If we're completely discounting witness testimony because of inconsistencies such as buses that weren't running and other activity that most likely happened the day before, are we still happy to ignore Knox's failure to remember where she was or what she did the night her friend was murdered, and her multiple changes of story?

Or shall we agree that the logical way to process such evidence is to assign probabilities to the likelihood of its reliability, and move on?

They don't need to be, but I believe they are.

I think everyone is in agreement with this except PFUNK.

What do you think of the footage then?

If that was a figure compatible with Knox that had similar shoes to ones she'd owned you'd be all over it.

Please try to read with greater care. You completely misread what I wrote.

Except if you knew the facts you'd know the second witness contacted his lawyer before the body was found. He didn't know about the murder as it likely had not happened yet.

No. I'm not you.

The footage is useless. I always assumed that the versions I saw online were just low quality and that the actual video was better -- it isn't.

They discussed the mystery girl on the video and this is what the conclusion was -- we can't make out any features of her face, you can't tell is she is wearing pants or a skirt, you can't tell if she has long or short hair. The quality if ****.

Pfunk, don't expect Henry to acknowledge that you've clearly proved him to be uninformed/lying about the buses thing. He'll gloss right over it as usual.

No. I said that the information that the buses were not running was not introduced until the second trial. That is important because by then Curatolo was greatly diminished. Had they asked him the first time around they might have cleared it up.

I don't think it proves anything but given Guede's statements and the timing I think that's probably him. As far as Meredith arriving home I think that's probably her as well based on the timing.

I find it impossible to believe however that if that was compatible with Amanda you'd say it's useless.

What's been posted? Definitive evidence presented and accept at trial that the CCTV was 10 minutes slow and not fast? Proof that the car on the CCTV was the one that called? Link to post?

I don't dodge anything, I am quite bemused by your position.

Or:

- It wasn't presented as evidence or the 10 minutes slow established through testimony.
- He didn't find the presentation compelling, as I don't?

I'm not claiming anything is definitively established. WTF is wrong with you? I'm claiming that a police technician testified that he went out the CCTV and determined that it was 10 minutes fast. I claim this is evidence. Do you disagree? I'm also claiming that this determination fits with the timelines given by multiple independent witnesses perfectly. Do you disagree?

It's already been established - from the testimony of Filomena and Amanda's own mother - that she lied to both of them about having called the police when she hadn't. A panicked call to the police in an innocent narrative to cover this lie (perhaps they were lazy? Pathological liars?) would be consistent. It would also be consistent with Raf's confession that he did indeed call after they arrived. Are you unaware you need to create a sensible narrative for this stuff in your innocence scenario, man? No wonder you've never posted your innocence narrative if this is the quality of thought that's going into it. How have you not run this through in your own mind? Do you just partly discredit or open the door to discrediting each piece of evidence and then forget about them? You have to explain the weight of the evidence somehow, and that includes the probabilistic argument.

Nonsense. It's strong evidence, but it's a tiny fraction of the strength of the totality of the evidence. Again, you appear not to appreciate that an innocence narrative requires that they be rather idiotic pathological liars to explain their behavior - most of it self inflicted. As such another data point doesn't make much difference.

Let me put it another way so this is clear to you: If someone said they called the police before but actually called after, and there was no other evidence of participation in a murder, could they ever be found guilty? No, absolutely not.

If there was a bloody footprint definitively matching the suspect in the victim's blood, and evidence of a cleanup, but no other evidence, could they ever be found guilty? Yes, absolutely.

See the relative strength of the evidence? That you think this is definitive if proven and yet the proven bathmat print is not definitive is weird.
If you have an English translation let me know. I cannot read Italian and Google translation just doesn't work for me.

Again please learn to read and think.

No one said anything about being set up. It is just something that happened.

The defence didn't do the required research the first time around so they didn't present the proper evidence with respect to this witness. In the States that would have been it. In Italy they got a second shot but because when you are old it is not uncommon for your faculties to slip the cross-examination was of someone who was much less capable of communicating what he meant.

It is compatible with Amanda. In fact originally everyone thought it was Amanda. It is also compatible with every non-fat average hight light skinned girl in Italy.

RockSlickz,

What is your position of physical evidence disproving their alibi? Specifically Amanda and Raffaele claim to be on the computer but we know there was no computer or internet activity -- I assume using the logic from above this means that they are lying?

What about the claim that they slept until 10am? Again we have a phone being turned on and extensive computer activity hours earlier. So again they are lying?

This isn't a trial and the car on the CCTV doesn't need to be the one that called for directions, sorry.


I don't dodge anything, I am quite bemused by your position.


Eh, what presentation? Try to follow along. Your side is trolling, claiming that hurr durr it's obvious that the clock was 10 minutes fast. Your claim is the judge did what with this information? That's what I'm asking about. You can't have it both ways and say that this is cut and dry but the judge went against the cut and dry evidence as well as the police testimony because hr forgot. So now not only have you ignored the question you've completely obfuscated the topic. Bravo.


Please explain that to the rest of your side who are trolling claiming this is LOL clockz. This is a videotape that shows the postal police arriving. What time is it on the clock and why if there is so much evidence that the time is 10 minutes slow does the judge not agree, especially considering he is biased towards the prosecution? What say you?

I think it's pretty clear that what happened that morning is pretty much what they said happened. They went there looked around and called the police and were confused when they showed up so soon because they thought they were the Carabinieri.


Maybe if you aren't objective. If you are objective, this would have been smoking gun stuff. If it were true, I'd reevaluate my position.

Like the Scott Peterson case, that type of evidence would go a long way towards getting a conviction.

That's because the footprint wasn't proven to be Raf's. You're free to ignore the reason that is.

I'm talking about the footage of Guede. You should probably argue the other figure is Amanda considering the time is 9:01. Unfortunately you can't do that because according to you it's 8:41 and we know she was at Raf's then.

We know this because...a witness was completely reliable about their time?

As for the Massei motivation stuff, which is basically what your post is, I have explained it endlessly and you seem unable to get around your belief that Massei wouldn't have ruled against the 112 call without considering the CCTV evidence - which you haven't even established was entered or demonstrated to be 10 minutes slow and despite the fact that he didn't mention it - and finding it definitive. I find that position...odd.

So let me get this straight: had the CCTV been turned off that day, you could possibly switch from innocence to guilt?

Based on what?

A late call doesn't establish guilt on its own. Are you saying that you believe there is other evidence against them that if added to a call would be enough for you? What is this evidence?

Are you saying that everything you have argued against you do not really believe? You would throw out the fact:

- That there is far too little evidence of their presence in the murder room for you?
- That you find it highly improbable to impossible that three people newly met would rape and kill together?

You throw all this out based on a phone call explicable through innocence narratives? I do not think you are thinking this through, 239, or else you simply do not grasp the variability in human behavior and the fact that people sometimes do inexplicable things for dumb reasons.

You are basically demonstrating evidence evaluation heuristics that are really messed up.

Hellmann's decision to only put Curatolo through new questioning and to reject the requests for the other witnesses was informed by Curatolo's dementia. If Curatolo was fine Hellmann would have allowed the bus evidence but would not have had Curatolo himself testify.

That does not make it a set up. A set up would assume that the defence knew of the busses at the first trial but withheld confronting Curatolo on the hopes that by the time this got to appeal he had aged to the point of having weaker faculties.

No. We just have you making an ass of yourself. You really need to stop.

Anyway please answer the question on them lying about the alibi and how that impacts their guilt or innocence.

I don't believe he would. In fact I don't believe he was allowed to.

Anyway you seemed to have missed this

There's simply no way 239 is as stupid as he appears to be at times. PFUNK is an imbecile obviously, but 239 is clearly a smart, articulate guy. I refuse to accept that 239 believes some of the stuff he's written in the past few days. The complete inability to evaluate any evidence beyond ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACT or LOL DISREGARD shows either a severe lack of logical reasoning or a deliberately dishonest intent to deceive, and while PFUNK is most likely guilty of the former I'm sure 239 is the latter.

FatTony falls somewhere in between, as he's not as functionally ******ed as PFUNK but he lacks the communication skills of 239. He's most likely just here to distract the thread from any meaningful discussion of detail occasionally, whereas 239 is hell-bent on presenting a distorted pro-innocence view of every single minor detail.

The witness testimony and phone records.

It's difficult to believe that especially considering your sides contention that it was established to match the postal police testimony by the tech who checked the time on the internet, hurr durr Clockz!

We know the argument was brought to the court's attention and we have the defense stating it definitively, that's what we know.

Not necessarily, no.

You can't be this dumb. If they had called the police and said what they said after the Postal Police had already arrived, there would be no credible reason for doing that. You seem to think that could be explained in an innocence narrative, but I can't see how it could be. That's all I mean.

There is no innocence narrative that would include those calls being placed after the police arrived and then lying about it. That's the point.

239,

I'm going to give you an example of how evidence and questioning works. Maybe this will help you. This is from Jodi Arias.

Defence Lawyer -- What criteria did you use to evaluate Jodie and determine she is not a battered wife?

Witness -- I used the six criteria as set out in the research of Dr. Bob.

Defence Lawyer -- And this criteria told you that Jodie is not a battered wife?

Witness -- It told me that she does not meet the criteria for the defence of battered wife.

Defence Lawyer -- Are you aware that Dr. Bob has abandoned the use of the six criteria and now uses a global approach?

Witness -- That doesn't sound accurate.

Defence Lawyer -- So you are not aware of this?

Witness -- No I said that is not accurate.

Do you see what happened here? The defence asked a question but they never established that Dr. Bob has changed from the six criteria to this global approach. They just asked questions implying it.

If the defence lawyer wanted to establish that Dr. Bob has changed his method the lawyer would have two options.

1) Hand the witness research material and have the witness first identify it and then read it into the record. The lawyer can not read it themselves. They have to ask the witness to read it and then ask questions about what was read.

2) They can put up a rebuttal witness and put up an expert of their own who would testify as to what Dr. Bob's research says.

I don't think this is difficult to understand and to be honest I think you already understand it and are playing stupid but with this illustration I hope you will stop playing dumb and understand the difference between establishing evidence and asking questions.

If Massei agreed with the defense that the clock was slow, why did the defense make it it an issue at appeal. Why would they seek to revisit an issue decided in their favor?

I've seen them say they did more "cleaning" but irrc he ran out of credit on his phone and had to top it up with a credit card.

Why didn't they just go ahead with the planned day trip and let someone else discover the body? Robyn would have turned up that afternoon wanting her book back and found the front door open. Then they would have thought she was the killer.

Is there going to be a new trial now?

It seems the time on the CCTV is a big point of contention, so will it be possible to re-hear evidence on both sides about that?

Re-testing the unit itself would not be possible, but if they kept timestamped video from around the days of the murder, it is conceivable that they could get a time from some known event. There's no sound right? Shame, as church bells are pretty regular things.

Maybe a postman passing who's route is recorded on GPS? Yeah, stretching, but something may be possible.

Also, presumably the tech who found the clock to be fast took notes? They could be given more scrutiny, right?

The defense (well, the defense posters here) appears to have a coherent argument, that wasn't heard in the first trial (? I think, not sure). So this argument will get a chance to be presented in the new trial? And the prosecution can rebut it as they see fit.

No, it's largely irrelevant. I've said above that even if it the call was after the police arrival, they could still be plausibly innocent. It's not that relevant at all. The pro Knox people like to talk about it because it's a good talking point to distract from the mountain of actually relevant evidence and questions related to that.

239 claims - rather strongly - that it was heard in the first trial and was the reason for Massei (the first trial judge) deciding that the calls occurred before the police arrived, despite Massei not mentioning it as the reason and actually mentioning another reason.

Their argument is perfectly coherent if the CCTV is the only evidence and had not been checked by the tech and found to be 10 minutes fast. Instead we have four witness testimonies establishing timelines only consistent with arrival before, police notebooks with multiple entries, and the testimony of the tech which are all in perfect accord that they arrived before. Against that we have the CCTV whose time has not been established, and to the extent that it has been established by someone checking it, shown to be fast and not slow.

239's argument seems perfectly reasonable. But he needs to do one of the following:

- Establish that the CCTV evidence was in fact entered at trial and considered and hence formed the basis for Massei who doesn't mention it.
- Establish the arrival time of the Carabineiri, although to do that he has to use testimony from people who all have to be highly unreliable on time
- Establish that the car that called was the one on the CCTV

I don't know why he hasn't laid these things out if he believes he can show them. Until then there's no reason to throw out all the evidence that the police arrived before - evidence that crucially includes Raf quickly admitting that he called the police after when confronted with the times of the calls, and then throwing Amanda under a bus claiming he lied for her and she went out that night - which led to her quickly implicating Lumumba and the arrest of them both.

The consistency of all these points is remarkable and the unproven claims about the CCTV are insufficient to push them aside.