• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact is we do not know who it was. You cannot tell from the video.

Why are we talking about this, again?
 
Well, I don't know what Italian TV channels were up to, but in court the prosecution suspected Meredith Kercher to be the person in the CCTV picture, not Amanda Knox.
 
Issue| Position 1| Position 2| Position 3| Importance
Knox to police station 5/11| Summoned| Invited| Own choice |None at all
RS call to sister 2/11| = to calling the police| for advice only| ?| None because he did call the police a minute later
Cartwheels at police station| AK did cartwheels spontaneously| AK did cartwheels at the behest of the police| AK did not do cartwheels| None at all
Who is in the Video taken around 9:00pm 1/11| No idea| No idea| No idea| None at all



;)
 
Oliebol said:
No, the police suspected it was Meredith Kercher.



Nick Pisa:

Grainy CCTV footage of what may have been Meredith Kercher's final walk home has been shown at the trial of two people accused of murdering her.

A series of black and white stills photographs showing a female figure with long hair walking down a slope to Meredith's house have been taken from a CCTV camera in a nearby car park.

They were timed at 8.41pm on the night Meredith was last seen alive and minutes after she had left a friend's house to return home.

Police inspector Mauro Barbadori told the court the CCTV footage had been recovered in the hope that it would provide key information.

He said: ''From the time on the film and the fact it is a female figure - the belief is that it is Meredith but it is very poor quality and we cannot say for definite.

''Hypothetically speaking it is very possible that the figure seen is Meredith returning home after spending the evening at a friend's house.''

sky news
Click to expand...

Again :rolleyes:


OBJECTION! Pure Speculation.
 
Oliebol said:
March, 2009
witness: police inspector Mauro Barbadori
Click to expand...

'If' he said it, I don't know why he said it. The time makes it impossible to be Meredith, the individual is not wearing clothes that even loosely resemble Meredith's and as Fiona pointed out, the quality of the video makes a positive identification impossible anyway. Further, 'if' he said it, I have seen nothing that suggests the actual prosecution agree with him and maintain the same.
 
Kestrel said:
Look at the Google Street View link. On the left side of the road there is no place to go except the cottage and no room for pedestrians to walk past the cottage.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Kestrel, there is no pavement on the other side of the road either. Anyone walking down that road would just have to pick a side to walk down. The sensible side would be facing oncoming traffic, which would mean walking on the left hand side.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Uh, no, they don't. Your last post claims that she left Sofie around 9 (20:55 in a different post). So, that puts her well past the 20:53 that a 10 minute slow camera clock would indicate.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that the reported times assumed the camera was 10 minutes fast. If it was actually 10 minutes slow the total difference would be 20 minutes.
 
Kestrel said:
You are forgetting that the reported times assumed the camera was 10 minutes fast. If it was actually 10 minutes slow the total difference would be 20 minutes.
Click to expand...

No, there's not "total difference". See, either the clock is on time (20:43), it's 10 mins early (20:33), or it's 10 mins slow (20:53). Yes, there's a total window of 20 mins, but no part of that 20 mins is after 2100 - which is what counts.
 
Matthew Best said:
To be fair, Kestrel, there is no pavement on the other side of the road either. Anyone walking down that road would just have to pick a side to walk down. The sensible side would be facing oncoming traffic, which would mean walking on the left hand side.
Click to expand...

It's not a safe street to stroll down. Back up a bit in street view and you will see the pedestrian route going up the ramp. It reconnects with the road later.
 
Kestrel said:
It's not a safe street to stroll down. Back up a bit in street view and you will see the pedestrian route going up the ramp. It reconnects with the road later.
Click to expand...

Europe is full of streets that are not safe to walk down. It doesn't stop people walking down them. The pedestrian route you are talking about appears to go through the car park - not particularly picturesque if you're out for an evening stroll.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
No, there's not "total difference". See, either the clock is on time (20:43), it's 10 mins early (20:33), or it's 10 mins slow (20:53). Yes, there's a total window of 20 mins, but no part of that 20 mins is after 2100 - which is what counts.
Click to expand...

From other examples, we know this camera records the time at the bottom of the video frame. But this video doesn't include that part of the image. So how do you know those numbers say 20:43?

If you have a video link that shows the numbers, please share it with us.
 
Kestrel said:
From other examples, we know this camera records the time at the bottom of the video frame. But this video doesn't include that part of the image. So how do you know those numbers say 20:43?

If you have a video link that shows the numbers, please share it with us.
Click to expand...

OMFG. Could you shift the goalposts any more obviously?

You yourself were claiming the video camera read 20:43. Now you're shifting your stance? Could you be more obvious in your bias? Please? I almost missed it this time around, but then my gf read your last few posts and caught it for me. :rolleyes:
 
Matthew Best said:
Europe is full of streets that are not safe to walk down. It doesn't stop people walking down them. The pedestrian route you are talking about appears to go through the car park - not particularly picturesque if you're out for an evening stroll.
Click to expand...

Not everyone goes walking for the picturesque view. And sometimes you need to walk through less-than-picturesque views to get to the picturesque ones (or home, whichever).
 
BobTheDonkey said:
You yourself were claiming the video camera read 20:43. Now you're shifting your stance? Could you be more obvious in your bias? Please? I almost missed it this time around, but then my gf read your last few posts and caught it for me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your gf was mistaken. Kestrel's claim was that the police said it happened at 20.43, not that the clock showed 20.43.

If the assumption is that the police thought the clock was incorrect, then they may have adjusted for that when saying what time they actually thought it was.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
OMFG. Could you shift the goalposts any more obviously?

You yourself were claiming the video camera read 20:43. Now you're shifting your stance? Could you be more obvious in your bias? Please? I almost missed it this time around, but then my gf read your last few posts and caught it for me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, the Perugia police claimed the images were recorded at 20:43. They have also said the clock on this camera is 10 minutes fast. Therefore if we could see the numbers in this video, they will indicate 20:53.
 
Kestrel said:
No, the Perugia police claimed the images were recorded at 20:43. They have also said the clock on this camera is 10 minutes fast. Therefore if we could see the numbers in this video, they will indicate 20:53.
Click to expand...

Why so desperate? And what's the name of your dog...the one you have in this fight?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom