Arrival time of postal police

[geebee2]

The question here is at what time did the postal police arrive at the cottage on 2 November 2007.

This page www.injusticeinperugia.org/garagemyths.html uses the evidence of the parking garage camera to suggest that the clock on the garage camera was 10 to 12 minutes slow.

We know for sure that the Carabinieri arrived no earlier than 1:34, which is when the call they made for directions ended.

This indicates the postal police arrived at 12:58 - 1:00pm

Suppose that instead the postal police really did arrive soon after 12:30, say 12:40. That would indicate the parking garage camera was 10 minutes fast.

This could be true if more Carabinieri arrived at the garage at 1:32pm (so these are the ones shown by the garage camera), very soon after the first Carabinieri reach the cottage. To my knowledge, this didn't happen.

Also, if this was the case, there should be something on the garage camera showing the first Carabinieri arriving earlier.

Ok. I have to admit that with such limited access to the evidence we cannot be sure. But it seems that Massei must have accepted the defence evidence on the arrival of the postal police, because he doesn't make any claims about Raffaele phoning 911 after they arrived ( I think this may have been claimed in earlier hearings, but by Massei it seems to have been disproved ). Given that Massei had full access to the evidence, this strongly suggests to me that the defence evidence on this does hold up.

For me this line of reasoning quite generally decides what I am prepared to accept as prosecution evidence. If Massei doesn't consider it evidence, I don't think we should either. This obviously doesn't apply to evidence introduced by the prosecution in the appeal trial, but I don't think that applies here.

Edit: note that a more detailed defence presentation (in Italian so not too helpful to me) is available from www.injusticeinperugia.org/PDF-Files.html ( Defense presentation detailing arrival of police at cottage using garage camera ).

Edit2: Massei explicitly says the postal police arrived after the 112 call. Page 89 of English translation ( or page 81 in Italian original )

"(who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers)"

Edit3: We also have in Massei's "ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS" ( page 25 in translation or [12] in the original )

"[12] At the moment when the lifeless body Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher was found, in the house at 7 Via della Pergola there were present, as well as the present accused, Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola Grande and their boyfriends: Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri. All had arrived at the house around 1:00 pm on the day of November 2.
Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm."

[fortaleza]

Dec 14, 2011 5:22:35 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

The question here is at what time did the postal police arrive at the cottage on 2 November 2007.

This page www.injusticeinperugia.org/garagemyths.html uses the evidence of the parking garage camera to suggest that the clock on the garage camera was 10 to 12 minutes slow.

We know for sure that the Carabinieri arrived no earlier than 1:34, which is when the call they made for directions ended.

This indicates the postal police arrived at 12:58 - 1:00pm

Why does it indicate that?

Suppose that instead the postal police really did arrive soon after 12:30, say 12:40. That would indicate the parking garage camera was 10 minutes fast.

This could be true if more Carabinieri arrived at the garage at 1:32pm (so these are the ones shown by the garage camera), very soon after the first Carabinieri reach the cottage. To my knowledge, this didn't happen.

Also, if this was the case, there should be something on the garage camera showing the first Carabinieri arriving earlier.

Are you claiming that the garage camera photographed every last car which came to the cottage?

Ok. I have to admit that with such limited access to the evidence we cannot be sure. But it seems that Massei must have accepted the defence evidence on the arrival of the postal police, because he doesn't make any claims about Raffaele phoning 911 after they arrived ( I think this may have been claimed in earlier hearings, but by Massei it seems to have been disproved ). Given that Massei had full access to the evidence, this strongly suggests to me that the defence evidence on this does hold up.

As I asked on the blog, where is it written that the Massei report must contain each and every strong argument for Knox's guilt?

Also, do you agree that Sollecito is reported to have advised the authorities that he had not yet called the police when the postal police arrived?

Edit2: Massei explicitly says the postal police arrived after the 911 call. Page 89 of English translation ( or page 81 in Italian original )

"(who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112,

The key phrase is "according to what is maintained by the defendants' defence." That makes it pretty clear that the Massei report is NOT buying the Defendants' timeline.

Anyway, do you agree that Romanelli's testimony was that she arrived at approximately 1:00pm?

[geebee2]

Dec 15, 2011 7:35:13 GMT -5 fortaleza said:

Dec 14, 2011 5:22:35 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

The question here is at what time did the postal police arrive at the cottage on 2 November 2007.

This page www.injusticeinperugia.org/garagemyths.html uses the evidence of the parking garage camera to suggest that the clock on the garage camera was 10 to 12 minutes slow.

We know for sure that the Carabinieri arrived no earlier than 1:34, which is when the call they made for directions ended.

This indicates the postal police arrived at 12:58 - 1:00pm

Why does it indicate that?

There is a shot showing the arrival of the postal police crossing the street at 12:48:52.81
Add 10-12 minutes to that (the error in the garage camera clock) and you get 12:58 - 1:00.

Are you claiming that the garage camera photographed every last car which came to the cottage?

It did capture the postal police and one lot of caribinieri, why not the others?

As I asked on the blog, where is it written that the Massei report must contain each and every strong argument for Knox's guilt?

After a 12 month trial you would expect Massei to have found the strongest evidence he could.
But anyway, Massei is quite explicit, he states firmly that the postal police arrived after the 112 call.
You can be sure the prosecution would have attempted to undermine the defence on this point if they could.
Either by other garage camera shots or evidence of further carabinieri arriving.

Also, do you agree that Sollecito is reported to have advised the authorities that he had not yet called the police when the postal police arrived?

Nope, what is your source for that?

Edit2: Massei explicitly says the postal police arrived after the 911 call. Page 89 of English translation ( or page 81 in Italian original )

"(who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112,

The key phrase is "according to what is maintained by the defendants' defence." That makes it pretty clear that the Massei report is NOT buying the Defendants' timeline.

No, even if this is not completely clear from this passage ( the translation is awkward I agree), Massei categorically states the time in his "ACCOUNT OF EVENTS".

Anyway, do you agree that Romanelli's testimony was that she arrived at approximately 1:00pm?

Yes. I think it was likely a few minutes after 1pm, maybe 5 minutes past. This is only a rough estimate.

[fortaleza]

Dec 15, 2011 9:33:23 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

There is a shot showing the arrival of the postal police crossing the street at 12:48:52.81
Add 10-12 minutes to that (the error in the garage camera clock) and you get 12:58 - 1:00.

This analysis assumes that the clock was 10 minutes slow, agreed?

It did capture the postal police and one lot of caribinieri, why not the others?

Umm, does this mean yes or no? It's a simple question:

Are you claiming that the garage camera photographed every last car which came to the cottage?

After a 12 month trial you would expect Massei to have found the strongest evidence he could.

His judgment about what is the strongest might be different from mine.

But anyway, Massei is quite explicit, he states firmly that the postal police arrived after the 112 call.

That's simply false. The report clearly says "according to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence" Also, "a little before 1:00pm" would include 12:40.

You can be sure the prosecution would have attempted to undermine the defence on this point if they could.
Either by other garage camera shots or evidence of further carabinieri arriving.

I wouldn't be sure of it. For one thing, there might not be a picture of the first carabinieri to arrive. Second, the prosecution might have felt it was pretty strong on this point and there was no need to rebut the defense argument.

Nope, what is your source for that?

Here:

www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2007/11_Novembre/07/perudia_murder.shtml

I tried to force the door but I could not open it. Then I Decided to call my sister for advice Because she's a lieutenant in the Carabinieri. She Told me to call 112 but by this time the postal police arrived HAD. Earlier in my statement, I told you a whole lot of rubbish Because Amanda Convinced me about her version and I did not think about the contradictions. "

Massei categorically states the time in his "ACCOUNT OF EVENTS".

Exactly what time does he state?

[geebee2]

Dec 15, 2011 20:53:32 GMT -5 fortaleza said:

Dec 15, 2011 9:33:23 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

There is a shot showing the arrival of the postal police crossing the street at 12:48:52.81
Add 10-12 minutes to that (the error in the garage camera clock) and you get 12:58 - 1:00.

This analysis assumes that the clock was 10 minutes slow, agreed?

Umm, does this mean yes or no? It's a simple question:

Yes, 10 - 12 minutes slow. Agreed.

Are you claiming that the garage camera photographed every last car which came to the cottage?

No, but it does seem to have captured the postal police and one lot of the caribinieri.
I know the camera did not run continuously, rather it is triggered by movement.
It apparently captures any movement in it's field of view, but it's certainly possible
that this mechanism is not completely reliable.

His judgment about what is the strongest might be different from mine.


That's simply false. The report clearly says "according to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence" Also, "a little before 1:00pm" would include 12:40.

My reading of this passage in Massei is that he is accepting the defence argument.
If he wasn't accepting it, he would have said why.
The language is rather stilted, but is consistent with the rest of the report.
Generally Massei only gives defence arguments when he is accepting them, or if he is rejecting them, he states this explicitly and says why. I can ask an Italian speaker to look again at the original and confirm the meaning if you wish.

I wouldn't be sure of it. For one thing, there might not be a picture of the first carabinieri to arrive. Second, the prosecution might have felt it was pretty strong on this point and there was no need to rebut the defense argument.

I agree there might not have been a picture of the first carabinieri.
But the prosecution must have had knowledge of whether further carabinieri arrived soon after.
As I said, I cannot find anything of that nature. I have a timeline which shows

13:30 Monica Napoleoni, Deputy Commissioner of the state police, and the staff from 118 arrive - Massei Report pg 95
14:30 Inspector Brocci arrives at crime scene and starts setting up -Massei Report pg 99

My understanding is that neither of these are "carabinieri".
This isn't necessarily complete, but all I can do is go on what I have.

Here:
www.corriere.it/english/articoli/2007/11_Novembre/07/perudia_murder.shtml

Ok, first this is a newspaper report, and there were many unreliable newspaper reports about the case, so I'm cautious for that reason. But supposing the report is correct, it sounds to me as if Raffaele was changing his story about the timing due to the police telling him that the postal police arrived before his 112 call ( maybe they showed him the garage camera picture and he didn't think that the clock could have been slow ). If you put people under enough pressure and feed them false information, they will usually modify what they say ( another example is how Amanda Knox changed her story after many hours of questioning ). Do you have the original version of what Raffaele said on the 112 call and the postal police arriving?

Massei categorically states the time in his "ACCOUNT OF EVENTS".

Exactly what time does he state?

"a little before 1:00 pm."

( see my first post in this thread ).
This suggests to me 1 or 2 minutes before. Maybe 5 minutes.
Of course this has been translated, so any fine nuance may have been lost.
But I don't see how 30 minutes could be said to be "a little" in this context.

Besides the garage camera, there is still the defence argument in Massei, that is :

How could Raffaele (and to a lesser extent Amanda) have made a series of long mobile calls without the postal police noticing?

It doesn't make any sense.

[fortaleza]

Dec 16, 2011 3:40:34 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

No, but it does seem to have captured the postal police and one lot of the caribinieri.
I know the camera did not run continuously, rather it is triggered by movement.
It apparently captures any movement in it's field of view, but it's certainly possible
that this mechanism is not completely reliable.

In that case your argument fails. It's "certainly possible" that the authorities were lying or mistaken when they (apparently) indicated that the clock was ten minutes off in the other direction. In fact, you can explain away all of the evidence against Knox by coming up with scenarios which are "certainly possible."

My reading of this passage in Massei is that he is accepting the defence argument.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point. If I say "according to Bob Johnson, the moon landing was a hoax," I think it's pretty clear that I do not necessarily agree with Bob Johnson. In fact, the suggestion is that I disagree with him.

I agree there might not have been a picture of the first carabinieri.
But the prosecution must have had knowledge of whether further carabinieri arrived soon after.

Sure, and they might very well have put such evidence in as rebuttal evidence. Without a trial transcript, there's no way to know. Even if they didn't it doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are any number of reasons why it might have been left out.

As I said, I cannot find anything of that nature.

In a typical small US city, if the authorities found a murder victim like this, you can bet that within 20 or 30 minutes, police would be showing up from all over town. Either because they might be needed to control the scene or because police work is boring most of the time. I would guess that Italy is the same way.

Anyway, you don't seem to dispute that according to the authorities, the clock was checked and found to be 10 minutes off in the other direction. So in effect, you are claiming that the authorities are lying or mistaken. To back up such a claim, you will need more than speculation.

But supposing the report is correct, it sounds to me as if Raffaele was changing his story about the timing due to the police telling him that the postal police arrived before his 112 call ( maybe they showed him the garage camera picture and he didn't think that the clock could have been slow ).

That's "certainly possible," i.e. you are playing the same game Knox's supporters have been playing all along -- looking at each piece of evidence in isolation and coming up with a story to explain it. If there were only one or two pieces of evidence like this, you would have a point.

This suggests to me 1 or 2 minutes before. Maybe 5 minutes.
Of course this has been translated, so any fine nuance may have been lost.
But I don't see how 30 minutes could be said to be "a little" in this context.

Well what about 15 or 20 minutes?

How could Raffaele (and to a lesser extent Amanda) have made a series of long mobile calls without the postal police noticing?

I believe the testimony was that at some point Knox and Sollecito retreated to her room and shut the door.

[geebee2]

Dec 16, 2011 7:26:38 GMT -5 fortaleza said:

Anyway, you don't seem to dispute that according to the authorities, the clock was checked and found to be 10 minutes off in the other direction. So in effect, you are claiming that the authorities are lying or mistaken. To back up such a claim, you will need more than speculation.

I certainly do dispute that. It's clear that during the case, there was a dispute on this, with the defence claiming the clock was 10 minutes slow and the police/prosecution 10 minutes fast. I cannot point to any definitive place where this was resolved, but Massei definitely seems to have accepted the defence case on this. Reasons:

(1) He doesn't say there was anything suspicious about Raffaele calling 112 after the postal police arrived. Given that this was a significant issue in earlier hearings ( and would indeed be circumstantial evidence against Raffaele), we must conclude it had been resolved in the favour of the defence.

(2) He states that the postal police arrived "a little before 1:00pm".

"Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm"

How can this be compatible with the police timing of 12:39 pm? ( = 12:49 - 10 minutes ).

(3) He explains why the defence version was accepted, and doesn't attempt any refutation.

"(who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants’ defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito’s telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers)"


Do you agree that Massei accepted the defence version of events in this respect (arrival of postal police)?

It's still possible that he was wrong of course, but Massei's view seems quite unambiguous to me.

Well, I don't think I can say much more on this topic, but I may raise it on IIP with people who have a much deeper knowledge of the case than I do.

( I wil not be online for some time after tomorrow, but I hope to resume discussion after Christmas, Happy Christmas to you )

[fortaleza]

geebee2 said:

I certainly do dispute that. It's clear that during the case, there was a dispute on this, with the defence claiming the clock was 10 minutes slow and the police/prosecution 10 minutes fast. I cannot point to any definitive place where this was resolved, but Massei definitely seems to have accepted the defence case on this. Reasons:

What you are saying makes no sense at all. You seem to be confusing a dispute over the time of arrival with a dispute over what position the authorities took on the issue.

The authorities took the position that the clock was 10 minutes fast. You don't seem to disagree with this. You are claiming that they are lying or mistaken. You are basing your claim on pure speculation. It's as simple as that.

You are also making the assumption that any argument for guilt omitted by the Massei report must be lacking in merit.

"Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm"

How can this be compatible with the police timing of 12:39 pm? ( = 12:49 - 10 minutes ).

In English "a little before" can certainly include 20 minutes. Also keep in mind that it would have taken the postal police a few minutes to get out of their car and find the house. If they had said "a few minutes before" then you might have a point.

(3) He explains why the defence version was accepted, and doesn't attempt any refutation.

Let me ask you this:

Let's suppose I state the following:

According to what is maintained by conspiracy theorists, the moon landing was a hoax

Would you say that I am accepting that the moon landing was a hoax?

Do you agree that Massei accepted the defence version of events in this respect (arrival of postal police)?

No, for the reasons above.

[geebee2]

Ah, I have found more in Massei, he says ( page 28 or [14] in original ), his "ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS"

At said dwelling they did not find Filomena Romanelli, the person they were looking for, for the reason stated above, but rather the present accused, who were outside the house sitting near the fence located almost at the end of the lane that leads to the house itself, once past a gate. They were, then, outside the house, near the side of the wall where the window of the room occupied at the time by Filomena Romanelli is located.

..

As soon as they arrived, the young people – Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – said that they were waiting for the carabinieri whom they had called..

No ambiguity there. This conclusively demonstrates Massei's view. Agreed?

[fortaleza]

Dec 16, 2011 16:52:55 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

No ambiguity there. This conclusively demonstrates Massei's view. Agreed?

That Knox and Sollecito advised the postal police that they had already called the police?

Or that Knox and Sollecito actually did call the police before the postal police arrived?

[geebee2]

So you are suggesting they told the postal police they had already called 112, but in fact they didn't call until later?

Why are they are sitting outside waiting for something then?

And how could Sollecito and Knox then make a series of long phone calls without the postal police noticing?

If that's really your theory, you should have said so in the first place.

I cannot believe that, and evidently Massei didn't either or he would certainly have discussed it. Agreed? That's the point I'm trying to establish.

[geebee2]

Ok, I have found quite a bit more detail about how this was fought out in court from

forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7085779&postcount=920

We now at least know that the police didn't establish the accuracy of the camera clock at the time of the murder.

( "she did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late, how it worked, where it was located etc." )

There is also the picture of (possibly) Meredith arriving at the cottage, which supports the defence version of the clock being 10 minutes slow ( if it is Meredith then the clock must have been slow ).

So, we have 2 pictures that support the defence theory ( 10 minutes slow ) and the police do not appear to have challenged this. That doesn't establish the defence is correct with 100% certainty, but if the police account is correct, there is apparently no evidence to support it, and also no evidence to challenge the defence's account. If such evidence exists, it would have been produced at the appeal trial.

That said, I have read that the prosecution did try to resurrect the claim about the 112 call being made after the arrival of the postal police in their closing arguments at the appeal trial. I don't read too much into this, they were pretty desperate by this stage, I think they knew that the appeal would very likely succeed, by now everything was running against them ( as is apparent from the Hellmann - Zanetti report that we now have ).

[fortaleza]

Dec 16, 2011 19:15:52 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

So you are suggesting they told the postal police they had already called 112, but in fact they didn't call until later?

Please stop confusing the issues. Your question was about what it says in the Massei report, not what actually happened.

You asked if a particular passage from the Massei report conclusively demonstrates Massei's position about the call. Here is the quote you provided:

As soon as they arrived, the young people – Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – said that they were waiting for the carabinieri whom they had called..

In order to answer your question, I need to know what exactly is the view you are ascribing to Massei:

(1) That Knox and Sollecito called the carabinieri before the postal police arrived; or

(2) That Knox and Sollecito advised the postal police upon arrival that they had already called the carabinieri; or

(3) Something else.

Please answer my question. What exactly is the view you are ascribing to Massei which you think is conclusively demonstrated by the quote in question?

Why are they are sitting outside waiting for something then?

Where does it say that Knox and Sollecito were waiting for something?

And how could Sollecito and Knox then make a series of long phone calls without the postal police noticing?

I already answered this question.

If that's really your theory, you should have said so in the first place.

Why?

I cannot believe that, and evidently Massei didn't either or he would certainly have discussed it. Agreed?

No. I understand your position on this point. You believe that any strong argument for guilt would necessarily have been included in the Massei report. I disagree.

That's the point I'm trying to establish.

Simply asserting it repeatedly does not establish it.

[fortaleza]

Dec 17, 2011 1:20:59 GMT -5 geebee2 said:

Ok, I have found quite a bit more detail about how this was fought out in court from

forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7085779&postcount=920

We now at least know that the police didn't establish the accuracy of the camera clock at the time of the murder.

( "she did make mincemeat out of the witness as he did not have all the answers as to how he knew it was 10 min late, how it worked, where it was located etc." )

Was this witness put on the stand for the purposes of establishing the accuracy of the camera clock? Was he the only witness on this point? And do you accept all of Stewart Homes' summaries of the trial testimony or only those which favor your position?

It looks to me like the testimony about the timing was incidental to this witness's testimony.

[geebee2]

Dec 17, 2011 4:26:54 GMT -5 fortaleza said:

In order to answer your question, I need to know what exactly is the view you are ascribing to Massei:

(1) That Knox and Sollecito called the carabinieri before the postal police arrived; or

(2) That Knox and Sollecito advised the postal police upon arrival that they had already called the carabinieri; or

(3) Something else.

Please answer my question. What exactly is the view you are ascribing to Massei which you think is conclusively demonstrated by the quote in question?

(1) No, Massei does not say that anywhere.

(2) Yes, Massei does state this.