ICWUDT

Just for sheer stubbornness it's very impressive. Once the argument gets going no one backs down.

As you can see 239's arrival pretty much blew up the word count and it's heading higher rapidly:



If it wasn't for the lock for a couple of months recently he'd be over 600,000 words.

Henry was also right about PFUNK and Matt R. coming here just to stalk him, they have the highest replies of anyone directed at him:

Boy, that's really something isn't it.


I don't understand why the mods won't hang 239. Must be a Seattle thing.

HAHAHAAHAHAH

"Henry Stalking Percentage"

I don't think that's the right word here.

Henry I don't think your Jodi Arias example fits here at all. There was no report here that an expert produced. What is a closing argument if not an argument that is based on the evidence already entered? Put another way, what evidence would be entered here, an opinion? What are the lawyers restricted to at closing that would prevent this argument from being made?

Also just as a reminder to the rest of the people reading, this isn't even an issue in terms of guilt or innocence. Anyone reasonable who looks at this would realize the calls were placed when they said they were and that's why the judge ruled that way.

This was a big argument in the case and a common theme and the judge is not going to forget testimony and go against the police and prosecutor for no reason. At the end of the day despite not having the testimony of the postal police because it isn't available, it's still my understanding that they testified that they ended up giving the Carbinieri directions on the 1:29 call and that they hadn't arrived yet.

Srsly, you can't possibly believe that posting as much as Henry and 239 do is normal behavior. It must be considered pathological.

The stupid presentation is the report.

The footage of the police arriving was never entered as evidence on March 13 only the footage of the postal police and the girl. That would have to be entered.

Someone would have to testify that the call on the phone records was the call for directions. I realize this is extremely nitty but that is how courts work.

Someone would have to offer testimony that the police car we see in the video is the one that called for directions.

The CCTV being accurate was already accepted as evidence and unchallenged by the defence. The only argument they made was that it was difficult to be certain the the images are of the postal police. This is not just the introduction of new evidence it is an attempt to refute previously accepted evidence.

Lawyers can't testify. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this. Why are you so ****'en stupid? If a lawyer could just introduced unchallenged opinions in closing arguments there would be no value in having people testify. You could just say whatever at the end. Do you really believe this is how things work?

The judge also says there was only one call and Raffaele was put on hold. This is false. What happened was that there were two calls because Raffaele hung up after his first attempt came off really sketchy.

How do you reconcile the judge being wrong on this yet find it so difficult that he forgot a rather minor detail from two minor witnesses?

First, you do have it. Maybe not you personally but the pro-Knox sites do claim to have it. They claim to have a lot of the transcripts and I assume they are telling the truth because there are files that I can't download but which are available to members. The funny thing is that they have all the stuff that looks positive for Knox including fabricated evidence in the public area. The stuff that is incriminating they keep in a private area where only the core shills can get it.

Second, you have never seen this testimony yet you are certain it contains a really odd piece of information. It makes no sense that the information would be in that testimony. If the CCTV argument was allowed what would have had to happen is that the postal police would have to be recalled to ask them. There is no reason why they would have asked stupid irrelevant questions the first time around. So your claim that it is in the testimony is based on nothing and runs counter to logic.

can we all agree that while the cctv time stamp was ruled to be slow, there are grounds to dispute this so it ought not to be considered definitive?

It was never ruled to be slow. As far as the Massei court is concerned the CCTV clock has accurate time.

There was an argument that defence wanted to make that would have argued it was slow but the judge refused to hear it.

Henry, I'll answer your post in a minute. While watching the golf I thought I'd look at some of those transcripts you mentioned. Let me know what you think. This is from the March 13, 2009 transcript. First of all, it's my understanding, most recently from Raf's book, that the 112 call and CCTV stuff were a theme from the get go. He says that the CCTV footage was testified to by Stefano Gubbioti at the end of February. That makes sense because in this transcript it doesn't appear that it's being seen for the first time. I've bolded a few lines for you.

ahh ok, yeah I realise that now. Sorry, I was confusing the time stamp issue with the issue of Raf's call to the police before/after they arrived.

But the presentation contains items that are all in evidence. The presentation could be made without the presentation.

It seems that it was already in evidence from the transcript. I'd assume the entire CCTV was entered at the same time.

It seems to me that the Postal Police did that based on the discussion on the guilter page where the guy specifically says Battistelli testified to it. I realize that is extremely unsourced, but it's all I've found that's specific.

As I've mentioned before that doesn't matter. All that matters is that the police were still looking for the cottage at 1:29. Because if they are still looking for the cottage at 1:29, they can't be pulling into the driveway at 1:22. Hopefully you get this point by now.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

I believe that lawyers can make arguments based on the evidence. That seems logical to me.

In reality there were 3 calls in that time period that you need to account for. Amanda's at 12:47 that no one saw and Raf's at 12:51 and 12:54. The calls from Raf would be highly suspicious if the postal police were already there but it's important to remember the 12:47 call when considering who saw what.

Because this was a big deal in the case. You're minimizing the importance the prosecution put on it. It's pretty clear this was a theme from the beginning of the trial. I don't believe the judge would go against the prosecution, CCTV footage, and the specific testimony of the police without a reason or because he forgot. YMMV.



I'm talking about the February hearing where the Postal Police testified to 2/6 I think it was. Massei refers to page numbers in it a number of times. I don't think I've seen that one, but I'm still looking through the March 13th doc and it seems like it was known that the police called for directions and weren't there at 1:29.

This isn't right. It's clear from the hearing that they were arguing that it was 10 minutes fast from the get go. The judge doesn't say definitively what the time on it was but if he said the police arrived just before one, the only way that's true is if it's slow. And again they obviously did argue it, very specifically.

239,

If you want to discuss the testimony then post the original Italian versions on a file hosting site where other people can download them then post the link here.

The quotes above are gibberish.

If you actually care about getting to the best truth possible host them all on a file hosting site because the shills keeping these behind a wall isn't helpful.

Link?

What law school did you graduate from?

Can you give me an example in any case in any jurisdiction where this was allowed?

Really? I think this is pretty damn clear, Henry.

That's the exact argument we're talking about, right?

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index....ultiple_confl/

Obviously, not a source but interesting discussion nontheless.

Perugia, Italy it would seem. I think we must be not connecting on what we mean here because it doesn't seem that what I'm saying is that outlandish.

Read what you posted.

Assuming this horrible translation is accurate you have actually established two things.

1) It was my original claim that Mauro Barbadori testified that the clock was fast by ten minutes. Bongiorno is asking about it being slow ten minutes and uses the term "the exact opposite" -- the exact opposite of ten minutes slow is ten minutes fast. That is decent evidence that for my original claim that the testimony include a claim that the clock was fast by ten minutes.

2) Assuming this is accurate it shows that the defence did ask about the argument you wish to present but what matters are the answers. The answers are not a confirmation of the theory that Bongiorno wants to advance. So based on what you posted you have actually managed to prove yourself wrong. Now it is possible that Bongiorno kept at it and managed to get the witness to admit to something but from the snippet you posted you have managed to argue against your own position.

Oh, I'm reading it.

Blame Google.

We always knew that was what they argued. You really seem to have no concept of what the evidence actually was on this issue. There were a few different reasons they thought this. First, the police testified to arriving at 12:35 and it's clear from the CCTV they didn't. Also, they knew the CCTV time was wrong because if the CCTV camera time is right they should have walked up as Raf and Amanda were making calls and they didn't.

Secondly, I think what I've read so far supports what Raf says in his book. He says that from the beginning they were telling the story that the Postal Police surprised them and they called the cops after they arrived. He then talks about Stefano Gubbioti testifying about it at the end of February but they hadn't sorted out the argument with the Carabinieri car yet so they missed their chance to confront him directly. That would have been a few weeks before this hearing. So it seems that between that and this hearing they did figure it out and they're trying to bring it forward in this questioning. I'm still going through it but it seems plausible that this witness isn't the one testifying why it's 10 minutes slow, rather he's repeating what had already been argued by the investigators.

What are you even trying to argue at this point? First it's clear that the images in the presentation were being used in court because they refer to them in the questions so who cares about the presentation, the images in it were all in evidence apparently. Secondly, it's clear to me that it had been established that the Postal Police talked to the dispatch and no police were there yet. The latter is all we need for our purposes to demonstrate that the defense argument was valid.

So to recap, this was argued in court, and it appears the argument for our purposes was also a valid one. Now to recap, my position on this since the beginning of this thread was that the argument was valid and that the issue was raised in court. It's very difficult to know what happened on day to day basis in the first trial, and I've always said that.

Your positions on the other hand have included the following.

1. The defense presentation is a total fabrication.
2. It was never argued in court.
3. Various theories disprove the argument, none of which you can source

No. I always claimed the testimony said 10 minutes fast

I only dropped this claim in the last 24 hours because I couldn't document it and after excluding your position for lack of documentation I couldn't continue advancing mine without a source. At first I switched to vague language of not using while hoping to find a source and then when I couldn't I dropped the ten minutes fast claim. Now that you have provided a source for my position I can return to my original claim of ten minutes fast.

Nobody cares. You can stop reporting what a liar says in his book as if it matters. You yourself admit he lies about his alibi so why would we use his book for anything?


Where was this established?

Specifically what witness either states this or answers in the affirmative to a question where this is asked?

Nothing in the quotes you provided accomplished even anything remotely close to this. In fact they seem to have accomplished the opposite.

No. You have the transcript so you can read what happened that day. If you host it somewhere for us the rest of us can as well. As it currently stands you've taken some snippets because you thought they established something -- misunderstood them -- and managed to prove my position as correct. Now it is possible that as questioning continued the witness said something that established your point but from what you posted the evidence stands as 10 minutes fast.

That the postal.pdf file is only available from a shill site does bring it into question. They have after all fabricated or altered five items of evidence and my understanding based on what Poker Reference told me this afternoon now a sixth item of fake evidence. Being suspect of something that can not be independently confirmed as real is prudent in given what we know.

Correct and this is still true. The Postal.pdf was never argued in court. The request was made at the end of the trial and denied.

As for it being argued beforehand again this is your ignorance of how courts work. For this to be argued the defence would need to have a witness state it. There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is to have a defence witness testify to the position and then allow that witness to be cross-examined. The defence did not do this.

The second way to have this argument entered as evidence would be to have a prosecution expert acknowledge it on cross-examination. Simply asking questions is not establishing the argument. In the quotes you provided us the witness is asked questions about this but he does not acknowledge it. As such it is not established. So no this was not argued in court despite the fact that it was the subject of a line of questions because based on the quotes you selected the line of questioning goes nowhere.

So 239 has access to a transcript that no one else has, but refuses to let anyone else see it?

Shocking.

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. I love this part.

I have to admit though that I'm impressed that 239 has found a new way to try to claim that the Defence just saying something is equivalent to proving it as fact.

You seem a little emotional bro. Maybe lift more and burn off some of the butthurt? It can't be good for you. This is what you sound like:

"I don't stalk Henry and BTW I have 'plenty of normal interaction' with him! And did you see that thread about CMS? LOL! I even italicized the point that he never acknowledged he was wrong despite being obviously wrong, this is the type of person Henry is...lol did I mention I'm not unhealthily obsessed with him?"

Henry claimed that you and Matt R. had no real interest in the case and just came here because of an unhealthy interest in him. Amazingly, by sheer, incredible coincidence, when I looked at replies to particular posters you happen to be by far the top two repliers to Henry as a percentage of your posts, out of 422 posters in this thread. Sheer coincidence bro, just like all the evidence in this case.

This from the guy who thinks there could be something to 9/11 truth, LOL:

Nice evidence evaluation skills you have.
Like I said bro, any time you want to put your money where your mouth is, feel free to pony up and take my money. If you are so sure of this then why don't you put some money on it rather than hiding behind your keyboard? It's getting a tad pathetic that you don't have the courage of your convictions.

I happen to be competent and it doesn't take long at all. According to you:

20 minutes to write a script to parse the thread and stick it in excel, "scaryyyyyy".
53,000 words you wrote about a violent rape & murder, not scary at all

About as logical as your take on this case...

Clearly