-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Justinian2
- Start date
- Status
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
A. (20:55) Mereidth crosses road (cctc time=2043, actual +12=20:55)
20:55 Micheli Report. "On 17 November, P[urton] made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition...correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55".
20:56 Phone call from Meredith's phone to mother, cut off almost immediately.
B. (21:05) Meredith crosses road (cctv time=20:53, prosecution claims -10=20:43, actual +12=21:05).
21:10-21:20 Meredith screams (According to one of Rudy's "stories")
I just find it slightly easier to accept A over B.
In A, Meredith leaves Sophie when the reach the corner of Via del Lupo (Sophie lives very close to the corner) and then calls her mother. This section of the walk is through a very narrow street between tall buildings that could easily have spotty cell coverage. She decides to wait till she gets home to make the call where she knows coverage is good. The police pick up the video with total ambivalence to whether the time will be correct.
In B, Sophie has to be wrong about the time she arrived home. If I recall her testimony, she got home in time to catch the start of a show she wanted to watch. Meredith walks into her home and immediately calls her mom. Then she has to immediately cancel the call before the network registers it. The police when collecting the video surprise us all by doing what they should and checking the camera time against their watch but then make a simple mistake and get it backwards. The video is presented to the public but instead of going through the tedium of explaining the time difference they just tell the press what the time was. In court they plan to get a stipulation from the defense as to the correct time of this insignificant piece of evidence.
There is also C where someone totally unrelated decides to cross the street in front of the cottage and walk down this street in the dark for half a block with no way to get away from oncoming traffic because they didn't see the blatant signs and street marking telling pedestrians to go over the car park instead of down this street. It's a miracle that there weren't 2 deaths that night.
There has been nothing presented to preclude any of these options so as a skeptic I will keep them all open and keep looking for more evidence.
Last edited:
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Say whah? I'm so losing you here. It was presented in court on March 13, 2009 by officer Mauro Barbadori that the timestamp on the CCTV video was 8:41 p.m. Not any other time. We know the clock was 10-12 minutes slow. We therefore know the image was actually taped at 8:51p.m. - 8:53 p.m.
If you choose to not believe the image is MK that is one thing, but this timestamped image of 8:41 p.m. isn't Nara's scream. It can't just be moved to suit Sophie's statements. Sophie is obviously not sure when she arrived home. She believes she was home by 8:55 p.m., she could have easily been home 5 minutes before that and it was only a two minute walk from her friends place. If she left the friends at 8:45 p.m. as stated she would be home by 8:47 p.m. Who watches time closely without a reason? That includes Sophie. The CCTV stamp of 8:41 p.m. is a solid time on the other hand. It is not affected by human memory or perception, it simply is.
Also, when the timestamp was stated in court the prosecution and defense fought over whether the clock was fast or slow but neither disputed that it said 8:41 p.m. Yes, it would be nice if there was an image capture, but I see no reason to doubt multiple news sources from March 13, 2009 all saying the timestamp given in court was 8:41 p.m.
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I've been through all the records I could find. Mauro tells the court the time of the video not the timestamp on it. Maybe Google is translating this wrong or the one reporter that all the others copied got it wrong. What did Frank say?
Perugia-Shock FRIDAY, MARCH 13, 2009; KNOXED DOWN The perfect inquest
Maybe he thought the bit about Amanda/Meredith returning was old news but the part he covered is informative.
ETA: Perugia-Shock MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2007
This must be Frank rounding the time up to the next hour because the police usually round times less than 48 minutes after down to the previous hour before anything happened.
Last edited:
Hi everyone.
Concerning the CCTV timing debate:
I wrote on PMF last year:
"- In the early reports it was 20.43 (after Nov 11 2007) for the woman
- in the Studio Aperto video (Sep 23 2008) the narrator says 20:53 for the woman, nothing for the man
- Frank, speaking of the Studio Aperto video, says 8.31 (almost surely a mistake) for the man and 8.41 for the woman
- During the trial Barbadori (of the police) said 20.41 for the woman
- The Oggi images show the CCTV clock of the man clearly, it is 19.41
Weighing all these contradictory accounts my best bet for the true times:
The man is 19.51
The woman is 21.03 (slightly less likely 21.01)"
The woman's skirt however is incompatible with the statemnets of Raffaele, Rudy and the English girls.
They all specifically said that Meredith was wearing jeans.
So the woman is not Meredith.
I think it is Amanda.
21:03 is also a feasible time for her to be there as nothing contradicts it.
Popovic had long gone by then.
Concerning the CCTV timing debate:
I wrote on PMF last year:
"- In the early reports it was 20.43 (after Nov 11 2007) for the woman
- in the Studio Aperto video (Sep 23 2008) the narrator says 20:53 for the woman, nothing for the man
- Frank, speaking of the Studio Aperto video, says 8.31 (almost surely a mistake) for the man and 8.41 for the woman
- During the trial Barbadori (of the police) said 20.41 for the woman
- The Oggi images show the CCTV clock of the man clearly, it is 19.41
Weighing all these contradictory accounts my best bet for the true times:
The man is 19.51
The woman is 21.03 (slightly less likely 21.01)"
The woman's skirt however is incompatible with the statemnets of Raffaele, Rudy and the English girls.
They all specifically said that Meredith was wearing jeans.
So the woman is not Meredith.
I think it is Amanda.
21:03 is also a feasible time for her to be there as nothing contradicts it.
Popovic had long gone by then.
It is the time corrected according to the police's theory, that is about 10 minutes less then the timestamp.
Barbadori never said (in reports) that it was specifically the timestamp.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
Did anyone say AK was wearing a skirt? What statement of RS leads you to say they ALL said that MK was wearing jeans? I think you are correct that MK was wearing jeans, but how does RS know and when does he say that? And how do you know AK was wearing a skirt?
Does this video show clearly someone wearing a skirt or is this another "blond hair " moment? Pun defiantly intended. (hint…there was no blond hair)This skirt was found in AK room then? Or did she hide that one item and leave the other dirty clothes on her bed after she showered to throw off the police? Just saying.
PS...Wouldnt all this time mess make it exactly 21:01 then rather than 21:03?
Last edited:
"Did anyone say AK was wearing a skirt?"
No.
Raffaele in his Nov 5 interrogation says that she was wearing jeans and changed it to skirt next day, in his diary he says that he can't remember what she was wearing but surely changed it next day.
I don'r know what Amanda said about it.
And i think it was a mistake by the prosecution not to ask Popovic about it.
" What statement of RS leads you to say they ALL said that MK was wearing jeans? I think you are correct that MK was wearing jeans, but how does RS know and when does he say that?"
In his diary he appreciates Meredith's wearing her ex-boyfriend's jeans.
He saw it in the cottage when Meredith left.
"Does this video show clearly someone wearing a skirt or is this another "blond hair " moment?"
Well, it may be man's jeans resembling a skirt. Then it is Meredith.
"PS...Wouldnt all this time mess make it exactly 21:01 then rather than 21:03?"
8 minute is the absolute minimum.
But that would mean that the postals arrived at the moment Raffaele finished his call to the police.
They say that the postals arrived soon, but they don't say they arrived immediately. So I think the 8 minute difference does not fly. 10 minutes is more realistic.
No.
Raffaele in his Nov 5 interrogation says that she was wearing jeans and changed it to skirt next day, in his diary he says that he can't remember what she was wearing but surely changed it next day.
I don'r know what Amanda said about it.
And i think it was a mistake by the prosecution not to ask Popovic about it.
" What statement of RS leads you to say they ALL said that MK was wearing jeans? I think you are correct that MK was wearing jeans, but how does RS know and when does he say that?"
In his diary he appreciates Meredith's wearing her ex-boyfriend's jeans.
He saw it in the cottage when Meredith left.
"Does this video show clearly someone wearing a skirt or is this another "blond hair " moment?"
Well, it may be man's jeans resembling a skirt. Then it is Meredith.
"PS...Wouldnt all this time mess make it exactly 21:01 then rather than 21:03?"
8 minute is the absolute minimum.
But that would mean that the postals arrived at the moment Raffaele finished his call to the police.
They say that the postals arrived soon, but they don't say they arrived immediately. So I think the 8 minute difference does not fly. 10 minutes is more realistic.
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Is there any particular reason to think it's Amanda, as opposed to any other random human being in a skirt walking down that street that night?
"Is there any particular reason to think it's Amanda, as opposed to any other random human being in a skirt walking down that street that night? "
There are no other houses on that side, neither is it a particularly frequented night corso, so I think it is more likely that whoever she is, she is going to the house.
There are no other houses on that side, neither is it a particularly frequented night corso, so I think it is more likely that whoever she is, she is going to the house.
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Can you post a pic of the video showing the skirt?
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Here's one version of the video, I can't tell. I can see a skirt if I want to, truthfully it looks more like a ghost. Whatever is being worn, it appears to be full length.
I ought to get on my desktop for these damn pictures. It's old and it's slow but it has a great monitor, the laptop is new and cool but it's got a laptop screen.
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Bolint,
The timestamp for Rudy Guede is found in Oggi - http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=dSQmRIlC78sRlil3Iid+J4h4l5k2TGxc
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7089984&postcount=951
Rudy arrives first at 7:41 p.m.
Slow clock - 7:51 - 7:53 p.m.
Then arrives again at 8:10 p.m.
Slow clock - 8:20 - 8:22 p.m.
----------
The 8:41 p.m. image is the actual time given in court - not adjusted by the police. Slow clock - 8:51 - 8:53 p.m. The slow clock wasn't proven in court until Oct 18, 2009. The prosecution tried on Mar 13 to say the clock was 10 minutes FAST, not slow.
The image was described as a female figure wearing a white or light blue jacket. The skirt was an early mistake Nov. 2007. MK had a long beige tote bag that night.
Mauro Barbadori --
'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.'
L'union Sarda
"The assistant then described the pictures taken at 20:41 on November 1, with a person "who allegedly could correspond to Meredith." Barbadori explained that the cameras in the area of the murder house and along the path followed by Kercher up the house of English friends."
Afari Italiani --
After a few minutes a new image from passaggio.Sempre, November 1, around 20:41, you can see the image of a person, wearing a light colored jacket, which is rapidly disappearing shortly after. Picture that, according to the reconstruction of accusation, could refer to the return home of Meredith Kercher the night of the crime, although the lack sharpness is not possible to establish with certainty.
Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1I7fa6aaKI
Last edited:
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
the damn "exclusivo" covers up what seems to be the best part of the video to tell, but damn, thats some low rez fuzzfactory stuff to determine a skirt or not
WTF is up with the audio on that? Stanley Poobrick?
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Have you got the link for this last one? It reads like they are watching the real video first hand and not a third party interpretation like all the others.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
LOL! Creeps me out too. Regarding the video I dunno, the desktop monitor didn't help much, and that "exclusivo" drives me batty as well. Whatever it was, it was full length and it was light-colored.
I'm drawing a blank here, is there a better video of this? Is there one without the obnoxious lettering and maybe blown up and de-fuzzed? I'd just read it was determined not to be Amanda by the cops and probably was Meredith. Was she wearing light-colored jeans? That aspect of the case is not something I cared to delve into, so I don't actually know.
Was Amanda wearing a full-length skirt? That would basically be a dress, and I thought she had on a sweatshirt, the one that was lying on her bed? She was no fashion pate, but a full-length dress and a sweatshirt?
Draca wrote:
"The 8:41 p.m. image is the actual time given in court - not adjusted by the police."
That is being debated.
"Slow clock - 8:51 - 8:53 p.m. The slow clock wasn't proven in court until Oct 18, 2009. The prosecution tried on Mar 13 to say the clock was 10 minutes FAST, not slow. "
The defence's slow clock theory was presented at the trial in March 2009 just after Barbadori's testimony. The police's fast clock theory is earlier and the prosecution stood by it up to the closing argument.
"The 8:41 p.m. image is the actual time given in court - not adjusted by the police."
That is being debated.
"Slow clock - 8:51 - 8:53 p.m. The slow clock wasn't proven in court until Oct 18, 2009. The prosecution tried on Mar 13 to say the clock was 10 minutes FAST, not slow. "
The defence's slow clock theory was presented at the trial in March 2009 just after Barbadori's testimony. The police's fast clock theory is earlier and the prosecution stood by it up to the closing argument.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
That seems like a long bow to draw. It's a public street, and regardless of whether or not it's particularly frequented there seems no strong basis to rule out it just being a random person unrelated to the case.
We have to be careful to resist the detective-novel urge to make absolutely every oddity we come across germane to the case we were interested in. Only in detective novels is everything which comes to your attention relevant to the solution to the puzzle.
- Status