the prosecution appeal factum. If they requested it it was denied by Hellmann as only three items of evidence were allowed at the appeal.

You have asked this question four times in the last hour. I have answered it three times. Go back and read the previous posts.

Henry, please try harder at his. Consider we are talking about the interrogation. You are apparently referring to this post from the guilter site you never read right? http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C197/

If you care to actually read the article they are talking about Sollecito's claim that there was nearly a backroom deal offered to free him if he turned on her. This didn't happen at the interrogation which is what we were discussing and what you are responding to.

No, you're lying. I never believed there was evidence of that and him writing that in his book made no sense to me which is what I said. I happen to understand internet traffic so I added to the discussion by stating what type of logs would be required to see email traffic from an actual email client. I'd be interested to see what he'd say about that. The only plausible explanation would be the ISP didn't have the logs over the email ports or he was working in an offline mode. If neither of those was true his book would be inaccurate/he'd be lying.

No I didn't, you're lying. It isn't clear to me what logs from the ISP they had and what they showed. From memory they talked about http headers at traffic over ports 80/443 which wouldn't include traffic from an email client. That's all I mentioned. I never argued he sent any emails and I'm pretty sure I said he didn't make any sense he'd say that given he's a computer guy and he knew what the evidence showed. Sorry for being thorough and thinking critically.

I almost wonder if they put the email thing in the book to rile guilters, it seems that egregious. Either way it seems like you know a lot about lying.

I don't think that's what you're doing Oski. You've trolled this thread, poorly, for a long time. You're clearly not interested in an honest exchange of ideas. Did you have a question?

I don't think you understand what the term means.

No sorry that's not right. You're just a bad troll with nothing of substance to offer the thread other than fantastical narratives of the crime that have no basis in reality or the evidence.

Claim those things in relation to what the outcome of the case? My main focus has always been on the evidence and what actually happened that night and the next day.

The interrogation started at 10pm and by 10:30pm he had confessed to everything stated. What kind of pressure do you put on someone in 10 minutes?

lol that was not how it went down. There were several people who usually stand on the sidelines making fun of you and you defended Raffaele is how I remember it.

Ok so then he is a liar?

You agree he is lying about his alibi and he was not actually at home sending e-mails when the murder happened?

That would be really stupid. Everything in the book can be used against him. Same with Knox which is why I doubt the book will be anything but puff. Raffaele will likely be charged because of lying in the book. So why are we discussing this book as a source at all?

So then you will stop arguing that the 112 calls were placed after the police arrived given all you have is an unsourced argument that relies on testimony even though the Judge at the trial heard all the testimony and didn't agree?

This is the second or third time you've claimed you could prove this issue and you've never been able to do so with a sourced argument. It's good to know that this time you could do it, but you're not because you don't feel like it.

Just to be clear, neither argument is sourced so you'll lead by example and stop arguing the 112 calls were placed after the police arrived correct?

Spare me. You straight up lied about this issue claiming htere was a cell phone call that proved the issue. You couldn't source that. Ban yourself I guess? Now you're claiming you could prove it again, just like you did the last time, and you can't source it, again. Meanwhile the judge is on my side with the timeline.

Not to mention, common sense would tell you the police were not at the cottage when the dispatch was on the phone with them guiding them in getting directions from the cottage, ffs. It's not like I'm making a far fetched claim here. You've just twisted yourself into a ball again, the exact same way you did when you aruged the CCTV presentation was a fabrication until I sourced that it wasn't, the exact same way you argued the broken down car people didn't exist, then that they didn't testify, until I sourced both of those.

In fact I have a track record here of bringing sources that prove you to be wrong. Just in the recent days I've done this on a number of issues. You have no credibility here sorry and your "choice" not to source is par for the course.

Let's get the transcript of that hearing then. How much? Post the link.

What are you talking about. You're hinging your entire argument on the unsourced assertion that has Luca saying that they were there 8-10 minutes before Filomena got there as if he is fricking Swiss Watch. This does not come from Massei at all. Massei clearly says that they all arrived around 1. You're lost out on a limb as usual, Henry.

Hahaha! GTFO out of here. Are you for real? You could say that about any of the lies in the book to give you a free pass for why he lied. You could say that about anything the Knox PR campaign claims so you dont have to confront the lies. I would say you should be banned for this BS but youre doing such a shockingly bad job at defending them I love how you keep posting.

So DNA isn't DNA, got it.

And your source for that assertion is?

And your source for that is?

Again it would have been nice if Stefanoni had actually done the correct tests that would have told us what it actually was instead of presuming it. It also would have been nice if they didn't store the clasp improperly. At the end of the day this was still a very small sample. So what is your source that this means something?

Well I'm smart enough to know DNA isn't DNA, you told me! But I was referring to this: She never proved what it actually was and she could have. DNA has to come from somewhere amirite?

The Forensic DNA experts clearly said multiple contributors so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Do you admit that Stefanoni was wrong to ignore the one profile you admit existed?

Are the SCC Professors of Forensic Science?

But that's not what they said. They said specifically there were several minor contributors. They are Professors in the field. You are from the internet. Why should we believe you? Further, couldn't another contributor raise concerns about contamination?

I haven't actually looked much yet. The reality is I never thought this issue was in dispute by either side. I thought it was assumed that this call happened when the Caribinieri couldn't find the place, cuz ya know that's why people call for directions. I looked for a bit today and the closest I got was a guilter on TJMK that seemed to be from Italy stating that Battistelli testified at the hearing that Amanda gave him the phone and he gave them directions. There is really no reason to believe this didn't happen actually, but you're free to demand the source for it obviously.



Oh so they would have presented a brief outline now? What is your source for that? You simply have no idea what happened that day in the court but once again you purport to know they presented a brief outline. Why was it denied? This was a crucial issue in the case. All you have is some blurb from a paper that says that was a procedural hearing. It has no detail of what happened in court. The one person who reported on it that was in the court room mentions absolutely nothing about them not being able to present it or about anything being denied. He never gives any indication they didn't make the argument at all, sorry.

Henry I'm honestly embarrassed for you at this point. What I'm saying is logically sound and you apparently can't comprehend what you read. I don't know what else to say.

No, again you are wrong. I have to assume you've resorted to trolling. If there are no police at the cottage when the call is made it's 100% irrelevant if the car is the car that called for directions. The car is in the frame at 1:22 going to the cottage and we know there are no police cars of any kind doing that until the call. Do you get it now?

Yes, that's the entire argument but it can be accomplished in more than one way as I've demonstrated.

You can keep saying this but you'll continue being wrong. The hinge really is whether any Carabinieri had arrived when they called for directions. That's the whole deal right there, sorry.

If it's as clear cut as you think it is it seems pretty clear to me they'd have tried to correct the record, no?


I don't see the answer? You seem to want to get someone into the cottage before 12:51 to see them going into a room by now you must realize you need them there 4 minutes before that. Keep at it, Henry.