What's been posted? Definitive evidence presented and accept at trial that the CCTV was 10 minutes slow and not fast? Proof that the car on the CCTV was the one that called? Link to post?
Quote:
But way to dodge the question of what your position actually is. Here is the question again, maybe you can answer it this time.
I don't dodge anything, I am quite bemused by your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Question
So is your argument that he forgot about the CCTV footage or didn't find the videotape of the postal arriving relevant to the issue of the postal police arriving?
Or:
- It wasn't presented as evidence or the 10 minutes slow established through testimony.
- He didn't find the presentation compelling, as I don't?
Quote:
Also, keep in mind it's your side that is trolling claiming this was definitively established.
I'm not claiming anything is definitively established. WTF is wrong with you? I'm claiming that a police technician testified that he went out the CCTV and determined that it was 10 minutes fast. I claim this is evidence. Do you disagree? I'm also claiming that this determination fits with the timelines given by multiple independent witnesses perfectly. Do you disagree?
Quote:
You're growing less credible by the moment. So let's pause for a second and behold what you're actually saying. You're saying that there is a plausible explanation for Raf telling the postal police he'd already called the police when the phone records would say he hadn't and then after he told them he called them?
It's already been established - from the testimony of Filomena and Amanda's own mother - that she lied to both of them about having called the police when she hadn't. A panicked call to the police in an innocent narrative to cover this lie (perhaps they were lazy? Pathological liars?) would be consistent. It would also be consistent with Raf's confession that he did indeed call after they arrived. Are you unaware you need to create a sensible narrative for this stuff in your innocence scenario, man? No wonder you've never posted your innocence narrative if this is the quality of thought that's going into it. How have you not run this through in your own mind? Do you just partly discredit or open the door to discrediting each piece of evidence and then forget about them? You have to explain the weight of the evidence somehow, and that includes the probabilistic argument.
Quote:
No, this was huge if true. It means that they would have clearly been acting to deceive about their actions at the cottage that morning. It would be damn near a smoking gun actually.
Nonsense. It's strong evidence, but it's a tiny fraction of the strength of the totality of the evidence. Again, you appear not to appreciate that an innocence narrative
requires that they be rather idiotic pathological liars to explain their behavior - most of it self inflicted. As such another data point doesn't make much difference.
Let me put it another way so this is clear to you: If someone said they called the police before but actually called after, and there was no other evidence of participation in a murder, could they ever be found guilty? No, absolutely not.
If there was a bloody footprint definitively matching the suspect in the victim's blood, and evidence of a cleanup, but no other evidence, could they ever be found guilty? Yes, absolutely.
See the relative strength of the evidence? That you think this is definitive if proven and yet the proven bathmat print is not definitive is weird.
Quote:
Unlike you I read the defense appeal on this issue and they state starkly their reconstruction had to be accepted by the court but the explanation in the motivations report was inadequate and the conclusion reached wasn't properly applied to the rest of the case. Given what we know that seems to be the case.
If you have an English translation let me know. I cannot read Italian and Google translation just doesn't work for me.