Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[analemma]

I think the story would be a very hard sell to a US jury especially when you do not need a majority but instead need a unanimous jury.

This story would be VERY difficult to sell to an American jury, which might wonder;
Why the obvious semen stain was not tested by prosecution to identify the rapist?
Why was the prosecution hiding the DNA results and only showing "FINAL Prosecution Findings".
Why did the judge deny over 30 defense motions for "more complete testing"?
In the United States there would not be a Supreme Court brainwashed Judge insisting that the jury consider nonsense "judicial Truths" BS, which members of the Italian Nencini jury insisted forced them to change their verdict from "guilty BARD" to "Guilty because of Judicial truths".
Juries everywhere seem to see the lies behind "judicial truths" and lean toward BARD, except in Italy, where the judge can force the jury to use "judicial truths" as the conviction standard.

 

[Desert Fox]

This story would be VERY difficult to sell to an American jury, which might wonder;
Why the obvious semen stain was not tested by prosecution to identify the rapist?
Why was the prosecution hiding the DNA results and only showing "FINAL Prosecution Findings".
Why did the judge deny over 30 defense motions for "more complete testing"?
In the United States there would not be a Supreme Court brainwashed Judge insisting that the jury consider nonsense "judicial Truths" BS, which members of the Italian Nencini jury insisted forced them to change their verdict from "guilty BARD" to "Guilty because of Judicial truths".
Juries everywhere seem to see the lies behind "judicial truths" and lean toward BARD, except in Italy, where the judge can force the jury to use "judicial truths" as the conviction standard.

Not impossible though especially when you look at the West Memphis Three case.

 

[carbonjam72]

Nevertheless, I doubt if Meredith & Guede were cooped up in the cottage together very long before something very bad happened. I suspect that Meredith was attacked within moments of walking in the door, and that the attack was over quickly, likely in a minute or two.

So things don't happen because you 'doubt', and things are 'likely' to have happened because you 'suspect'. I'm still not seeing a basis for accepting your views over Randy's here.

I don't feel the video fits at all since they were taken over an 8 minute time span, and I feel that Meredith was already dead before the 1st in the series of photos.

The point is that the video provides evidence with possibly new information, such as the fact that Meredith may have been screaming for 8 minutes. The people's attention could have been drawn to another disturbance outside, unrelated to the murder, but we need more information to determine that, right?

Given the construction of the cottage (brick walls, small windows and tile roof), and that these people were 100 feet away from the cottage, and that Meredith's bedroom window pointed in the opposite direction away from where they were walking, even if Meredith did manage to scream, those people likely wouldn't have heard it, and they certainly wouldn't have heard an 8 minute scream.

I think its safe to say that Filomena's window was broken by then, and the video shows the people looking in the exact direction of the cottage.

And I think its also safe to say you haven't in fact been to the cottage, examined its physical construction, nor conducted any audiometric sound tests to confirm your theory here, and are basically just blowing smoke. We have other smokers on the site, so you're in good company.

What those people heard, is not known yet. We do know a violent murder took place in the cottage nearby at that approximate time. We also know some junkie was bloody and stumbling around, IIRC, near a phone booth where Curatolo hangs out (I may not have this detail exactly right).

Point is, Perugia could have a lot of strange things go on to have drawn their attention, and whatever it was that did, may not have been related to the murder. But the way to find out what drew those people's attention, is to ask them. Not to declare in advance that they can't be considered because they conflict with your pet theory. That video is more definite evidence that they heard something that may be related to the crime, than your unsupported conjecture that its immaterial to the crime. How do we know? We don't, and that includes you.

Are you asking me to believe that Meredith screamed for 8 minutes?

I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm attempting to discern the available evidence and facts into a coherent theory.

Those people, one after another, over an 8 minute time period, are all looking in the exact same direction, exactly at the cottage, at a time frame within which Meredith Kercher was violently killed. If what drew their attention, was Meredith screaming, then yes, she was screaming for 8 minutes or more.

So rather than declare, in pope like fashion, that your conception of events differs, and therefore video evidence must be discarded, why not be open to the idea that your conception may need to change to accommodate new information? Even the Pope forgave Galileo, although it took 400 years.

The fact is, the police never talked to any of those people, so wondering why 8 years later what caused them to turn around is an exercise in futility.

Please just read what you wrote, and try to imagine why I might find this persuasive, because I see nothing.

Here are my reasons for discarding that video as probative:

1 – the construction of the cottage would have dampened any screams.

2 - seriously, you simply cannot contend that all three groups captured over an 8 minute span all heard a scream, so even if one of those 3 groups had legitimately heard something, which group?

What did the other two groups hear to make them turn around?

3 - there's no proof that Meredith even managed to scream.

I spoke too soon. Here are your reasons. (1)You don't know what the construction of the cottage implies, you just don't. And, Filomena's window was broken by that point, whether Ms Kercher was killed earlier or not. Your audio metric argument is pure speculation.

2) It's not necessary to contend anything, simply observe the video, or the frames of video (the video clips links have been posted here previously as well, I think it was on a TV show, IIRC). Your argument here is based on a logical fallacy, presuming your premise as given. I contend its possible they heard Meredith screaming for over 8 minutes. She had violent bruising to the mouth among her injuries, its suggests to me Rudy had an extreme need to silence her.

Until those people provide more information to the contrary as to what they heard, yes I think its a workable theory that they heard Meredtih screaming for 8 minutes.

Did you see Randy's excellent post of how Rudy got the times of his account off by about 25 or 30 minutes? Still doesn't prove it, but it's more circumstances in support.

Meanwhile, your argument is based primarily on your assumptions. Others here often stand on the principle, and I find such arguments no more compelling.

OJ Simpson used a knife to kill his ex-wife and her adult male friend (Ron) on the steps of her condo (i.e., out in the open), with many neighbors within earshot (condos are necessarily cramped living spaces), and not one of Nicole's neighbors heard a thing, no yelling, screaming or shouting at all.

You can discuss Guede's actions upstairs, and downstairs, and his trek to the garden to chuck the phones, but that 8 minute video of people in the parking garage adds zero light to any of this.

The police do have the video from that CCTV cam showing Guede leaving the cottage that night, and that would be likely be exculpatory for Amanda & Raffaele, so they'll never release it.

The OJ case is unrelated to this one. Different physical circumstances, people, and on and on. Its useful for comparison, but not as an element of an argument. If you can't see the difference, I'm giving up on you.

And I do remember testimony about a dog's "plaintive wail", and Ron Gildman being surprised and saying "hey, hey" or something like that. Your grasp of details strikes me as unreliable, in that case and this one. You keep stating things that are often close, but not quite right.

For example, I'm not sure, but I think the defense may have had access to a copy of the CCTV video from the garage. Others who know more, may have more info on this aspect of prosecution disclosure.

We don't need to agree KD. I find Randy's analysis more plausible here than your refutation. Just how I see it, no offense meant.

 

[carbonjam72]

This story would be VERY difficult to sell to an American jury, which might wonder;
Why the obvious semen stain was not tested by prosecution to identify the rapist?
Why was the prosecution hiding the DNA results and only showing "FINAL Prosecution Findings".
Why did the judge deny over 30 defense motions for "more complete testing"?
In the United States there would not be a Supreme Court brainwashed Judge insisting that the jury consider nonsense "judicial Truths" BS, which members of the Italian Nencini jury insisted forced them to change their verdict from "guilty BARD" to "Guilty because of Judicial truths".
Juries everywhere seem to see the lies behind "judicial truths" and lean toward BARD, except in Italy, where the judge can force the jury to use "judicial truths" as the conviction standard.

I think the mob in the streets that gets fomented by the lies leaked to the press to bias a jury is also a part of the problem.

That jurors aren't told not to rely on information in newspapers or on TV, it pollutes the trial process.

Also, the low level of education required to serve as a lay judge, graduating 8th grade for 1st instance trials, and graduating High School to sit on appeals trials. There seems to be a broad penchant towards superstition in the Italian public as well that should not be overlooked in this case.

We've had cases as bad as this I think, in the US. I think sitting in a jury room and being exposed to a prosecution's case day after day, while the defendant is sitting where guilty people usually sit, can be a form of coercion in ways though more subtle yet as effective as an overnight interrogation.

A case in the 35 year old murder of Etan Katz recently resulted in a hung jury 11-1 holdout, with zero evidence. Just an interrogation and confession from a mentally vulnerable man, 5-6 hours unrecorded, until they finally decided to turn on the video camera. 1 vote away from a conviction, and they intend to retry him. We have plenty of these cases, and idiot self-aggrandizing prosecutors.

 

[acbytesla]

Not impossible though especially when you look at the West Memphis Three case.

The Russ Faria case comes to my mind. Still, this case is truly bizarre. Maybe it's the unbelievable stupidity of the Perugian authorites. I can't imagine finding anyone as dumb and demented in power like Mignini.

 

[carbonjam72]

The Russ Faria case comes to my mind. Still, this case is truly bizarre. Maybe it's the unbelievable stupidity of the Perugian authorites. I can't imagine finding anyone as dumb and demented in power like Mignini.

Have you heard about the kayaking case in New York?

A couple went out in kayaks, unprepared for cold water, wrong type of kayak. A man drowned, his fiancee survived.

Professionals say they were lucky that even one of them survived.

After an interrogation in english, she speaks poorly (from estonia or latvia, IIRC), the police misinterpreted her statements as a kind of confession.

Police claim she capsized her husband's kayak, though professionals insist its impossible.

There's no evidence she drowned her husband. She been in jail a few months, and these idiots won't stop.

We have our Mignini's.

 

[acbytesla]

So things don't happen because you 'doubt', and things are 'likely' to have happened because you 'suspect'. I'm still not seeing a basis for accepting your views over Randy's here.



The point is that the video provides evidence with possibly new information, such as the fact that Meredith may have been screaming for 8 minutes. The people's attention could have been drawn to another disturbance outside, unrelated to the murder, but we need more information to determine that, right?



I think its safe to say that Filomena's window was broken by then, and the video shows the people looking in the exact direction of the cottage.

And I think its also safe to say you haven't in fact been to the cottage, examined its physical construction, nor conducted any audiometric sound tests to confirm your theory here, and are basically just blowing smoke. We have other smokers on the site, so you're in good company.

What those people heard, is not known yet. We do know a violent murder took place in the cottage nearby at that approximate time. We also know some junkie was bloody and stumbling around, IIRC, near a phone booth where Curatolo hangs out (I may not have this detail exactly right).

Point is, Perugia could have a lot of strange things go on to have drawn their attention, and whatever it was that did, may not have been related to the murder. But the way to find out what drew those people's attention, is to ask them. Not to declare in advance that they can't be considered because they conflict with your pet theory. That video is more definite evidence that they heard something that may be related to the crime, than your unsupported conjecture that its immaterial to the crime. How do we know? We don't, and that includes you.



I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm attempting to discern the available evidence and facts into a coherent theory.

Those people, one after another, over an 8 minute time period, are all looking in the exact same direction, exactly at the cottage, at a time frame within which Meredith Kercher was violently killed. If what drew their attention, was Meredith screaming, then yes, she was screaming for 8 minutes or more.

So rather than declare, in pope like fashion, that your conception of events differs, and therefore video evidence must be discarded, why not be open to the idea that your conception may need to change to accommodate new information? Even the Pope forgave Galileo, although it took 400 years.




Please just read what you wrote, and try to imagine why I might find this persuasive, because I see nothing.



I spoke too soon. Here are your reasons. (1)You don't know what the construction of the cottage implies, you just don't. And, Filomena's window was broken by that point, whether Ms Kercher was killed earlier or not. Your audio metric argument is pure speculation.

2) It's not necessary to contend anything, simply observe the video, or the frames of video (the video clips links have been posted here previously as well, I think it was on a TV show, IIRC). Your argument here is based on a logical fallacy, presuming your premise as given. I contend its possible they heard Meredith screaming for over 8 minutes. She had violent bruising to the mouth among her injuries, its suggests to me Rudy had an extreme need to silence her.

Until those people provide more information to the contrary as to what they heard, yes I think its a workable theory that they heard Meredtih screaming for 8 minutes.

Did you see Randy's excellent post of how Rudy got the times of his account off by about 25 or 30 minutes? Still doesn't prove it, but it's more circumstances in support.

Meanwhile, your argument is based primarily on your assumptions. Others here often stand on the principle, and I find such arguments no more compelling.



The OJ case is unrelated to this one. Different physical circumstances, people, and on and on. Its useful for comparison, but not as an element of an argument. If you can't see the difference, I'm giving up on you.

And I do remember testimony about a dog's "plaintive wail", and Ron Gildman being surprised and saying "hey, hey" or something like that. Your grasp of details strikes me as unreliable, in that case and this one. You keep stating things that are often close, but not quite right.

For example, I'm not sure, but I think the defense may have had access to a copy of the CCTV video from the garage. Others who know more, may have more info on this aspect of prosecution disclosure.

We don't need to agree KD. I find Randy's analysis more plausible here than your refutation. Just how I see it, no offense meant.

Frankly CJ. None of us knows precisely when and how Meredith's murder took place. RW or Ken maybe right. I tend to agree with Ken. That said, this is all wild speculation based on events that may or may not have had anything to do with Meredith's murder. While I think reviewing the clues and trying to reconstruct the crime is only valuable to a point.

 

[acbytesla]

Have you heard about the kayaking case in New York?

A couple went out in kayaks, unprepared for cold water, wrong type of kayak. A man drowned, his fiancee survived.

Professionals say they were lucky that even one of them survived.

After an interrogation in english, she speaks poorly (from estonia or latvia, IIRC), the police misinterpreted her statements as a kind of confession.

Police claim she capsized her husband's kayak, though professionals insist its impossible.

There's no evidence she drowned her husband. She been in jail a few months, and these idiots won't stop.

We have our Mignini's.

I stand corrected. That case is absurd too.

 

[sept79]

I think the story would be a very hard sell to a US jury especially when you do not need a majority but instead need a unanimous jury.

It would never have been presented to a jury: coerced, not recorded interrogation; no scientific evidence; no evidence of presence; time-line supports a lone attacker--R. Guede . . .

 

[carbonjam72]

Frankly CJ. None of us knows precisely when and how Meredith's murder took place. RW or Ken maybe right. I tend to agree with Ken. That said, this is all wild speculation based on events that may or may not have had anything to do with Meredith's murder. While I think reviewing the clues and trying to reconstruct the crime is only valuable to a point.

Well I agree either scenario could be right. That's the point I was trying to make.

But declaring one right and one wrong without more info, is what I objected to.

I lean for the moment, towards Randy's view. I respect that others won't.

I do though think its interesting when info comes up that could throw light more precisely on the events in question. MOO

 

[acbytesla]

Well I agree either scenario could be right. That's the point I was trying to make.

But declaring one right and one wrong without more info, is what I objected to.

I lean for the moment, towards Randy's view. I respect that others won't.

I do though think its interesting when info comes up that could throw light more precisely on the events in question. MOO

I know.......that I don't know. A concept that many people should embrace.

 

[RWVBWL]

Have you heard about the kayaking case in New York?

A couple went out in kayaks, unprepared for cold water, wrong type of kayak. A man drowned, his fiancee survived.

Professionals say they were lucky that even one of them survived.

After an interrogation in english, she speaks poorly (from estonia or latvia, IIRC), the police misinterpreted her statements as a kind of confession.

Police claim she capsized her husband's kayak, though professionals insist its impossible.

There's no evidence she drowned her husband. She been in jail a few months, and these idiots won't stop.

We have our Mignini's.

Wow,
a kayak murder scenario?
I kayak, and also look for sharks when doin' so,
as I like to video or shoot pix of them as they swim near me near shore or jump outta the water.

Now I'm gonna have to start reading about another murder person dying?

Thanks a lot CJ2!


Sun's comin' out for the dawn patrol surf session,
1st time in at least a week that it has made an appearance sooo early in the mornin' here at the beaches of L.A.
The colors are good, gotta shoot some surfpix,
but I wanna post some thoughts later.

You all, even the guilter's, have a great Monday!

 

[Grinder]

"Possible" in your dreams; and in the minds of Italian prosecutors.
Nutcase prosecutors did not test it because they knew it was from Rudy and would make it clear to everyone that Rudy was the only rapist-murderer.
Only fanatical witch hunters would refuse to test a semen stain in a rape murder case, and only because they wanted to avoid the truth that they were prosecuting innocents.
This failure by ITALIAN prosecutors/witch hunters to test the semen stain shows that they were not interested in the Truth: Ever.

Rudi's semen wouldn't been a problem for them. An unknown or not RS,RG or GS would have been a big problem. Just imagine it was some other guy, how would they fit that into the room scenario. What makes you think it wasn't tested? Steffi's or Comodi's word?

 

[acbytesla]

Wow,
a kayak murder scenario?
I kayak, and also look for sharks when doin' so,
as I like to video or shoot pix of them as they swim near me near shore or jump outta the water.

Now I'm gonna have to start reading about another murder person dying?

Thanks a lot CJ2!


Sun's comin' out for the dawn patrol surf session,
1st time in at least a week that it has made an appearance sooo early in the mornin' here at the beaches of L.A.
The colors are good, gotta shoot some surfpix,
but I wanna post some thoughts later.

You all, even the guilter's, have a great Monday!

Surfing is boring. Kite boarding rules!

 

[Numbers]

....

What those people heard, is not known yet. We do know a violent murder took place in the cottage nearby at that approximate time. We also know some junkie was bloody and stumbling around, IIRC, near a phone booth where Curatolo hangs out (I may not have this detail exactly right).

Point is, Perugia could have a lot of strange things go on to have drawn their attention, and whatever it was that did, may not have been related to the murder. But the way to find out what drew those people's attention, is to ask them. Not to declare in advance that they can't be considered because they conflict with your pet theory. That video is more definite evidence that they heard something that may be related to the crime, than your unsupported conjecture that its immaterial to the crime. How do we know? We don't, and that includes you.

......
Those people, one after another, over an 8 minute time period, are all looking in the exact same direction, exactly at the cottage, at a time frame within which Meredith Kercher was violently killed. If what drew their attention, was Meredith screaming, then yes, she was screaming for 8 minutes or more.

....

I would like to make some additional points about these stills from the parking ramp CCTV.

1. Note the relative clarity of the images. One can identify facial features of those standing in the field of view.

Significance: Recall the "fake Amanda" image of a woman walking into the ramp that was circulated from time-to-time by media and guilters. Examination of these images, which are clear enough to show facial features, establishes that the "fake Amanda" image had been optically degraded in order to allow the suggestion that it was an image of Amanda Knox. This bit of fraudulence is indicative of the entire case against Knox and Sollecito and of the position of the guilters. The case against Knox and Sollecito was likewise entirely a hoax.

I understand that this image of the "fake Amanda" was not used as evidence in court, but the evidence used against them, including but not limited to the text message, ear-witness, foot-print, shoe print, luminol, and DNA evidence used against them was of the same relative quality. The full truth was not given or was distorted with respect to each bit of evidence by the police and prosecution in order to make a case against Knox and Sollecito.

2. To examine the issue of whether the people in the images looking toward the ramp entrance were reacting to some unique event(s) at the relevant time, "control" images from earlier in the day, and/or from similar times on other days, would be useful. That is, do people tend to look toward the ramp entrance simply because of, for example, traffic immediately outside the ramp, or was the turning toward the ramp entrance at the relevant time associated with unique events possibly associated with the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher?

 

[acbytesla]

I would like to make some additional points about these stills from the parking ramp CCTV.

1. Note the relative clarity of the images. One can identify facial features of those standing in the field of view.

Significance: Recall the "fake Amanda" image of a woman walking into the ramp that was circulated from time-to-time by media and guilters. Examination of these images, which are clear enough to show facial features, establishes that the "fake Amanda" image had been optically degraded in order to allow the suggestion that it was an image of Amanda Knox. This bit of fraudulence is indicative of the entire case against Knox and Sollecito and of the position of the guilters. The case against Knox and Sollecito was likewise entirely a hoax.

I understand that this image was not used as evidence in court, but the evidence used against them, including but not limited to the text message, ear-witness, foot-print, shoe print, luminol, and DNA evidence used against them was of the same relative quality. The full truth was not given or was distorted with respect to each bit of evidence by the police and prosecution in order to make a case against Knox and Sollecito.

2. To examine the issue of whether the people in the images looking toward the ramp entrance were reacting to some unique event(s) at the relevant time, "control" images from earlier in the day, and/or from similar times on other days, would be useful. That is, do people tend to look toward the ramp entrance simply because of, for example, traffic immediately outside the ramp, or was the turning toward the ramp entrance at the relevant time associated with unique events possibly associated with the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher?

You may be right that it was optically degraded. It's notable that it was never suggested during the trial that this person was Amanda, only in the tabloids and of course with the guilters. Got to sell that advertising. On the other hand, maybe the lighting conditions were just different? If I remember correctly the shots that people attribute to Rudy aren't very good either.

 

[carbonjam72]

I would like to make some additional points about these stills from the parking ramp CCTV.

1. Note the relative clarity of the images. One can identify facial features of those standing in the field of view.

Significance: Recall the "fake Amanda" image of a woman walking into the ramp that was circulated from time-to-time by media and guilters. Examination of these images, which are clear enough to show facial features, establishes that the "fake Amanda" image had been optically degraded in order to allow the suggestion that it was an image of Amanda Knox. This bit of fraudulence is indicative of the entire case against Knox and Sollecito and of the position of the guilters. The case against Knox and Sollecito was likewise entirely a hoax.

I understand that this image of the "fake Amanda" was not used as evidence in court, but the evidence used against them, including but not limited to the text message, ear-witness, foot-print, shoe print, luminol, and DNA evidence used against them was of the same relative quality. The full truth was not given or was distorted with respect to each bit of evidence by the police and prosecution in order to make a case against Knox and Sollecito.

2. To examine the issue of whether the people in the images looking toward the ramp entrance were reacting to some unique event(s) at the relevant time, "control" images from earlier in the day, and/or from similar times on other days, would be useful. That is, do people tend to look toward the ramp entrance simply because of, for example, traffic immediately outside the ramp, or was the turning toward the ramp entrance at the relevant time associated with unique events possibly associated with the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher?

Good point on the issue of optical degrading.

I think I remember that these images came from an Oggi article, and that there was also a TV show on it (Im not sure if it was Quarto grado?).

Any way the links were posted here, IIRC, and the question as to whether other people at other times also looked in that direction, and the answer was no.

In addition, these people didn't just look, they stopped and turned, and stayed frozen in place while they looked.

Something significant caught the attention of just these people, at just that time, and I'd be willing to go out on a limb and suggest it was the same event that drew the attention of these different sets of people in sequence.

Beyond that, as I say, the nature of the event, as to whether it was related to the Kercher murder, not yet clearly established one way or the other.

But Randy's findings on Rudy's being off by just the right amount of time is pretty darn interesting.

Put together with the calls from Meredith's phone when we know Rudy would have been in possession of it, and the evidence of a Rudy visit downstairs, Rudy possibly bumping into the couple on the stairs, the call made from outside Lana's garden where the phones were found, and there starts to be a tapestry of physical events tied together in time, place and motive.

And Meredith injuries, including to her mouth. Why would Rudy need to punch her in the mouth if it was over in a flash? And how could he if he surprised her from behind?

Either version requires us to speculate. But that video is real. Meredith's injuries are real. Stomach contents, real. 1 set of foot prints in wet blood, real. Filomena's window broken by a rock thrown from the car park downwards, real.

Rudy's statements, writings & testimony is treacherous, because he's a liar. But as others have noted, the lies he tells seems to be sprinkled with elements of truth twisted in ways to support his version of events where he is the innocent gentleman dupe of a racist perpetrator.

I see arguments for both versions. But there's a lot of depth to support Randy's theory. Those people are witnesses, and if they can recall hearing a scream, that helps narrow time of death.

I will add however, that it may strengthen the case against Guede by increasing our understanding of the physical crime. But it is of marginal value of strengthening the defense of Amanda & Raf, as there is no actual evidence against them or anyone else but Guede, at this time, as far as I can tell.

 

[Numbers]

You may be right that it was optically degraded. It's notable that it was never suggested during the trial that this person was Amanda, only in the tabloids and of course with the guilters. Got to sell that advertising. On the other hand, maybe the lighting conditions were just different? If I remember correctly the shots that people attribute to Rudy aren't very good either.

Just to clarify:

By "optically degraded" I mean that the resolution of the image was degraded by processing, not that the camera optical or recording system was degraded or that there was some issue with ambient lighting.

The decreased resolution could be obtained easily by creating a typical low-resolution TV or other - such as computer manipulated - image of a higher-resolution original. The reduction in number of lines per inch, of of dpi, would lower the resolution to produce the ambiguity desired by the hoaxers for the facial features and thus the identity of the "fake Amanda".

 

[Numbers]

Good point on the issue of optical degrading.

I think I remember that these images came from an Oggi article, and that there was also a TV show on it (Im not sure if it was Quarto grado?).

Any way the links were posted here, IIRC, and the question as to whether other people at other times also looked in that direction, and the answer was no.

In addition, these people didn't just look, they stopped and turned, and stayed frozen in place while they looked.

Something significant caught the attention of just these people, at just that time, and I'd be willing to go out on a limb and suggest it was the same event that drew the attention of these different sets of people in sequence.

Beyond that, as I say, the nature of the event, as to whether it was related to the Kercher murder, not yet clearly established one way or the other.

But Randy's findings on Rudy's being off by just the right amount of time is pretty darn interesting.

Put together with the calls from Meredith's phone when we know Rudy would have been in possession of it, and the evidence of a Rudy visit downstairs, Rudy possibly bumping into the couple on the stairs, the call made from outside Lana's garden where the phones were found, and there starts to be a tapestry of physical events tied together in time, place and motive.

And Meredith injuries, including to her mouth. Why would Rudy need to punch her in the mouth if it was over in a flash? And how could he if he surprised her from behind?

Either version requires us to speculate. But that video is real. Meredith's injuries are real. Stomach contents, real. 1 set of foot prints in wet blood, real. Filomena's window broken by a rock thrown from the car park downwards, real.

Rudy's statements, writings & testimony is treacherous, because he's a liar. But as others have noted, the lies he tells seems to be sprinkled with elements of truth twisted in ways to support his version of events where he is the innocent gentleman dupe of a racist perpetrator.

I see arguments for both versions. But there's a lot of depth to support Randy's theory. Those people are witnesses, and if they can recall hearing a scream, that helps narrow time of death.

I will add however, that it may strengthen the case against Guede by increasing our understanding of the physical crime. But it is of marginal value of strengthening the defense of Amanda & Raf, as there is no actual evidence against them or anyone else but Guede, at this time, as far as I can tell.

I believe you have made valid points in this post. For example, the injuries to Meredith mouth may indeed indicate that Guede was suppressing her scream(s).

 

[carbonjam72]

Just to clarify:

By "optically degraded" I mean that the resolution of the image was degraded by processing, not that the camera optical or recording system was degraded or that there was some issue with ambient lighting.

The decreased resolution could be obtained easily by creating a typical low-resolution TV or other - such as computer manipulated - image of a higher-resolution original. The reduction in number of lines per inch, of of dpi, would lower the resolution to produce the ambiguity desired by the hoaxers for the facial features and thus the identity of the "fake Amanda".

If the low res images were produced from an old TV standard feed, wouldn't that also account for the decrease in resolution, without the need for intentional fraud in that regard?