lol ... What the **** does that even mean?

I actually have no issues admitting when I'm wrong. I'm just very rarely wrong.

Two questions though.

1) If you want to attribute my belief in Knox's guilt to being stubborn we can just agree to disagree. How do you explain that the vast majority of people who are still reading this feel she is guilty?

2) In the beginning for some strange reason you were really fixated on what important people think of Knox's guilt. Alan Dershowitz has now stated both in interviews and in articles of his own that the evidence of guilt is sufficient and that a conviction is likely -- how do you reconcile that with the claim that?

I'm trying to reconcile them having iron clad proof of the time being wrong, iron clad proof of the postal police arriving, and the judge that is biased towards their side plainly disagreeing with them.

I'm not sure why someone guilty or innocent would like about a person that testified in a general way considering it's easily referenced. So your question doesn't make a lot of sense.

How do you check the time on the camera? It's not continuously running.

The clock was 10 minutes slow not fast. We know that now. That's what is difficult.

That's simply not true. A) Massei's logical gymnastics and obfuscations are proof of it and B) I've seen it discussed at length that this is how the Italians system works and that discussion was confirmed by comments I read from Alan Dershowitz who stated plainly that the trial of first instance is essentially a confirmation of the prosecution. In reality you have no idea what you're talking about at all. This was a pillar of the prosecution case and it wasn't confirmed by the prosecution friendly judge. That's the reality of the situation.

Consider what you are saying here. You are saying there is foolproof concrete evidence the clock was 10 minutes fast. You are saying there is foolproof concrete evidence of the arrival of the postal police but Massei just ignored it. Literally irrefutable video evidence was ignored. Yeah, I don't think so.

No my reasoning is that the defense argument is right, the police were wrong, and the judge sided with the defense. It's also my reasoning is that if the police really had what you're claiming they had the judge would have sided with them.

This is awesome. How do you think the clock works? If you thought about it (or knew anything about computers) you'd know that the camera has an internal clock. Have you never noticed that even if you turn off your computer your clock is right when you turn it back on?



I'm on a tropical beach. We know that now.


...


**** - didn't work.

You are misunderstanding the situation. This is not mathematics so there are no proofs.

The situation as it stands is the following.

The clock is ten minutes fast is the only evidence presented in court. This is based on a technician's determination by comparing the CCTV time to the accurate time.

Bongiorno raised the alternative way of attempting to calibrate the time using the phone call but all of that is based on a hypothetical to ask a question. Bongiorno herself can state the time of the call as that is evidence from the phone records which are attested to as accurate by another witness who collected them but she can't enter the argument of connecting the car and the phone record as evidence -- only a witness can do that. She asks Barbadori and he says he did not do anything with these.

The purpose of Bongiorno's questioning is to plant the idea that Barbadori should have done this. To plant the idea that there was an alternative and that the alternative might have come to a different result which make Barbadori look less credible -- something he doesn't need much help with since he is not well prepared and comes off badly. In the end though this is still not evidence just a lawyer intimating that evidence exists and attempting to hurt the credibility of a witness.

If the defence wanted this to be evidence they would need to put up an expert and by asking that expert questions have the argument becomes part of the evidence. It appears that the defence choose to not do this. This is based on a completely lack of any evidence that it happened despite attempts to find it and more importantly because they asked at the eleventh hour for permission to do so -- thus logically implying that they had not already done so.

This request to enter the argument into evidence brings us to Oct 9 2009 when there was a procedural meeting of the court to request additional evidence and experts be allowed. Massei disallowed this. So the postal.pdf which was prepared to show the court a glimpse of what this new evidence would establish was only used at the procedural meeting of the court and not at the actual trial.

It is certainly possible that if Massei had allowed this new evidence that the new evidence would establish that the clock was slow. We will never know because the witness was not allowed to testify and more importantly the witness was not subject to cross examination.

The known facts though make the possibility that the postal.pdf would have been convincing extremely unlikely. There are two reasons for that. The first is that despite Barbadori being a shaky witness the simplicity of the method used by the technician to calibrate the CCTV clock does not allow for error. I simply can't imagine how someone would screw up something so simple.

The second reason is that for the defence to establish their argument they must establish that the car in the video is the car that required directions. I don't see how that is possible. There is simply no way that can be done. Maybe the defence figured out a way that I can't think of but we have no evidence of that.

As such we have to conclude that Bongiorno making the hypothetical argument in cross-examination was intended simply to create the appearance that Barbadori did something wrong but failing to pursue this avenue. Bongiorno likely knows that the argument doesn't stand up if examined but for the purposes of damaging credibility it doesn't have to -- juries are not thinking about this and they just register that there was something the witness could have done that he didn't and that is bad.

With the postal.pdf again the reason for requesting it was legal strategy. The defence had already come to terms with the fact that the verdict was going to be guilty. As such the strategy changes to one of having Massei make as many procedural decisions as possible. Every procedural decision and every piece of evidence excluded increases the opportunities for the appeal. As such they asked to allow the postal.pdf knowing it almost certainly would not be allowed but hoping to gain that refusal as something they could object to later.

lol.

Please don't ever comment on anything technical or scientific again.

No.

Please see my post above where I explain this in detail. That post is a very accurate description and assessment of the situation and the final word on it. There is nothing more to discuss unless we get more information from some yet undiscovered source.

I have someone who is considered an ultimate authority on legal matters.

There is no one even remotely respectable on the Knox side.

I don't read tabloids. My assessment if from reading transcripts and motivations. I base everything on primary sources.

You read shill sites.

On what grounds would we consider your view to matter relative to mine?


Source?

If it was just the one witness then I would be more willing to have doubts. The problem for the argument is that there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that Curatolo is creditable. There is reasons to doubt him as well but those are considerably less persuasive. You don't see this because you get all your information from shill sites so have been brainwashed.

You know why Massei reasoned that the clock must be slow, it was because he couldn't imagine how the postal police hadn't witnessed the calls if they were already at the cottage. It's been pointed out to you dozens of times.

You look stupid when you claim that Massei was so biased that anything he agrees with the defense on must be indisputable fact! You've dedicated tens of thousands of words to rubbishing Massei's verdict and reasoning, and yet the one time he agrees with the defense his opinion is the ultimate authority? Don't you see how ludicrous this is?

As for not understanding how the clock works, I'm going to be generous and assume you let PFUNK use your account to post that.

Just to be accurate Massei never mentions anything about the clock being slow or fast.

He concludes the 112 calls had to happen before the postal police arrived because he can't imagine them not noticing the calls being made.

This is frickin hilarious if it's true. Consider these were public documents the entire time. I joined the forum and downloaded them after a little finagling with my browser. LOL SHAMED!!!

Sorry Henry, you've corrected me on that before.

I'm now keen to hear how 239 "reconciles" the testimony of the CCTV expert who looked at the time stamp on the cctv, then looked at the actual time, and used some sort of hocus pocus magic (that some people apparently call "subtraction") to determine the difference, and found that the time stamp was 10 minutes fast. Presumably the expert is either an idiot, a liar, or the victim of an elaborate hoax.

This is seriously so dumb. You in one breath say that she can state the time of the call because it was in evidence but then say she is making up the fact that the Carabinieri were not there when this call takes place.

Just to remind you because apparently you can't reason... at all, if what she's saying is true, it's over for you. If there are no Carabinieri at the cottage at 1:29 the CCTV clock is slow, period end of story. I have a feeling Battistelli testified to this as was indicated by the discussion on the guilter site I showed you. It would be nice to have that transcript.

So again, just so I can be clear on your and Henry's position. Judge Massei knows that there is ironclad indisputable video evidence showing the arrival of the postal police at 12:38, but doesn't believe it?

You can't have it both ways, sorry. You can't say "LOL, hurrdurr they checked the clockz it's impossible to mess up" and then turn around and say "The judge ignored incontrovertable video evidence."

My understanding is he disregarded the time stamp, the police officers' own recorded notes and the testimony of at least 3 witnesses when he declared that the call could not have taken place while the postal police were present.

She never states that Carabinieri were not there. The question is could this method be used. At no point does she ever say it has been used. These are very subtle differences but they happen in courtrooms all the time. I don't expect you to be familiar with this nor do I expect someone you understand but I assure you this makes perfect sense.

Of course you can. You keep approaching this with the mistaken view that the trier of fact has perfect knowledge and does not weigh things differently. You can have inconsistent positions. It happens all the time.

Basically. He focuses on the one thing -- the inability of the calls being made without being witnessed and ignores everything else because he feels the inability to make the calls without being observed is by far the most important factor.

Massei screws up a lot with the calls. He thinks there was only one call and that Raffaele was on hold while there were two calls.

That seems illogical to me. Probably makes perfect sense to you guys.

Maybe the guy who checked the time just made a simple mistake and got the direction of the offset wrong.

I can't figure out what he's even talking about here (bolding mine):

The prosecution would have to know that at 8:41 that couldn't possibly be Meredith. Doesn't make much sense.

This is good enough for me sorry .

If that is true you're done.

239, could you enlighten us to your theory of how the camera keeps time when its shut off?

No, sorry. The argument that the judge knew there was unassailable video evidence of the arrival of the postal police that matched with their testimony and ignored it is beyond moronic.

What I meant was that this camera only activated when the motion sensor was tripped. That's my understanding anyway. So I wouldn't think it would simply be a matter of looking at a video screen with a running time counter and then comparing it to the real time. I could be wrong though and you can view it that way. If that was the case the only thing that makes sense is the tech made a simple mistake and stated the offset of the camera incorrectly.

Haven't you yourself called Massei a moron several dozen times ITT? Why is he suddenly incapable of making a mistake?

He was tasked with verifying the difference between the time that appears on the CCTV, and the actual time. If he made a "simple mistake" and stated it wrongly, he'd be a ****ing ******.

Oh and btw, the fact that the camera's recording functionality is activated by a motion sensor does not generally affect the performance of the clock. If it did, the clock would most likely be out by a good deal more than ten minutes!