Henry step away and come back dude, seriously. What I'm saying is logical and really simple, honestly.

It doesn't. It just needs to be that there were no Carabinieri at the cottage when the call for directions happens. Think about it.

It sounds to me like you're making this up as you go and grasping at straws.

Dude you are completely logic challenged on this. Again if there are no police there at 1:29 when this call happens, the police car in the video at 1:22 cannot be there. Do you understand this basic point? If you do not please think more.

No I'm saying it doesn't matter either way. My understanding of the defense presentation is that this is the Caribinieri car that called for the directions and was lost. That's why one of them is out walking ahead of the car. My point is simply that it doesn't really matter if it is because the fact remains that if there are no police there at 1:29 the CCTV footage showing the police arriving at 1:22 can't be right. Do you understand this basic point?

No he did, but nothing he described included anything being denied, or them just presenting an outline, or it being a brief hearing where everything got shut down. And then we have the defense appeal saying they proved it with a reconstruction and the judge accepted it. My point is only that you don't have a detailed accounting of the court proceeding. The most detailed report we have is from Frank.

Henry, I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the purpose of the appeal in Italian is more than requesting new evidence be entered. You've never been able to make it over this hurdle. What was the defense requesting in relation to the 112 call? Be specific. What got denied? The appeal does request for new evidence and analysis to be done, but it's also an argument for innocence based on the existing evidence that is carried over. If you had read the appeal as you say you'd have this would be blatantly obvious to you.


I get your point. I think the reality here is that they didn't have the goods and it's pretty clear cut.

Honestly, there is little point to do that. I posted a link to a great post on the knife DNA sample on JREF, super detailed, very very sourced, and no one read it or if they did processed what it said. No one here is interested in the evidence despite what you might say. Also if you look at Henry's post and find it well reasoned and sourced you are so far down the rabbit hole you will just agree with whatever he says anyway.

I'm interested and have read it, I'm just waiting for the irrational call nonsense you're continuing with to die down.

Also, the post was largely sourced to Hellmann and the C&V report, who got pile driven into the tarmac by the Supreme Court. They could not have been more critical and you will see that when the motivations report comes out soon. I hope you are taking that into account. I could see the glaring, going on absurd, flaws in their reasoning, but apparently you could not and neither could the guys at JREF, since they repeat them uncritically. The SCC has adjudicated that little disagreement for us and essentially called you and them a tard for thinking there is any credibility in it.

You're blissful in your ignorance essentially. Bask away.

Maybe Truthsayer can get you to understand that it doesn't matter if those are the cops responding as long as there are no Carabinieri onsite when the call for directions happens. That's the part you seem to be blocking out. After he helps you sort that out maybe you can ask him to look over your argument for why the 112 calls happened after because you seem to be getting worse and worse at stating it, whichever argument it is that you're going with now.

What is your source that I don't play poker? I didn't say you didn't play though why would I care if you can post a graph? I didn't use PTR or any HUD. I learned a lot at 2+2 reading about hands though so if you're one of those that analyzes hands, that's cool.

Yikes, man.

I'm not irrational Henry is just being a nit about what has to be sourced before he finally backs down on something, which is his choice. You're ignoring what the defense says in their appeal about this. The reality is we don't have all of the testimony from the responders. If we did this would be at lot clearer. It's clearly not irrational at all though it's a perfectly logical argument.

This is a super lazy argument dude. The SCC are not Forensic experts and were only supposed to rule on matters of law and procedure. Further we don't even have their motivations report yet even though what has happened so far doesn't bode well for the defense. The reality is that post quotes all of the experts and if you're not aware those experts didn't have all of the data files that C&V did. The entire appeal had to be delayed as Hellman ordered Stefanoni to turn over everything they asked for.

It's insanely bizarre to me how you vacillate between saying things like this and then not having any idea what some of the main arguments even are in the case. Weird, dude. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out though.

It will be interesting to see how you respond to the JREF post. Hopefully you'll argue against it logically rather than simply say C&V are idiots because the Supreme Court said so.

There's nothing left to discuss.

You're making the same pathetic troll arguments you were 7 months ago on the exact same aspects of the case with the exact same pieces of evidence.

Hahaha! Keep digging your hole.

Just so we are on the same page.

1) Mauro Barbadori testified March 13, 2009. He testified about three things

i) The CCTV video taken the night before that shows someone who may be Meredith arriving home.

ii) The CCTV video the day the body was discovered which shows the Postal Police heading towards the cottage at ~12:30pm like they say.

iii) He testified about bugging the waiting room and intercepting conversations between Amanda and Raffaele and in particular a conversation that implied a third person was involved likely a black man.

For our purposes ii is all we care about here.

Testimony in court by an expert puts the Postal Police roughly 100 meters from the cottage and walking toward the cottage.

----------------

Oct 9 2009 the defence wants to introduce some additional evidence including a CCTV presentation. The judge says no.


---------------

Idiots on the internet advance that the CCTV evidence would have proved X. It takes no time at all for people to realize that to prove X you need to make a major assumption for which there is no support. Idiots on the internet have a meltdown.

---------------

What part of this is inaccurate?

glad to see 239 is back to demanding people source their info while he sources nothing.

i will say thank you for this delightful little gem...

Jimbo, are you still scorned about the embedded glass thing dude? There are better ways to exact your revenge than unrefined trolling, sir.

So much for being nice to the trolls.

Of course I am unsatisfied -- you have failed to provide even the slightest piece of evidence to support your claim.

Your position is ******ed.

Your argument is of the form -- If X then Y which requires that you actually prove X. You want to assume X without any evidence because that would really help you out but you can't do that.


Why do you believe that the defense would have been able to prove this?

Basically other than blind faith what makes you think that statement you just made is true?

OK.

OK.

Yes that's my understanding although it's unclear to me what time he says that happened. The time on the CCTV camera is 8:51.

No, that's not my understanding. What is your source for that information? Are you just assuming because he testified about one aspect of the CCTV he'd have testified about all of them?

The reality is the CCTV timestamp shows 12:36 the first time you see the car but it doesn't park. It's seen again when the timestamp is 12:41 but it drives past the cottage. Finally at 12:48 on the timestamp we see the legs of what are believed one of the postal police crossing the street headed for the cottage.

I'm not sure on this one but I'm curious about how that was implied?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about 3/13 but all I'm seeing references to are the images of Meredith coming home.

As far as I know the CCTV footage fits with the postal police description that they had some trouble finding the place, didn't park in the garage, and eventually approached on foot.

----------------

You're conflating two different sources to make that assertion and can't demonstrate in a detailed way that's actually what happened. The defense appeal seems pretty clear on this.

---------------

No, that's not accurate we just don't have the trial record so you're nitting it up on proving every aspect. That's fine, but there's certainly no meltdowns happening. Most reasonable people would understand that the call for directions being made with no police present was probably an understood item in the case. But again I'm not criticizing your nitting it up on this point as your interest here is to argue against the defense in any and every way imaginable.
---------------

It's not ******ed we just don't have the trial record. It seems clear since the defense did a whole big presentation on this issue that it was either understood that was the case or they demonstrated it, in fact that's what all the sources linked to the defense say happened. You're free to disagree and obviously will.

Either way the position itself is perfectly logical, you're just nitting it up because we don't have the trial record.


Because there were 8 people there when the call happened?

I don't understand this assumption. The police who called for directions were obviously not at the house yet, but why does it therefore follow that no other police were there? Even if there were 800 police cars already there, an 801st car whose occupants didn't know the area would still call and ask for directions.

The point is, you need to prove that the car in the cctv footage (and the subsequent feet that are presumed to belong to a policeman who got out of that car) belong to the police officer(s) who called for directions.

What the defense says they proved isn't at all meaningful. How do you find this concept hard?

I'm sure the prosecution has said that "We're proved AK is guilty" - but you would obviously argue that's incorrect.

I believe there was some adjustments to these times to make them earlier but I can't find any source for that so lets ignore it for now.

Based on the times you have agreed to the postal police are less than 100 meters from the cottage 7 minutes before Raffaele finished his calls the emergency number.

I really hope your explanation to for how this is compatible with a call before scenario involves Zeno -- I rarely get to crush people on pre-Socratic philosophy.


I am not conflating anything. I am establishing a timeline with respect to all evidence / arguments related to the CCVT video.

March 13, 2009 Mauro Barbadori testified that the CCTV video shows the postal police arriving before the 112 calls were made.

Oct 9, 2009 The video presentation you are advocating for was first presented in court at a procedural meeting of the court where the defence asked for permission to have new evidence on a half dozen issues. The judge refused all the requests.

Do you disagree with this timeline?


[quote]
No, that's not accurate we just don't have the trial record so you're nitting it up on proving every aspect. [quote]

Let me understand this -- your position is that I am being a nit because you want to advance an argument with the logical structure If X then Y and you don't have X.

Do you really think that is being a nit?


I am sure stupid people assumed that. This is the problem with accepting arguments as evidence if they have not been subject to cross-examination. If this stupid presentation had been allowed the prosecution would have made the same argument I am making now and the evidence would have been rendered useless.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the first police car is the police car that required directions. There were lots of police cars responding so why would you assume the first car would necessarily be the car that needed directions?

Because that's apparently the narrative story the people at the house all agreed to. I'm still looking for a link to the testimony. This is pretty clear cut in Raf's book though. The reality is I don't believe anyone disputes that the Carabinieri got lost looking for the cottage and had to call for directions.

Again, that's not necessary (the first part) if we can determine no police were at the cottage when the call for directions was placed. At the end of the day, that's right though, those were the police who arrived after requesting directions.

This in itself is a stupid argument since you can't even articulate a reason why you think the trial record would contain anything relevant to this. You're entire argument is based on hope.


lol no. The meeting on Oct 9th was slightly under two hours. They addressed the defence request for allowing at least five items of evidence. The majority of the time was devoted to the request for additional DNA experts. This evidence was never presented. All that happened is that Raffaele's lawyer explained what it was and why it would be helpful and Massei said not interested. This evidence is so insignificant that of all the articles I reviewed on it only one made any mention of it while two described what Amanda and Raffaele were wearing. The DNA was request got all the coverage.

That still doesn't explain why you think the defence asked those people questions relevant to an argument that they didn't even attempt to introduce until months after the introduction of evidence ended. There is no reason why anyone would have inquired about this. People don't ask irrelevant questions.

Further, we have Knox's complete testimony and nobody asked her and she received the call. Raffaele elected to not testify so that crosses off two of the eight.

---------

With respect to additional support here is a good lead for you.

Seems like crazies have a bunch of transcripts for minor witnesses. You need access to the private area of the site to download the files but they appear to be there. My guess is that a good shill like you would have that access. Why don't you get us some of those transcripts.

New information is much better than discussing this stupid **** again and again.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.co...hp?f=20&t=2511

If testimony from witnesses shows a consensus that the first carabiniere to arrive were the ones who'd called for directions (testimony from the officers themselves would presumably be available? idk) then sure, that would be quite persuasive (at least to a lay observer like me). Raf's book is hardly a definitive account though, as he's the defendant. I'm sure he's also very clear that he wasn't involved in the murder, but that doesn't mean the case should just be thrown out!

No, let's not ignore it because that is the crux of the matter here. It's actually hilarious that you actually typed that. For starters if you argue the time is earlier, that can't be Meredith coming home on the CCTV because she wouldn't have left her friends place yet. There's a good chance that is her which is further evidence the CCTV timestamp is slow not right, and not fast.

Um, no I don't. The first glimpse of the postal police car is 12:36 and in reality that was around 12:46-12:48 right when Amanda was making her call which no one saw. The reality of the CCTV footage is that if the time is right they should have walked up as they were making the calls, but that's not what happened. This was probably a factor in Massei's reasoning as well as part of the prosecution reason for saying the camera was fast.

Then why are you having such a hard time understanding simple logic on these issues?

No you are conflating Frank's blog post with a blurb you found about that day in court. We know the defense presented the CCTV footage that day and you found a blurb that said things got denied. What you haven't done is say what the request even was from the defense or why it was denied because you have no clue. Further, Frank, the person who was in the courtroom mentions absolutely nothing about any denial or anything like that and the defense in their appeal say they brought forward a reconstruction and proved it. They're not appealing because anything got denied at all.

Again that's not my understanding and you apparently don't have a source for that. My understanding is he only testified about Meredith possibly being on the CCTV.

What is your source for that. Again you are conflating two different sources neither which say specifically what the context was surrounding any decision made about the CCTV presentation. Why be so dishonest about it?

Yes, because I believe if you look into it you'll see the discussion surrounding this issue acknowledges the narrative of that day being that the Carabinieri got lost getting to the cottage after the body was discovered and had to call for directions which resulted in the call to Amanda's phone. That means at 1:29 the cops aren't there which means the Carabinieri car in the video isn't there at 1:22. This is pretty simple.

I don't begrudge you being a nit about it in this thread because it's clear you don't have any interest in objectivity and you're more interested in just disagreeing with me and anything the defense had to say. That's why when I correct you on a number of issues like the length of the call between Filomena and Amanda in the Questura, the luminol results at Raf's place, etc etc etc, you have nothing to say about it.

Well no I don't think that's the case at all. You seem to be confused here. You seem to be arguing that you have some indication or knowledge that the police were already there when the call for directions was placed. You have absolutely zero basis from which to assert that. Your argument essentially comes down to the fact that because I can't source testimony from the trial (which we obviously don't have transcripts of) showing this was the narrative of the people who were there, that means that the opposite narrative must be true. That's a bizarre way to look at it.

Again, it's my understanding that the Carabinieri calling for directions because they got lost trying to respond to the discovery of the body was not something in dispute at the trial. You're making it an issue here which is nitty, but up to you.

Again, you have no basis for which to argue that was the case here. All of the discussion I've read about this indicates that was the case. Raf says it in his book, the sites connected to the defense say it, and I've never seen anyone on the other side refute it. But you're free to argue against it for no other reason than that's what your participation here amounts to.

The reasoned position would be that I haven't sourced it, not that there is any specific reason to doubt it was the case based on all of the available discussion of the issue that exists.