|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 17, 2011 6:25:53 GMT -5
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=920We 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. I agree, but clearly the witness wasn't able to establish the accuracy of the camera clock. That indicates that this was indeed an issue that was unresolved at this point in the trial. Given that Massei does not mention any problem with Sollecito calling 112 before the postal police arrived, he apparently accepted what the defence said, and did not find any inconsistency in what RS & RS said immediately the postal police arrived. Another point to consider: even if ( contrary to the evidence we have ) Sollecito did call 112 after the postal police arrived, and he lied to them about having called earlier, this is not very strong evidence of guilt. (a) If he was guilty, it would have been an extraordinarily stupid thing to say - to start your contact with the authorities with an outright lie that could be easily dis-proved. (b) If he was not guilty, he might nevertheless have been worried that he should have called the police earlier, that not doing so could be seen as suspicious, so he blurted out a stupid lie. I don't find either of these at all likely, but at the same time they seem to be roughly equally unlikely. They would show that Raffaele sometimes lied in a stupid way ( regardless of guilt ), but not a lot more. This is consistent with how Raffaele made up the story in his diary about how Meredith's DNA could be on the blade of the knife ( which I regard as almost certainly an invention ). It's the same with the inconsistency of Amanda and Raffaele's alibis. I think in some ways this actually indicates innocence - if they were guilty, they would have conferred and come up with a consistent story they would stick to. Instead Raffaele was apparently all over the place in his recollection of the night of the murder.
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 17, 2011 7:12:13 GMT -5
(1) No, Massei does not say that anywhere. (2) Yes, Massei does state this. In that case, my answer to your question is "probably yes," i.e. I concede that according to Massei, Knox and Sollecito advised the postal police upon their arrival that they had already called the police. And now I have a question for you: So what?
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 17, 2011 7:30:33 GMT -5
I agree, but clearly the witness wasn't able to establish the accuracy of the camera clock. Assuming that's true, so what? He was apparently there to testify about other issues and Sollecito's attorney was clever enough to cross-examine him on the timing issue. I'm not sure what you mean by "unresolved," but it's certainly possible that another police witness had testified the previous day (or testified later) that he checked the clock on the camera against a clock known to be accurate and found that the CCTV clock was 10 minutes fast. You cannot assume that this witness was the only witness on this issue just like you assumed that the police in the photo were the only police who came to the cottage that afternoon. By the way, please answer my earlier question: Do you accept all of Stewart Homes' summaries of trial testimony or only those which support your position? Asserting this point again and again does not make it so. Let me ask you this: If I say "According to Party X, Y is the case," does that mean that I accept Y? If he was not guilty, he would not have worried about seeming suspicious since he would not have known that there had been a murder. Besides which, if he were not guilty, when he did call the police, he would have surely told them that there were police already there. It's really difficult to come up with a false story which is consistent with lots of different pieces of evidence, especially if you are not aware of all the evidence. Anyway, please answer my question from before: Where does it say that Knox and Sollecito were waiting for something?
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 25, 2011 0:46:28 GMT -5
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. You asked "what exactly is the view you are ascribing to Massei" not "what did Massei say". As I have said repeatedly, if Massei believed that Knox and Sollecito called the carabinieri before the postal police he arrived, he would have said that. Incidentally, I read elsewhere ( sorry, cannot find the reference at the moment, I'm just back from holiday ) that the terms in which Raffaele "admitted" that the postal police arrived before his call were ambiguous. It was not a definite statement at all. This is similar to various other prejudicial police leaks that appeared in the press, such as bleach being bought the morning after the murder (with a receipt to prove it), Knox being seen on camera at the cottage, the Harry Potter book she read on the night of the murder not being at Sollecito's house, etc, etc. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/meredith-suspect-caught-on-cctv-at-murder-scene-400087.htmlwww.metro.co.uk/news/world/590907-i-saw-foxy-knoxy-in-bleach-sectionwww.komonews.com/news/local/12643316.html
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 25, 2011 8:33:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 27, 2011 6:13:55 GMT -5
Ok, but so what? What is the importance of this distinction?
Anyway, I have my own rules of debate. One rule is that you must answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position.
Please answer my questions:
1. What difference does it make for this discussion that according to Massei, Knox and Sollecito advised the postal police upon their arrival that they had already called the police.
2. Was Mauro Barbadori 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?
3. Where does it say that Knox and Sollecito were waiting for something when the postal police arrived?
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 27, 2011 6:56:27 GMT -5
Ok, but so what? What is the importance of this distinction? Anyway, I have my own rules of debate. One rule is that you must answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position. Please answer my questions: 1. What difference does it make for this discussion that according to Massei, Knox and Sollecito advised the postal police upon their arrival that they had already called the police. Not very much difference. I'm just trying to establish facts that we can agree on. You could still be right about the issue overall. (a) No, I think it's fairly clear he was there for some other purpose, but he should (ideally) have been prepared to establish the accuracy of the camera clock. (b) I don't know who Stewart Homes is, I have no idea what other summaries he made or his general position, and I agree that any such summaries (as opposed to actual court documents) have to be regarded with scepticism. But it may nevertheless help us find the truth ( while most people try to skew things to fit their point of view, for example by omitting things, people don't usually lie outright ). The quote is "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" Page 28 of English translation of the Massei report, or bottom of page 14 in the original Italian. The first "they" here refers to the postal police. It is not Massei making the statement outright, rather Massei states what Amanda and Raffaele said ( presumably via the statements of the postal police ). I might perhaps add that I have some doubt about the accuracy of this, because Amanda's testimony indicates that she mis-took the postal police for the carabinieri ( she was quite surprised they arrived so soon ). Maybe Raffaele had a better understanding, and was able to distinguish the different uniforms. Amanda's testimony:
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 27, 2011 8:10:45 GMT -5
The quote is "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" Next question: Why do you accept Knox's testimony as gospel? And assuming you do accept her testimony as gospel, one can make an even stronger argument: (1) Knox obviously did not take part in the murder since she denied it; therefore (2) She is innocent. QED
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 27, 2011 11:43:21 GMT -5
The quote is "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" Next question: Why do you accept Knox's testimony as gospel? And assuming you do accept her testimony as gospel, one can make an even stronger argument: (1) Knox obviously did not take part in the murder since she denied it; therefore (2) She is innocent. QED I don't accept Amanda's words as gospel, when did I ever say that? In fact I even doubted that Amanda said this - rather Raffaele might have said it. I even doubt that, since the postal police have proved to be rather unreliable witnesses ( not their fault, most witnesses are quite unreliable ). But if Raffaele did say it, then if he made it up, it was made up very quickly, this is more the point. Can you see why ( even before the evidence is considered ) I see the whole scenario as so implausible? It would be a really stupid murderer who initiates his contact with the authorities by immediately stating a complete lie that would be easy to disprove later. I just don't believe it happened, Massei didn't and Hellmann didn't - he says the idea is disproved "on the basis of statements made by the staff of the Police working on the dates shown and printouts" (google translation). So I cannot believe it, unless shown convincing evidence that shows it to be true, that is that the postal police arrived before the 112 call. We don't have any such evidence.
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 27, 2011 14:26:32 GMT -5
Oh, as an additional explanation, the reason I tend to quote Amanda's testimony quite a bit is that it is available ( from the PMF website ). Almost the only other primary court material I have access to is the Massei report, and now the Hellmann report (not yet fully translated). It would certainly be good to have access to other court documents, but we must make do with what we have.
Amanda's testimony is often useful for constructing the most plausible defence case. In this instance it doesn't have much bearing, but in other cases ( Meredith's locked door) it is quite useful.
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 27, 2011 14:57:43 GMT -5
I don't accept Amanda's words as gospel, when did I ever say that? Here's what you asked before: Do you agree that this question assumes that Knox and Sollecito were waiting for something? Do you agree that the only evidence you have offered for this assumption is Knox's own claims? And if so, why are you assuming that Knox's claims are true without any other evidence? People sometimes say stupid things when they are surprised, especially if they are tired.
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 27, 2011 15:48:29 GMT -5
Oh, I just had another thought.
Supposing the postal police arrived at 12:40 ( or 12:30 ) and Raffaele makes up this lie that he already called 112. So he's now in a very awkward position, and will be desperate to make the call as soon as possible without being noticed. Why on earth then would he call his sister first? Or if before 12:35, why would he recharge the money on his phone first ( I'm pretty sure emergency calls don't need the phone to have money on it ).
This is in addition to how the postal police could have failed to notice all this going on when they were apparently with Amanda and Raffaele the whole time.
I think it's really hard to make sense of everything with the postal police arriving so early.
|
|
|
Post by geebee2 on Dec 27, 2011 17:09:35 GMT -5
I don't accept Amanda's words as gospel, when did I ever say that? Here's what you asked before: Do you agree that this question assumes that Knox and Sollecito were waiting for something? Do you agree that the only evidence you have offered for this assumption is Knox's own claims? And if so, why are you assuming that Knox's claims are true without any other evidence? People sometimes say stupid things when they are surprised, especially if they are tired. I'm not assuming anything, I'm just stating what evidence we have. I did make the inference that Massei reported it, but didn't question it, which suggests that Massei either accepted it, or at least didn't have any evidence to question it. That proves nothing of course.
|
|
|
Post by fortaleza on Dec 28, 2011 8:08:08 GMT -5
I'm not assuming anything, That's not true, your question pretty clearly assumes she was waiting for something. However, to give you a chance to clarify things I asked you a couple reasonable questions about your position. You ignored both of them. I already made it clear to you that you need to answer reasonable questions so that I can understand your position. My rules of debate also forbid weaseling, which entails pretending you said something different from what you already said. Thus, I am banning you from this discussion board. Goodbye.
|
|