I'd honestly never read that claim and you just threw it in there. There seems to be some confusion over this call by both Filomena and Candace. In her book she doesn't mention Filomena saying that. Filomena said it was the third call, but it was actually the fourth call. The IIP quote definitely comes from Candace and it's almost the same in her book without that part. I don't know why she omitted it. At that point they weren't at the cottage according to them. I'm not sure what the phone towers show. Candace also mentions that on an earlier call Filomena said she told Amanda to call the police but that Paola heard the call and said she didn't.

I'm not sure what to make of it. It's not as if Filomena and Amanda could communicate that well either with the language better.

I still have to wonder with all of this evidence why you think the judge ignored it?

You must be joking. Raf had been pushing up against the door the day of the murder. He'd been to cottage several times in the preceding days, etc. If the clasp had been meticulously collected and documented the day the body was discovered you'd have a much better argument. Unfortunately the processing of this crimescene and especially this item is a poster child for how not to do it. There were people in and out of the murder room tracking in and out god knows what from other surfaces in the cottage and the clasp was literally lost, dirtied, and malformed.

It's a common argument here that the defense needed to prove transfer which is insane. Why would anyone need to document collection and chain of custody of forensic evidence if the burden was on the defense to prove that it was contaminated?

I'll go with the Independent expert report.

There is almost no point to respond to you because you consistently misrepresent what my positions actually are. No one had to be out to get anyone. They suspected them immediately. This would be standard procedure because they found the body and then we have quotes from the police saying he *knew* Amanda was guilty because of a provocative hip swivel when she put on foot booties. Due to circumstances out of everyone's control and someone in their control the conditions were ripe for confirmation bias here. If you can't acknowledge that's the case even if you feel they were guilty, you simply have no reasoned view.

Because his case was crumbling apart and he "knew" he was guilty.

Of course not.

What would you really do?

Because at the end of the day his trial is essentially a confirmation of the prosecution.

Honest answer: If I was accused of a murder I didn't commit, and I had no alibi for the night of the murder, and there was forensic evidence linking me to the scene of the crime, I'd tell the truth about my activities that night and get a good lawyer. I guess I'd put my faith in justice, however naive that sounds. Of course I'd expect my lawyer to question everything and discredit everyone in an attempt to clear my name. But I certainly wouldn't be making up BS stories about playfully pricking the murder victim with a knife, nor would I decide to lie and say I witnessed the murder and blame a completely innocent third party.

This is kind of irrelevant, of course. It's not like the forensic evidence is all the prosecution have in this case. If Raf and Amanda are really innocent, they've run insanely badly with so many of the circumstances of Meredith's murder all seeming to implicate them.

you are becoming unhinged bro

I love 239. What happened to PFunk (or whoever he came back as)?

Let's find some common ground here. I agree that it's motion activated. If intimated that anything passing on the street 100% triggers I certainly didn't mean to. At the same time there are frames in the CCTV where it isn't clear that anything in the garage triggered it so it's at least plausible that cars or people getting close to the garage might trigger it. Do you have specific knowledge of the location of the sensor and it's field of view? Honest question, not snarky.

Well let's be clear here. Are you arguing that the defense didn't do it? I've always assumed this to be the case and it's definitively stated in the discussion that the postal police ended up on the phone with the police dispatch until the officers arrived. If you are arguing that I haven't done it, based on your burden, I would say that yes I have not sourced the specific testimony from Amanda, Raf, the postal police, the dispatch, or the 4 kids at the cottage that would indicate whether or not that was the case.

But let's be clear about it. Not that you need to disprove anything, but are you arguing that there is any evidence that is not the case? Again I'm not trying to shift the burden but rather seeking to clarify the positions here. If it could be established that the Carabineiri arrived during or after that phone call, you'd agree it establishes the timestamp is slow right?


I don't think even you realize what you'd been arguing, sorry. You at one point were arguing that we couldn't know if the car was even going to the cottage even though one of the officers is on foot and the car is clearly driving down the wrong side of the road and starts to veer into the driveway. I'm not sure you ever stated that it hadn't been sourced whether or not the call for directions happened with no officers onsite.

Because I think it was done. I think it's common sense that after reporting a murder dispatch would be routing all cars in the proximity there and that this wouldn't have happened when the police were already there. It's also been discussed enough that it seems to be just assumed that this was the case based on the testimony of everyone there. I'm looking into it.

Yes, I think they accused him of it though. It'd be great if we had transcripts or recordings of those interrogations. Hopefully they'll surface.

OK, so let's walk through this. The CCTV timestamp first shows the car at 12:36, but you are arguing this is actually 12:26 based on the testimony of the postal police right? The car is then seen driving by again but now it's 12:41 on the timestamp which you are arguing is 12:31. The legs we believe are the officer are seen at 12:48 which you are saying is 12:38.

So your argument is what? That the judge forgets that one of the boys said they were hiding in their room when these phone calls would have been made? He just brushes it aside? I don't see how you find that to be a credible position, sorry. He doesn't even leave it open and say the prosecution said this, the defense says that, I think this. Again, I think there is more to the story.

Oh ok, that is your argument. Massei simply forgot about this testimony? Do you really expect anyone to believe that considering how damning this evidence would have been? No one believes that and there is no reason to believe that is the case. Why didn't the prosecution try to re-argue this at the appeal?

Just to be clear you're basing your timing solely on when the postal police said they arrived to triangulate the CCTV camera time. Do you have any testimony to suggest the postal police were separated from Amanda and Raf for the time necessary to make these phone calls? The testimony you're relying on comes from someone who wasn't there at this time.

It's been speculated that he's sharing his account with some other moron shill.

Much like the CCTV video the reason this can not lead to contamination has been explained to you multiple times.

It was explained by both Truthsayer and myself within the last ten days.

It was covered in depth in December especially around the 18th to 24th.

Previous to that I know I have explained it to you at least two other times and likely more.

So why after having something explained to you four times using sources from forensic science you are now still advancing this position that you know to be false?


As I explained just a few days ago.

The defence does not have to prove that contamination happened.

The defence does need to establish the much lower standard of questioning the reliability of the bra clasp by providing an argument for why contamination is a reasonable concern.

The current defence argument is "anything is possible" and Hellmann accepted that. The SCC will specifically state that is not acceptable.

At the next trial the defence is going to need to make an argument for what we should be concerned about contamination. If they fail to do that then the bra clasp will be accepted as valid evidence.

I have invited you to attempt such an argument but you have refused on multiple times. You just throw a temper tantrum and insist that it is contamination. That is not going to cut it.

You are welcome to see what any new defence experts come up with but I doubt they will have much luck. The science on this is very clear and the bra clasp is reliable.

If you decide to wait until what the defence comes up with you have to drop the claim that contamination has been established -- it hasn't. It might be established with a good argument but that argument does not currently exist.

I am also confident that no good argument will ever be made because if it could be made I would see that argument. I have reviewed and explained the science to you and no good argument can be made.

This is gone. The SCC will specifically state that the independent experts were idiots. They will not be kind about this. I would put the odds of C&V getting charged at about 20%. The odds that they are ever allowed to be experts in a criminal case is 0%.

lol please document this.

The reason they knew Knox was involved and lying.

Every single civilian at the police station told the police that their interactions with Amanda made them suspect her. She knew things about the murder she shouldn't know unless involved. Their stories didn't match or make sense. They behaved like guilty people.

I think at the end of the day, that is essentially what happened here after the series of events that happened the night of the 5th. Raf it seems was under tremendous pressure to implicate Amanda and stuck to the truth.

False statements happen though, so even though you think in a vacuum you wouldn't produce one which I also would say, it doesn't seem that insane that a girl barely out of her teens in a foreign country might react a different way. As far as Raf's diary entry I sort of have the same response. In a vacuum, I'd be calm and fight for my innocence, but in prison wrongfully charged with murder and the prosecutor produces impossible evidence it's hard to say how you'd react. At the end of the day none of that was ever brought forward, it was diary.

There's no question that was the case even if you believe they were guilty. That's one of the main intrigues of the case for me. I've always said that it would have been difficult not to get caught up in confirmation bias considering what the initial evidence was.

The problem is once Guede surfaces all bets should have been off.

There is no common ground only facts. This was well established that the camera was triggered by motion entering or exiting the parking structure. The purpose of the camera is to capture who enters and leaves for security purposes. This was well established and lamented because if the camera ran more often we'd have more video.

This was never allowed as evidence so the defence never argued anything and the prosecution never cross-examined anything. If they had it would play out exactly as it did here.

There is weaker stuff but nothing major would have been excluded from the trial.

No. If you can't do that the argument is a non-starter but even if you manage to establish that there are still additional issues with the CCTV argument. It is just a really ****ty argument which is why the defence never used it.


What part do you deny.

1) Massei stated very clearly his reason for concluding the calls happened before was based on the postal police not seeing the calls.

2) The testimony that Knox and Raffaele were in Knox's room at exactly the time the calls were made would invalidate Massei's reasoning.

#1 has been documented a dozen times. #2 is just simple logic. So I am confused about what you are having trouble with.

WTF?

On Nov 5th Raffaele came to the police station at 10pm and by 10:30pm had told the police

1) That everything he has told them before was a lie.
2) That he lied because Knox asked him to lie.
3) That he was home alone and Knox was out until 1am
4) That he wasn't certain but he thinks that Knox returned at 1am wearing different clothing
5) That Knox needed to borrow plastic bags in the morning before returning to her home to do laundry.
6) That they called the emergency number after the police had already arrived.

Also this claim that Raffaele was under a lot of pressure is not really fitting with the intercepted call between Raffaele and his dad where he claims the police are idiots who can't figure out anything and that he had a knife on his person during the questioning.

Being under stress also doesn't fit with the account of Nov 5th where when asked to come to the police station to clear up some inconsistencies Raffaele says he'll get around to it after dinner. This was hardly a person who seemed afraid of the police.

Henry, I think you need to figure out what exactly you're arguing here. I'm going through list of events. Please explain what your argument is on this, thanks.

What time are you trying to say this is. Massei states this was a little after one. For their testimony about Amanda and Raf going into his room to mean anything in the relation to these calls they need to get there before the phone calls right? Are you arguing they got there before the phone calls? Because Amanda called her mom at 12:47 and no one saw that. Raf made three calls starting at 12:50 and no one saw those.

Again Massei states they all arrived at essentially the same time. Where are you getting 8-10 minutes? And even if that is true that wouldn't get them into the house before 12:47 to see Amanda placing a call that no one saw her make.

Yeah no doubt. I mean people can vary based on sleep, mood, etc, but the difference between last night and today is amazing.

No

p25

The word after does not appear and from Marco and Luca's testimony we know that the reported it as a little before 1pm and as 8-10 minutes before the girls who report their arrival as 1pm. The latter is confirmed by the police notes.

Since you fabricated the claim that Massei said after 1pm when he actually said around 1pm the argument that you made based on that is wrong.

If you accept the police notes and the testimony of the four people in the cottage being accurate they would have been in Knox's room from about 12:50 to 1:00pm which covers the time the phone calls were made.

I said I'd look in to your sources and I intend to, this thread is a timesink as it is.

Let me ask you this. What in your opinion as a forensic DNA expert would actually constitute a reasonable concern for contamination? The essential tossing of the crime scene and no documentation of the item as it moved who knows where getting visibly altered in appearance after weeks is not reasonable? What is? Further how do you explain the experts asserting there are other minor contributors if not by some type of contamination?

OK.

I don't insist that it is, I insist that it's laughable to argue that the collection and circumstances surrounding the clasp weren't indicative of contamination. We must have different definitions.

We understand that anything that indicates guilt no matter the circumstances is reliable in your view. You don't need to restate it but thanks.

.

Hmmm I thought you said it didn't have to be established, just the reasonable possibility had to be?

OK.

It will be interesting to see if the gloves come off on both sides.

It's funny every time you laugh or get all emotional and ask for a source I know you're wrong.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...pressions?vm=r

Wait what? What story didn't match? I don't find it surprising that after the fact people viewed everything through the prism of guilt.

I was just asking you what your position is. You don't do a very good job of stating your position or explaining it.

Until yesterday, I was of the impression you were arguing a conspiracy to railroad Amanda Knox (for whatever reason). A lot of pro-Knox supporters (Fat Tony especially) spoke a lot about the conspiracy to get Amanda. Since you never corrected their statements or stated that you disagreed with those statements, I assumed you argued that as well.

So, I am glad that is cleared up: You believe that from the beginning, Amanda and Raf were the suspects and that what follows was just confirmation bias.

That is fine. With this going on, however, I wonder why the police did not spend extra energy in trying to clear Patrick. If the investigators "knew" it was Amanda and Raf, they would also "know" that Amanda was just setting up Patrick and they would have allowed him the opportunity to present his alibi instead of sit in jail for two weeks.

I also suppose that it took quite a bit for the prosecutor to really start looking for Rudy since he was so focused on Amanda and Raf. I guess the prosecutor's feelings about convicting Amanda and Raf were so strong that he considered his "case to be crumbling" when Rudy emerged as a rock-solid suspect.

Since one of your themes of the day is "what is logical," I would suppose it is more logical for a confirmation bias to be present in cases where no new suspects emerge from the point where the original suspect is identified as opposed to a case where two new suspects are identified and one of them is definitely tied to the crime.

What you are arguing for here is something far beyond "confirmation bias." You are arguing that a number of professionals from a variety of agencies blew their tops and became obsessed with pinning this crime on Amanda (and Raf) even once Rudy (a perfect suspect - especially for political/p.r. purposes) emerged.

Good watching out!

That's because he's refused to lay out his position in any more detail than "AK is innocent". He's been asked numerous times but he's always refused. Sometimes explicitly "No, I won't do that" and sometimes by just telling people that they don't understand his position with no further elaboration.

For the leading poster in this ridiculous thread the only explanation I can think of is that he knows he'd get destroyed if he had to defend his position. So instead he relies on just trying to confuse specific arguments in this thread. It's much easier to confuse the issue on a piece-meal basis than it is to write up a comprehensive overview of how you view the case that you can then be held to in the future.

OK, where are the thresholds where the trigger is initiated and where is it documented. That's the fact I'm trying to sort out.

There's really no point it trying to engage you in a reasoned way on this. The reality is I don't have the testimony from 2/6/2009 that would explain the circumstances surrounding the call in question. That's all we really need. You're acting is if it doesn't exist? Weird.

What is the weaker stuff that indicates that the police were already there when the dispatch called for directions?

So let me get this straight you're saying my argument hinges on whether or not the call was made with no officers present. Now you're saying even if there were no officers present the argument is still invalid? Why? And more importantly, wtf?

What part do you deny.

First where is their testimony in the Massei report? Further, you're failing to explain what actually happened here. He forgot about the testimony? It's not like he didn't know this was a big piece of evidence right? You can't reconcile your talking points with what actually happened here in any meaningful way.

A plausible source and plausible transport mechanism.


Not even close.


Do you know the difference between a reporter and a blogger? You just linked to an item written by a blogger who doesn't speak Italian and never attended a day of the trial yet he has a quote I've never seen mentioned by any of the reporters who actually covered the trial. With a quick search it is it appears Candace Dempsey who is a know shill is the only source for this. Everyone started reporting it after she said it yet again she was never in Italy and speaks no Italian.


Knox's version of events for Nov 1 is missing a roughly 10km walk. Knox states that they went straight to Raffaele's apartment. Raffaele says they went for a walk into an area that is known to us because a lot of the bars / clubs that show up are in the vicinity. It is strange that they would be off on something like this. My theory is that they took Meredith's money to buy drugs and Knox not wanting to explain why they walked so far for nothing changed the story to insist they went straight to Raffaele's.

The much more important divergence is on the morning the body was discovered. Knox's version to the police has her calmly returning to Raffaele's with the mop and they clean the mess and make breakfast. During breakfast Knox mentions the strange things at the cottage and while discussing it with Raffaele the concern grows. In Raffaele's version Knox comes running back to his house in a panic after discovering the strange things. Obviously these two can not both of happened and this is a really significant difference so the police knew they were lying about something right from the start.

The CCTV video was never discussed in court. It was only in a procedural hearing on Oct 9 2009 and the judge rejected it. I fail to see how they could have asked questions about this theory in February and more important why they allowed the March 9 CCTV expert to go unchallenged.


If you can establish that no officers were present when the call was made that doesn't mean the CCTV argument is valid. You would still need to connect that the car on the video is the police. There are no markings that make this obvious. You would be a lot closer to getting to where you need to get but not there. The entire argument hinges on pinning a specific phone call to a partial picture of a car. It will never be a strong argument. For this to be a strong argument you'd need the CCTV video to have something like #XX and also know that #XX is the police officers that called for directions. Failing that it is just a matter of how weak the argument is. Right now it is complete garbage. With more substance you can get it to something to consider but it will never be conclusive given what the defence has to work with.


This was a very long trial. Raffaele's lawyer was a member of parliament and pregnant so they had to work around her schedule which meant the court met very infrequently -- once of twice a week usually on Saturday. The Italians shut down for the summer and then the court was shut down for six weeks again in the fall. People forget unimportant details.

I don't really understand why you're so confused about this. That's not what Raf says happened and there is no record other than the statement he signed which he contests. There is a difference between him volunteering information and being pressured to agree to the police version of events. I don't expect you to acknowledge it and you're of course free to claim Raf is now lying about what happened.

That would have been before he was threatened with 30 years in prison right?

It's hard to understand their mindset at the time on this. When you read about this in Raf's book he obviously has a lot of contempt for the police and the authorities because of what they put him through so his description is of being annoyed because they'd already given them statements a number of times.

lol

How does someone who elected to not testify contest something?


He never testified.

If you mean what he says in his book his dad has already stated that Raffaele lied in his book and it is expected that Raffaele is going to be charged with criminal slander in the near future for statements from his book.


Why would I read something that is full of lies?