The ultimate conclusion of the presentation is that the calls were placed when Raf said they were. That's what Massei says too, the way he words it in the motivations report is open for interpretation. I'm simply explaining how we know that it's true.

Huh? Which part of the defense presentation are you arguing is a forgery?

OK, maybe do some googling to find an explanation of what the presentation actually represents. You'll probably get hits on this thread.

None. I have never taken the time to look at it since it is not evidence and the argument is garbage. My point was that you were trying to use a site that has been caught making at least five forgeries and is full of lies as an authority which is kind of sad.

No I base my conclusion on the fact that the defense states they definitively proved it in court in their appeal. They day it was presented in court needed to be sourced because Henry refused to acknowledge the issue was ever even discussed at the trial.

Again at the end of the day it's inconsequential because the Judge sides with the defense. What's infinitely hilarious about this is that you all are holding me to proving this was accepted by the court given what we know, but everyone is apparently find with Henry going against the prosecution-friendly judge, and with no sourcing at all saying he was wrong and that the calls were placed after the police arrived.

Nice hypocritical witch hunt going on.

They have a connection to the defense and there is no reason to believe the document isn't real as apparently you agree even as you lie and say you've never looked at it. What are the 6 forgeries?

I said five. Although I am sure there are more that I am just not aware of.

1) They have altered the bathmat picture to make it look compatible with Rudy because an unaltered picture would not match.

2) They fabricated a fake log for the interrogation.

3) They produced a fake video using footage from the CCTV camera but from a different night.

4) Their translations are not accurate including content including conclusions not present in the original Italian.

5) The map they created of the luminol traces is intentionally mislabeled.

The defense also states that AK is innocent. If we're going to just trust them we might as well skip the rest of this gong show and go right to that.

This is the difference. Henry says Massei is wrong because his reasoning of the police not seeing the calls being made doesn't account for the other testimony of people saying that AK and RS disappeared for a bit.

The point is that he clearly lays out Massei's reasoning and clearly lays out why he thinks Massei is wrong and it makes sense. Whether you believe that or agree doesn't really matter.

When you try **** like this you say things like the experts are wrong about the footprints because they didn't look at this picture and see how it obviously matches. Believing that multiple experts in their field couldn't use their eyes to see a clear match in a picture is silly. It's not accurately portraying what those experts believed nor is it a reasonable explanation of why they are wrong.

Even though you've never looked at it while claiming in other posts that it's a fabrication and you debunked it.

Apparently you are referring to the arrival of the Carabinieri. They aren't just arrving at the cottage. They are driving down the wrong side of the street with one of the officers on foot. According to the timestamp on the CCTV camera the time is 1:22 PM.

After the body was discovered the Carabinieri couldn't find the place so they called dispatch for directions and then they called the cottage, right. But you're leaving out the pertinent details here. The phone was eventually passed to the Postal Police who stayed on the phone with dispatch until the officers arrived. That call started at 1:29 and lasted 296 seconds. So at 1:34 PM, we know there are no Carabinieri at the cottage.

But wait how can that be because the CCTV shows this set of officers arriving at 1:22 PM. It means that the timestamp on the CCTV camera isn't 1:22 PM, it's at least 1:34 so the timestamp of the CCTV is slow by 10-12 minutes.

I know that logic and reason are frowned upon by your side, but try to follow along for a minute folks. If those are not the first officers to arrive at the cottage, that would mean the first officers arrived before 1:22 on the timestamp. If the first officers arrived before 1:22, and we know there are no Carabinieri at the cottage until 1:34, that would mean the CCTV camera would be even slower. If the CCTV camera is even slower that means the postal police caught by the CCTV camera arriving would have been even later.

Just to summarize, Henry, that would be bad for your argument that Raf and Amanda called the police after they arrived because you need the Postal Police to arrive earlier not later.

There is no more fail available to you on this topic now that you once again are arguing against your own position.

The CCTV camera as I've demonstrated was at least 10-12 minutes slow. The timestamp on the CCTV when we see the legs of what we believe are the postal police arriving at the driveway is 12:48. Adjusted correctly that means they arrived around 12:58, shortly before 1PM, shortly after Raf called 112, and incidentally exactly when Judge Massei says they did. He got this right.

And again just to be clear, Henry's argument is that we can't know these are the cops that called. But it's clear they are arriving at the cottage. They are driving down the wrong side of the road one is on foot and the car starts to pull into the driveway before the camera cuts off.

So again, if these are not the police in question, that means the police who did first arrive, which concluded the 296 second call that ended at 1:34, arrived before 1:22 on the timestamp. For every minute before 1:22 they arrived it is one minute later that the postal police arrived and one minute past when Raf called the police.

So we don't need to refute Henry because he's refuted himself.

Even though the defense did not appeal any sort of request denial because the judge agreed with their timeline, right.

Source?

Just stop.

I did that off the top of my head, but all my times are within 2 minutes of being right I'm sure.

I'm not being a nit about time. Source that there was no police present when the request for directions was made. If the time is off by a minute or two no one cares.

Your entire argument hinges on the first officers arriving being the officers that called for directions. So I am asking for a source on that. Do you have one?

Good lookin out!

Why don't you take some time and figure out:

a) what your argument actually is on this and then source that, meaning your BS about Massei reaching the wrong conclusion.

and

b) what your argument against the CCTV presentation actually is because you seem confused as to what you're arguing. You initially said my argument hinged on whether the police car was actually responding to the cottage, then today you said it hinged on whether or not the car is the one the dispatch was guiding in, and now you're saying it hinges on the first officers being the ones that called for directions.

Before I go find a cite for you why don't you take care of these two items. IIRC, the cite you're looking for comes from the hearing where the postal police testified. The phone call at 1:29 ended up being the postal police themselves on the phone with the dispatch until the officers arrived.

Don't get angry.

You're entire argument hinges on the call for directions coming before any police officer arriving. Without that this CCTV argument is useless. So please source that the phone call for directions happened before any police officers arrived.

Am I correct in assuming that you can't source that?

c/o PMF, the British edition of Waiting to be Heard is cancelled on the advice of Harper Collins's lawyers.

Henry, I'm not mad. I feel sorry you at this point because you're clearly unable to be objective in the slightest bit. You don't even know what your own arguments are and you've now twice in this thread on this topic argued against your own position. Your entire participation on this topic has been one giant fraud as you've repeatedly revealed you don't even understand the arguments.

I'm not going to look for sources for you when you can't even source your own arguments to tell us why the judge that is friendly to your side was wrong about this.

I'm not sure off the top of my head where the description of Battistelli's testimony originated but that is the source. He was one the phone with the Carabinieri dispatch until they arrived.

If 239 won't source anything it is time for a ban. This is getting ridiculous.

and we have our answer. Thanks for playing.

Amazing.

Time for 239 to source or stop posting

Henry, and horde: no amount of butthurt is going to get me banned. I understand you're embarrassed because you were arguing against yourself, but there is no need to have a group freakout over it. Once you've sorted out what your position on this is, let us know.

If it's that testimony at the trial proves judge Massei was wrong, you kinda need to source that like I asked you to more than once, before I'm going to go back through my research to find the relevant info from Battistelli.

Your claim that I am arguing against myself is premised on the police officer that needed directions being the first officer that arrived. There is no reason to believe that is the case. That is the obvious flaw in the CCTV argument.

So are you going to source that the first officer was the one that needed directions or not?

If you can't source that the officer that needed directions was the first officer that responded the CCTv presentation is useless. So can you?

Like I said the defence never expected this to be allowed. They knew if it was allowed as evidence it would get destroyed on cross-examination. The point was always to have Massei exclude it so that they could bitch at appeal that he refused to hear excultatory evidence at the eleventh hour.

Here's the answer to the bolded part:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtop...rt=6000#p43225

He never said it.

But none of that happened, did it. Like I said, I don't have the cite in front of me but I know the source of that information was Battistelli's testimony of what happened at the cottage that day. I've never understood this fact to be in dispute.

To be honest I'm a little bit hesitant to any searching for it considering that I've already requested that you source your argument that Massei was in error when he concluded the police arrived when Amanda and Raf said they did. The funny part is that the source of that information is in part also Battistelli's testimony. Do you see the irony there?

At least you're not arguing that the defense presentation is a fabrication from FOA anymore.