WTF are you talking about?

My argument is based on the police stating they arrived shortly after 12:30pm this is sourced to page 27 and page 93 of Massei and supported by the CCTV testimony from March 9 2009.

It is based on it being impossible for the police to arrive asking about Filomena's phone. Knox explains it is actually Meredith's phone, goes gets a pen and writes down Meredith's other cell phone number, Battistelli talks on the phone to HQ to give an update, Knox gives police a tour of house showing both the bloody bathroom and Filomena's room. Luca and Marco arrive and talk to the police, Filomena and Poala arrive. All of this needs to happen in about four minutes even using Massei. Again all sourced to pages 26-28.

That Raffaele admitted to calling the police after they had already arrived -- sourced to his confession.

This is enough to maintain the calls happened after the police was already there.

My position is that if someone wanted to do more work they could make an even better argument.

For example, we know that the postal police called HQ and that that happened at least a few minutes after Filomena arrived. If someone documents that time we can better define the time Filomena arrived.

We know that postal police wrote in their notebook that Filomena had confirmed nothing was stolen at 1pm. Documenting that would further support the position that Filomena was there at or before 1pm.

We know that Meredith phone was used at police HQ. That timestamp would be useful.

I don't use any of this in my argument because I don't feel like sourcing it. I am familiar with it though and if someone wanted to put in the effort they could build a really good timeline.


You're an idiot. See above.


There is. I wasn't able to source it. I have never used it again. Do you see the difference between how I behave and how you behave?

lol

lol

This level of delusion is amazing.

I believe $2 a page. If you are willing to get it I'll happily look at it but I don't expect you to do anything. The link is in this topic twice already.

Sad state of affairs that you're just trolling now Henry. Stop making asinine claims about topics we're not even discussing and you won't have to troll like this rather than admit your claims are nonsensical.

That's because you all confuse not jumping to conclusions and thinking critically as taking a position. I'm sure I clearly stated that I wasn't arguing he sent any emails.

Wow you're frothing at the mouth there Henry. It's hard to respond to your question when you're not interested in having an intelligent discussion about it. The email thing just doesn't make any sense as I'm sure you'd agree. They never made the claim in relation to the case and we assume although we don't really know that the evidence was pretty clear on this. So at the end of the day as I plainly stated in the post you're responding to yeah, it doesn't make any sense and the book is either in error or if he really maintains that it would be a lie. I'd like to see him clarify it obviously. He had a co-author I'm not sure if he's been asked either.

How would that be used against him? It's a book all he'd have to say is my co-author made an error that I missed. Again, I'd like to see him clarify. I'm kinda surprised no one has asked about it.

So the previous five times this issue was raised and I pointed out this flaw in the argument wasn't a clue? It isn't like we have not had this exact conversation before and you haven't promised to source this and never do.

No one is denying that someone called Knox for directions. The point and you clearly understand it is that several cars from the Caribinieri responded to the two independent 112 calls. You don't need to document that one car needed directions you need to document that the car on the video needed directions.


All of this has been answered countless times today.


I asked you two questions you refused to answer them.

1) Do you deny that Oct 9th was a brief procedural hearing requesting that additional evidence be allowed?

2) Do you deny that the last day of testimony was in July of 2009?


No one has said they didn't. I don't know.

Also no it is not clear that they would. If you have a favourable outcome it is in your best interest to not raise any objections even if they would help you. Raising issues complicates things and that is always favourable to the defence. That is why the defence appealed some ridiculous number and why they tried to introduce all that garbage evidence at the end.

239 dug in like a tick at this point.

What is nonsensical about that?

Do you deny that the interrogation started at about 10pm?

Do you deny that Raffaele had confessed by 10:30pm?

Does someone who tells the police he can't come to the station because he is busy and off to have dinner with friends sound like someone who seems intimidated?


The book is not the only source of this lie. Raffaele repeated it on various talk shows when he was promoting the book.

So is Raffaele lying about his alibi -- yes or no?

It is a really simple question.

He can attempt to say that but what impact do you think that will have?

This is something I've noticed with respect to the confessions as well. You seem to operate under the impression that as long as you take something back and regret saying it there is no negative inference from saying it.

It's not supported by the CCTV footage. It shows them arriving much later. You're basing the CCTV footage time on their testimony but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Further your argument is not only based on that it's based on an eyewitness saying they went into a room when these calls were made but you can't source it. Considering you are arguing that we should drop unsourced arguments, you should drop it and the truth of the thread would be that Massei said they called before the cops arrived, right?

Oh so now it's official trolling. So now it's not about an eyewitness that saw them in a room, now it's about some rabid bs about things needing to happen in a timeframe that you also can't source in any sort of logical coherent detail here. You're really firing on all cylinders Henry.

Yes we should certainly ignore phone records and CCTV footage in light of that.

Not bloody likely, sir. That's a mountain of crap and the judge plainly disagrees with you. You finally spun out I guess. Take a nap maybe?

The argument you just posted isn't the same argument you used the last time you said a clearer argument could be made. You're just trolling it up as you go I guess.

If only there were investigators working for the prosecution that were trying feverishly to prove this issue. Jesus dude, take a time out Henry, feeling for ya here.


You shouldn't use it not because you can't source it, you shouldn't use it because it has no basis in reality, ffs. Again here you are claiming you can prove the 112 call and that you can still argue it even though the judge disagrees with you and your proof is incoherent rambling pile of goo. Well done, man.

My proof on the other hand uses the actual cell phone records with more detail than any other source. The actual CCTV footage with higher resolution and more frames than any other source and the only issue you can come up with to discount it is the assertion that it's possible that when the police called for directions, there were already police at the house, even though there is no reason to believe that. Again, bravo dude.


Get the link and I'll see what I can do. Can you give me some search criteria at least for the frickin' post.

Stick to the sidelines champ. Henry is using such poor logic I don't think you'll be able fake agree with him on this stuff.

Hopefully one of your team will PM you and explain that what I'm saying is right. I don't believe you've ever argued that we don't know if no Carabinieri had arrived when dispatch called for directions. Again, that's the crux of the issue here that you can't seem to grasp. It's always been obvious to me that there weren't any there because again, ya know, they couldn't find the place and had to call for directions.

Again, hopefully someone will explain to you the nuance here because apparently straightforward simple logic is escaping you. What you're saying would prove it yes. But simply knowing if there were any Caribinieri present when the call happened would also prove it and not only would it prove it, at that point it wouldn't matter if that is the car that called for directions or not because there can't be any police there at that time. Do you understand this simple point? If you do not please go ask someone to explain it to you because I assure you it's valid.

It's pretty sad that you've resorted to trolling on this rather than just admit you're wrong.

I don't know actually.


Something tells me we'd have heard about it and Hellman doesn't mention them putting anything forward.

It seems to me if you could easily prove an issue that would be some of the best evidence they had, you'd do it, YMMV.

You realise you're arguing on a poker forum where logic is how people make money. This is probably THE reason why youre failing so epicly and everyone can see through your BS. Henry has not demonstrated any poor logic, and we love to point out poor logic in strat threads because it greases our egos and makes us look better when we can point out some flaw in a hand history.

LIKE A TICK

Yes. I am basing my opinion on the unchallenged testimony of the only expert witness who testified on the subject.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Oh it doesn't hold up to scrutiny by an idiot on the internet. **** Amada could have used you in that courtroom. Now since you were not there the evidence was entered unchallenged so I'm going to go ahead and take it as factual.

We covered this. The CCTV footage is useless. It does not establish what you claim.

See above

It seems the call to headquarters with an update, which appears to have happened at 1pm, would establish definitively that they were there during the phone calls. Any source?

239,

It's time to walk away.

Adopting the arguments used against him. The weird thing is he knows we discussed this yet he still does it.

Why does it have to be the first Carabinieri who needs directions?

The police don't share a collective mind. An argument can be made that it would be late responders that needed directions since they would not normally be familiar with the area as opposed to the officers who were close because this is their area. Furtherm that they called Knox and not the Postal Police implies this lost car was responding to the sketchy break-in call not the murder.


Nope but why debate it. You have no evidence or documentation for this either. This is the strangest argument strategy ever. You are basically arguing that something else that you can't document would work just as well as the other thing you can't document. Maybe try documenting something then we'll see what we call pull from it. Right now you still have nothing.


So Frank didn't call it a procedural meeting of the court on his blog?

We didn't discuss this and source it all before?

If I spend the time to find when we did source all of this before how long will it be before you just bring it up again as if nothing happened?


No. The defence appeal had about 40 issues. All but two were rejected. Did we hear about any of the other roughly 38 items?


I wouldn't. Your goal is too keep it as simple as possible. You are defending a position. You goal is not to win because you've already won. You're goal is to not do anything to put the victory at risk. Consider it analogous to taking a knee even if it is 1st and goal on the 1 yard line.

Do you mean you wrote out your narrative of what happened? No one cares about that.

We want your overview of the case with the major players and evidence. Who screwed up? Who lied? What experts do you feel are worth listening to and which ones do you believe are incompetent?

I understand it'll take a bit of work but with the amount of time you spend on this thread I don't think it's too much.

I am totally confused what 239 is arguing here.

- The Carabinieri who called obviously knew nothing of the murder before they called at 1:29
- They called Knox so were obviously the burglary responders without further information
- Hence they would not be looking for or expect police cars if they could even see them as they passed the driveway
- The fact that they were lost and calling for directions indicates they weren't at the head of the driveway looking for police cars and did not know what they were looking for.

I truly do not understand this reasoning, 239:

Perhaps you can explain in a way that isn't nuts? How does being lost and having to call Knox's phone for directions establish that there were no police at the house? Please be specific.

Eh, I'm a winning poker player. That's why I'm a member here. To be honest, it seems pretty clear to me that quite a few people that regularly post in this thread aren't serious players and don't really post about poker at all, which is fine of course.

If you can't see that Henry is missing the point I've made several times now as to why his logic is flawed there is no helping you.

Do you feel better?

The vehemence with which you're arguing a totally nonsensical point about no police being there because they called Knox's phone for directions (see the bold in my post above in which you think the logic is obvious) is amazing. No, I don't feel better - I'm bemused about the human condition.

Although if the voiding of Hellmann has caused you this much grief, the total Fat Man style smackdown of Hellmann that was delivered by the SCC and will be amply noted in their upcoming motivations report is probably going to send you arguing that rainbows are made of lettuce and berating Henry for not seeing the "obvious" logic of it.

Truthsayer,

Basically the argument is as follows.

1) There is someone who is responding to one of the two 112 calls who needs directions. We know nothing about who this is other than they radio the police station and the police station calls Knox. There is a high likelihood these Calabirieri were responding to the sketchy phone call about the burglary and not the call that a body had been discovered that was made by the Postal Police.

2) There is a police car on the CCTV video that appears to be going to the cottage. You can't be certain of that but it would be a safe assumption.

Neither of those are in contention.

What 239 wants to do is argue that the police officers who called for directions are the same police officers on the CCTV footage.

The goal in doing this is to establish that the clock on the camera is wrong. If he can accomplish that he can then argue that the Postal Police did not arrive at the time they claim which is currently supported by the CCTV video.

The problem wit his argument is that there is no reason to assume the police officers on the CCTv video are the ones that needed directions.

That is essential to this argument and there is simply no reason to believe it.

Faced with this 239 has had a mental breakdown.

Hey man you're free to argue what the prosecution was arguing in 2007-2008 and ignore everything that happened on both sides of the investigation and in the trials, that's fine. What your'e doing is taking the postal police testimony and arguing that they can't be wrong. They're human, so I don't know why you'd argue they can't be wrong, but that's your choice. Then you take that look at the CCTV timestamp and say because they can't be wrong the time on the CCTV clock must be wrong. You're free to make that argument and ignore everything else.

Apparently the judge at the trial who heard all of the testimony didn't agree with you. This is the same judge that did some serious obfuscating and logical gymnastics in order to get the prosecution case to work. In fact even though he notes that the postal police testified to arriving at 12:35, the testimony that you base your entire argument on essentially claim can't be wrong, he plainly states they arrived a bit before 1PM. Yet you can't explain why that would be. If the expert was unchallenged surely the judge would note he concurred with the expert, no?

No, I believe that it does. You are not satisfied that there were no police at the cottage when the call for directions happened which is your choice. My opinion is that it's common sense that they weren't since they had called the dispatch for directions and it seems clear to me indirectly at least that the defense would have been able to prove that. You're free to discount it.

I would decide whether or not I would discount your argument if you could finally decide on one.

Jim, please increase your participation in the thread past posting knock out gifs, 5 word unfunny replies, and gloating over the embedded glass when you clearly haven't looked into the issue.

We could all benefit from your research.

Hahaha you dont even play poker. I can post graphs as can most of us here. Youre some sort of idiot.

I'm going to write a little perl script tomorrow and post some stats on 239's participation here. Over/under on the number of times he's insulted Henry with "unhinged", "idiot", etc? Over/under on total word count excluding quotes?