Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[carbonjam72]

Which frame do you look at?

We don't know if some of that isn't due to distortion of the image. Compare the background to other images from that camera and see if other people walking in that frame appear similarly obese.

Dan O., The issue is which frame is chosen, to compare to Amanda. The frame chosen and emphasized in the media, which you also chose to show in your post, is a side view that conceals this woman's obvious and pronounced girth. That's misleading.

The close up I provided of an earlier frame of the same women a second earlier, shows her in a more frontal view. She's obese. Also, look at her cheeks in the side view close-up: it's like she's got bananas in her mouth!



In the frame I used, it's obvious its not Amanda. Yet the headlines are; 'ITALIAN TV PROGRAM CLAIMS CCTV CHALLENGES AMANDA'S ALIBI'. That's an intentionally false use of this CCTV imagery, to create the appearance that Amanda wasn't telling the truth in her alibi, when it is plainly not the case.

It's a CCTV camera, not a funhouse mirror. It's likely to be a normal wider lens, that retains focus regardless of distance, because its there for security. (Our camera experts here can likely be more precise.)

 

[RWVBWL]

Going out to nightclubs is fun, but expensive!
Rudi G'Day was clubbin' on Oct, 29, 30, and Halloween.
He was also seen by Nacho at 'The Domus' the night after Meredith's murder.
Night after night, out on the town.


How did Rudy pay for the drinks, the fun nights out?
Mooching off The Spanish Erasmus or buyin' drinks for himself,
Or maybe Rudy, workin' with Armani, he was the life of the party, flowin' drinks to his new friends too?
And dancin' with a smooth blonde long haired gal, surely he bought her some drinks too, hoping to hook-up?
Surely a guy who was tellin' friends that he worked for Giorgio Armani was not "Poor Rudy" then, right?

 

[Strozzi]

Dan O., The issue is which frame is chosen, to compare to Amanda. The frame chosen and emphasized in the media, which you also chose to show in your post, is a side view that conceals this woman's obvious and pronounced girth. That's misleading.

The close up I provided of an earlier frame of the same women a second earlier, shows her in a more frontal view. She's obese. Also, look at her cheeks in the side view close-up: it's like she's got bananas in her mouth!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f859bc1542.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f85ab38f37.png[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f85cf38b3d.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f8643a7530.jpg[/qimg]

In the frame I used, it's obvious its not Amanda. Yet the headlines are; 'ITALIAN TV PROGRAM CLAIMS CCTV CHALLENGES AMANDA'S ALIBI'. That's an intentionally false use of this CCTV imagery, to create the appearance that Amanda wasn't telling the truth in her alibi, when it is plainly not the case.

It's a CCTV camera, not a funhouse mirror. It's likely to be a normal wider lens, that retains focus regardless of distance, because its there for security. (Our camera experts here can likely be more precise.)

These images indicate why the prosecution did not use this in court against Amanda. It is clear this person is not Amanda. That doesn't mean that on day 1 the police realized that. Upon collection and first looking at the video, they may have initially thought it was the American and it may have contributed to the police belief that Amanda was not where she said she was.

I have trusted Giobbi all along. I believed him when he said he knew Amanda was guilty "because she was eating pizza". Now to think that he may have reached that conclusion days earlier from seeing this video. Say it ain't so, Giobbi. Restore my confidence in you. Tell me you can pick out killers using your sense of taste. The woman is fat. Amanda eats pizza. Pizza makes you fat. Therefore, it must be her. Case closed!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you look at the CCTV footage recently at issue, the mystery woman is wearing a 'colored' overcoat, and in this earlier frame, her body type is plainly obese. The bottom of the coat might look like a "light colored skirt", and if you're not too constrained by fact, the upper part of the coat might just pass for, "and top" of the "light colored skirt". (A description similar to Amanda's clothing that night, right?).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f673448ae6.png[/qimg]

But it goes to show the quality of investigation, the poor faculties of perception, the willingness to jump to mistaken conclusions, and most of all, the active interest in misleading public opinion so crucial to poisoning the jury pool and undermining the trial process.

I can't understand that this image of an obese woman, showing that the use by the media of a side-view frame to conceal her girth solely that she might be mistaken for Amanda, isn't being seen as revealing the maliciousness of publishing intentionally false information to harm two innocent people by subjecting them to cruel unjust imprisonment for most of their lives for a crime they did not commit.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f690ede411.jpg[/qimg]

Where is the outrage? Is the behavior so common place by now, that we barely even notice? Isn't this the very definition of the Italian laws for "Calumny"?

That woman looks anything but obese. What Amanda is doing going into the garage at 9:03 is beyond me, I doubt we will ever know, but just for the heck of it, look at the picture of Amanda on Nov 2nd, outside her cottage wearing the blue top and talking to the police with her hands out, I hope you know the one I mean, now compare her purse in that picture to the one in the video, strange, isn't it.

 

[carbonjam72]

a regular sherlock...

That woman looks anything but obese. What Amanda is doing going into the garage at 9:03 is beyond me, I doubt we will ever know, but just for the heck of it, look at the picture of Amanda on Nov 2nd, outside her cottage wearing the blue top and talking to the police with her hands out, I hope you know the one I mean, now compare her purse in that picture to the one in the video, strange, isn't it.

Yes Sherlock, you have solved another crime. Amazing! Now quickly, fetch the needle!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes Sherlock, you have solved another crime. Amazing! Now quickly, fetch the needle!

Oh, this one didn't need solving. it's pretty straight forward. I hope for your sake Amanda doesn't read over here, woman hate to be called fat and she does have a history you know.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Ms. Popovic and Amanda's clothing

Did Ms. Popovic testify with respect to what Amanda was wearing? As far as I am aware, Amanda said that the clothes she wore that evening were in her room (on a chair?).

 

[moije2]

I would be curious how much drinks cost at that club. My quick search didn't land a quick answer. My memory is that drinks are not cheap in night spots... The cost of drinks could easily eat up an ordinary budget. And if that club was a spot for Italian boys to hit on foreign girls, as one search result stated, then he may have been paying for more than himself. Possibly.

 

[Desert Fox]

That woman looks anything but obese. What Amanda is doing going into the garage at 9:03 is beyond me, I doubt we will ever know, but just for the heck of it, look at the picture of Amanda on Nov 2nd, outside her cottage wearing the blue top and talking to the police with her hands out, I hope you know the one I mean, now compare her purse in that picture to the one in the video, strange, isn't it.

Arthur Conan Doyle believed in faeries and seances.

Assuming that the figure is not heavy set - others have made compelling arguments but not going to hang my hat on that - the carrying the bag on the other side is extremely out of the norm for Amanda and there is so little detail we cannot tell who the hell it is.
So, are you a Poe? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

[toto]

That woman looks anything but obese. What Amanda is doing going into the garage at 9:03 is beyond me, I doubt we will ever know, but just for the heck of it, look at the picture of Amanda on Nov 2nd, outside her cottage wearing the blue top and talking to the police with her hands out, I hope you know the one I mean, now compare her purse in that picture to the one in the video, strange, isn't it.

Assuming the pic isn't distorted (possibly a big assumption) the figure here seems to correspond to image no 3 on the Wikipedia chart
You only have to have a BM1 of 30 to be classified obese, but the real point I suppose is how the figure of this rather dumpy woman compares to Amanda. (Again I concede the possibility of picture distortion).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f673448ae6.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...svg/230px-Obesity-waist_circumference.svg.png

 

[kwill]

She's a witch.

It gets more and more difficult to take the PGP seriously. There's an old Monty Python sketch, maybe you all have shared it before?

She's a witch.

Every time I look at this, it reminds me of this travesty. Some choice lines:

PGP (with great enthusiasm): We have found a witch, may we burn her?

Nencini: How do you know she is a witch?

PGP: She looks like one!

Nencini: Bring her forward.

Amanda: I'm not a witch, I'm not a witch!

Nencini: But you are dressed as one . . .

Amanda: They dressed me up like this! And this isn't my nose, it's a false one!

(Nencini pauses to examine ridiculous carrot attached to "witch's" face.)

Nencini to PGP: Well?

PGP: Well, we did do the nose . . . and the hat . . . but she's a witch!! Burn her, burn her, burn her!!!

Nencini: Did you dress her up like this?

PGP: No, no, no . . . yes, yes. A bit! A bit. She has got a wart!

They dressed her up like this, but hey, she does have a wart, so it's all justified.

They turned her into a slut party girl druggie monster murderess, but she did do yoga at the police station, so it's all justified.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Assuming the pic isn't distorted (possibly a big assumption) the figure here seems to correspond to image no 3 on the Wikipedia chart
You only have to have a BM1 of 30 to be classified obese, but the real point I suppose is how the figure of this rather dumpy woman compares to Amanda. (Again I concede the possibility of picture distortion).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f673448ae6.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...svg/230px-Obesity-waist_circumference.svg.png

Try and remember, it's November 1st, it's 9:03 PM, this person likely even has a sweater on under that coat, Obese. please....

 

[acbytesla]

Assuming the pic isn't distorted (possibly a big assumption) the figure here seems to correspond to image no 3 on the Wikipedia chart
You only have to have a BM1 of 30 to be classified obese, but the real point I suppose is how the figure of this rather dumpy woman compares to Amanda. (Again I concede the possibility of picture distortion).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f673448ae6.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...svg/230px-Obesity-waist_circumference.svg.png

I am not jumping on this bandwagon. For me, the one thing is clear is that is not Amanda Knox. Not that this person is obese or ugly or anything else. Just that this is not Amanda Knox. I think the image is far too grainy and the clothes are too baggy and nondescript to make any other kind of judgement.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O., The issue is which frame is chosen, to compare to Amanda. The frame chosen and emphasized in the media, which you also chose to show in your post, is a side view that conceals this woman's obvious and pronounced girth. That's misleading.

The close up I provided of an earlier frame of the same women a second earlier, shows her in a more frontal view. She's obese. Also, look at her cheeks in the side view close-up: it's like she's got bananas in her mouth!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f859bc1542.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67903536f85ab38f37.png[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f85cf38b3d.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_67903536f8643a7530.jpg[/qimg]

In the frame I used, it's obvious its not Amanda. Yet the headlines are; 'ITALIAN TV PROGRAM CLAIMS CCTV CHALLENGES AMANDA'S ALIBI'. That's an intentionally false use of this CCTV imagery, to create the appearance that Amanda wasn't telling the truth in her alibi, when it is plainly not the case.

It's a CCTV camera, not a funhouse mirror. It's likely to be a normal wider lens, that retains focus regardless of distance, because its there for security. (Our camera experts here can likely be more precise.)

It's not the camera. The aspect ratio has not been preserved in those images that you are showing. Compare the background in your images to the images here. Correct your aspect ratio and then see if she still looks out of shape.

 

[Desert Fox]

Try and remember, it's November 1st, it's 9:03 PM, this person likely even has a sweater on under that coat, Obese. please....

Just admitted that there is no way that you can identify the image or video as being Amanda Knox. . . .oops

 

[acbytesla]

That woman looks anything but obese. What Amanda is doing going into the garage at 9:03 is beyond me, I doubt we will ever know, but just for the heck of it, look at the picture of Amanda on Nov 2nd, outside her cottage wearing the blue top and talking to the police with her hands out, I hope you know the one I mean, now compare her purse in that picture to the one in the video, strange, isn't it.

Oh c'mon Sherlock. You're smart enough to know that ISN'T Amanda Knox. Keep in mind that even the prosecution DIDN'T think this was Amanda Knox. They had this image since day one. This isn't new.

Also notice the direction this person is moving. They are coming from the Southwest and the from the street above the cottage. Which is the OPPOSITE Direction of Raffaele's apartment and the Piazza Grimana And 15 minutes before this Amanda is at the front door of Raffaele's apartment greeting Jovana Popovich who is there to tell Raffaele that she doesn't need Raffaele to take her to the train station.

It is one thing to think that Amanda Knox is guilty. It is another to desperately jump at ever piece of nonsense trivia.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not jumping on this bandwagon. For me, the one thing is clear is that is not Amanda Knox. Not that this person is obese or ugly or anything else. Just that this is not Amanda Knox. I think the image is far too grainy and the clothes are too baggy and nondescript as well as an image that is too grainy to make any other kind of judgement.

The fact that the bag is carried on the wrong arm makes it very unlikely that it is Amanda.

 

[toto]

I am not jumping on this bandwagon. For me, the one thing is clear is that is not Amanda Knox. Not that this person is obese or ugly or anything else. Just that this is not Amanda Knox. I think the image is far too grainy and the clothes are too baggy and nondescript to make any other kind of judgement.

On reflection, my word "dumpy" was rather rude, and I would withdraw it if possible. The word "obese" is a clinical term but I can see no one would want to be referred to in that way. According to the pictures (if they are a true representation) her build appears to be different to Amanda's. But as most people have said it is rather a red herring to be discussing this.

 

[Samson]

The fact that the bag is carried on the wrong arm makes it very unlikely that it is Amanda.

If anyone can find an image where she is unconstrained by a companion and hanging a bag from her left side it should be posted. 15 of 15 I found were right hand side. The one on the left hand side was when a companion was holding her tightly from the right.
This photo can scarcely be Amanda for this behavioural reason alone.

Sherlock, this would be a very common diagnostic tool for Sherlock Holmes. I bet I could find a similar story from his collection given time.

 

[Rolfe]

Some people seem to be forgetting the burden of proof. I don't think it looks anything like Amanda. That's not the point, though. It's not up to anyone to prove it ISN'T Amanda. It's up to those who believe that it is to prove that.

It's ridiculous. It looks like Santa Claus in drag. There's no way that can be demonstrated to be Amanda, or even to be probably Amanda, and that's an end of it.

Rolfe.