Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

Draca:
"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. "

The female figure is wearing a jacket and a skirt, they are clearly of different shade.
I don't see why the skirt was an early mistake. No way she had such a big bag.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Welcome to our little debate where differing opinions are strictly regulated

The Studio Aperto video sounds quite interesting because they appear to be the first commentary on that video. (Unfortunately, the Flash Video on their site kills my computer.) Is there any explanation for why everybody suddenly jumps back 10 minutes to 20:43? I am presuming that the police said that the CCTV clock was about 10 minutes fast but why doesn't anybody report that?!

In the trial, Mauro Barbadori corrects the time presented using 12 minutes fast instead of the approximately 10 minutes fast and this would give us the 20:41. At least this is my explanation for why what should have been a hard time gets moved by 2 minutes. Reversing that and going 12 minutes forward gives 21:05 (plus or minus a minute or two because nobody is giving the seconds).

 

[Draca]

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.

Bolint,

No, the time was questioned on Mar 13th but the defenses big presentation wasn't until Oct 18, 2009. - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7088640&postcount=924


Police Arrival talk

Mar 13, 2009 - Court date


http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/20...oxed-down.html

A little step back. Today the video was projected of the arrival of the postal police car at 12:36. But the clock was then minutes ahead so it was 12:26. For the police.

Sollecito's defence doesn't think the same. They think the clock was behind of 10 minutes, so it was 12:46.


Oct 18, 2009 - Court date

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/20...-knox-and.html

In the request day, as we have seen, Sollecito's defense intended to prove that the call to 112 was made before the arrival of Postal Police.
The strategic reason for which the argument was presented in that hearing can only be that they wanted to leave it as last, since the jury is naturally more influenced by recent facts rather than old ones.

13:22 The carabinieri found the house as we can see from their car stopped in front of the gate. It can't really be 13:22 since they asked for directions at 13:29. That means that the camera clock must be be at least 8 minutes behind. By consequence the real time in the previous picture must be 12:56, when Raffaele's call to 112 was just finished.


Postal Police Demonstation:
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/postale.pdf


BTW - Damn you Mignini for getting Frank Sfarzo's blog removed. That is a MAJOR source for this case.

Dan O, Do you have Frank,s cached perugia shock for the the Oct 18th court date?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Draca:
"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. "

The female figure is wearing a jacket and a skirt, they are clearly of different shade.
I don't see why the skirt was an early mistake. No way she had such a big bag.

Post a pic of someone clearly wearing a skirt, dont expect us to do your work for you. All we got so far is a video with the important parts of a white ghost or snowman covered up by "exclusivo"

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Have you looked at that street? (google map street view)

Perhaps it looks more tempting at night. The person is crossing from about the walkway on the right where they could just follow the sidewalk over the parking garage and go to where if they stay on the road there is little if any space for pedestrians.

 

[Kaosium]

Draca:
"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. "

The female figure is wearing a jacket and a skirt, they are clearly of different shade.
I don't see why the skirt was an early mistake. No way she had such a big bag.

Clearly? You jest, sir!

Waitaminnit, are you looking at a different video? I'd love a better shot of this if it is available.

I wouldn't bet money it was female, though for some reason I do get that impression, the figure kinda glides like a girl. At 11 seconds it does look like a skirt and it does seem like different shades, though that could be the lighting. Stop it at 12 seconds, just as the figure walks into the 'exclusivo,' doesn't that look like separation between the legs? It could be shadow, but from where? There does seem to be something being held as well, the tote bag seems like a plausible explanation.

At any rate, isn't Amanda seeing Joanna Popovic right about this time? We also know right about this same time that Meredith must be passing by, and there's no other time the camera activated to my knowledge, I'd sure think we'd have heard about it. It might have failed to activate, but with all of the above, and the police in Perugia being desperate for any possible proof of Amanda being there, and having already said it was Amanda to the press, wouldn't you think if it was even barely conceivable it could have been Amanda they'd have stuck to that story and let the jury decide?

 

[Draca]

In the trial, Mauro Barbadori corrects the time presented using 12 minutes fast instead of the approximately 10 minutes fast and this would give us the 20:41. At least this is my explanation for why what should have been a hard time gets moved by 2 minutes. Reversing that and going 12 minutes forward gives 21:05 (plus or minus a minute or two because nobody is giving the seconds).

NO !

The police try to move the clock fast in the discussion about the POSTAL POLICE arrival time that was on the same day in the Mar 13th court date. They never adjust the time of the 8:41 image.

When Frank writes this it is about the POSTAL POLICE discussion:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/20...oxed-down.html

"A little step back. Today the video was projected of the arrival of the postal police car at 12:36. But the clock was then minutes ahead so it was 12:26. For the police.

Sollecito's defence doesn't think the same. They think the clock was behind of 10 minutes, so it was 12:46."


They did not adjust the 8:41 p.m. image time in court. That is the time the image appears on the tape. Why do you keep trying to say the police changed the time?

Remember also - the Nov 2007 papers list in several articles that the image was 8:41-8:43 p.m. This is LONG BEFORE they knew the clock time was off.

 

[bolint]

Dan O:
"Is there any explanation for why everybody suddenly jumps back 10 minutes to 20:43?"

The 10 minute difference was noted right after the murder, but I think the direction of the difference was later somehow misunderstood so the police built a wrong theory of the arrival of the postals and keeping to that time difference they dismissed the female figure video as it clearly couldn't be Amanda at 20.41 (or 20.43) as she had alibi for that time.

 

[bolint]

"At any rate, isn't Amanda seeing Joanna Popovic right about this time? "

No. Popovic was there at about 20:40.
The time of this video is 21:03-21:05 (debated now).

 

[LondonJohn]

Draca:
"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. "

The female figure is wearing a jacket and a skirt, they are clearly of different shade.
I don't see why the skirt was an early mistake. No way she had such a big bag.

I disagree. I think that it's fairly easy to see in the CCTV that the light shading in the area of the legs is situated forward of the area where the person's legs would be, in relation to the light torso. If the person is walking in a normal upright gait (and there's no reason to suppose this is not the case), then the torso and legs would be seen in an essentially vertical line. But what I see is a dark area directly beneath the light torso area - I would suggest that this area is the real legs area of the person (and tallies with someone wearing darkish denim jeans). The light area at the height of the legs clearly looks to me as if it precedes the legs - this would be wholly consistent with somebody carrying a light-coloured large bag at their side and slightly in front of their legs.

To me, if the light area were a skirt, then when it's looked at against the light torso the person would have to have been walking in a totally unnatural fashion, leaning heavily backwards. My view therefore is that the light area cannot be any kind of lower body clothing. Take another look at the CCTV and match the torso area with that light area lower down, and also look for the darker area right behind (i.e. to the left of) the lighter lower area: this darker area is, I suggest, the real lower body of the person, who could very well be wearing jeans.

 

[lionking]

..

 

[bolint]

"They did not adjust the 8:41 p.m. image time in court. That is the time the image appears on the tape. Why do you keep trying to say the police changed the time?

Remember also - the Nov 2007 papers list in several articles that the image was 8:41-8:43 p.m. This is LONG BEFORE they knew the clock time was off. "

They all report what Barbadori testified. The corrected time. (Just as the 12:25 for the postals' arrival.)

No report states specifically that it was the timestamp.

They knew that the time was off right from the beginning.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rolfe and London John,

If Meredith were forcibly restrained for a long time, I would expect DNA transfer onto her body, on the basis of studies of simulated strangulation that I have previously cited, for example this one. If some areas of contact became covered in blood, this would probably have eliminated being able to detect such DNA in those areas.
.

You're right - but I'm also working on the assumption that the forensics teams didn't properly swab Meredith's body for foreign DNA. The point is that if Meredith were forcibly restrained by her arms or torso in some sort of physical struggle, there would be clear contusion marking on her body to indicate such a restraint. One would, for example, expect to see significant bruising on her wrists, forearms, upper arms, shoulders or chest. No such bruising was found.

 

[Draca]

"They did not adjust the 8:41 p.m. image time in court. That is the time the image appears on the tape. Why do you keep trying to say the police changed the time?

Remember also - the Nov 2007 papers list in several articles that the image was 8:41-8:43 p.m. This is LONG BEFORE they knew the clock time was off. "

They all report what Barbadori testified. The corrected time. (Just as the 12:25 for the postals' arrival.)

No report states specifically that it was the timestamp.

They knew that the time was off right from the beginning.

If they KNEW the time was off from the beginning why were the police trying to say the clock was fast instead of slow? Even in the Oct court date they didn't want to accept they were wrong.

The news reports don't use the word timestamped but they all say the image appears at 8:41 p.m.

 

[lionking]

Dan O:
"Is there any explanation for why everybody suddenly jumps back 10 minutes to 20:43?"

The 10 minute difference was noted right after the murder, but I think the direction of the difference was later somehow misunderstood so the police built a wrong theory of the arrival of the postals and keeping to that time difference they dismissed the female figure video as it clearly couldn't be Amanda at 20.41 (or 20.43) as she had alibi for that time.

Welcome to the forum bolint. Don't expect a warm welcome when you question the prevailing view on this thread. A new member would normally deserve better.

Ironically, some here insist that innocentisti are piled on and hounded out of this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

I spoke with an anesthesiologist this evening and he was surprised that there would be no material in the duodenum even at 9 PM. I also asked him about hitting a person hard enough to cause a nosebleed. He felt that bruising would be likely, but he also noted it might be covered up by make-up. The bruising would be unlikely to disappear in only a few days.

And I agree on this too. The first part about the 9pm improbability is quite important, and is the basis of various uninformed assertions by some pro-guilt commentators. All the medical evidence does indeed suggest that it would be rare for Meredith to still have all of her pizza meal in her stomach by 9pm, given that she almost certainly started eating it at some time between 6.00 and 6.30pm. But this rarity is what's so important, and we don't need to speculate about its likelihood - we know it to be the case.

The fact is that a small proportion of otherwise healthy adults do have lag times of over 2.5 hours (the evidence suggests something in the range of 1 in 50 people). But very few people (including those with T(lag) greater than 2.5 hours) have a T(lag) of over 3 hours, a tiny number of people have a T(lag) of over 3.5 hours, and it's essentially unheard of for anyone to have a T(lag) of over 4.5 hours.

So we are in the fortunate position (from the point of view of making accurate ToD estimates) that Meredith was known to be alive just before 9pm - at a time when she was already in the "rarity" end of the T(lag) distribution curve. She must therefore have been attacked within a hour maximum of arriving home (and actually very probably within half an hour), otherwise her T(lag) would have moved from the "rarity" portion of the curve to the "unheard of" portion of the curve.

Oh, and I also concur on the nosebleed/bruising issue. An external blow to the face that is hard enough to cause a nosebleed is not a minor contact. It would have to have been a hard contact, either with a closed fist or forearm/elbow, or with a blunt instrument of some sort. And it would almost certainly (as you say) have left visible bruising on the face owing to the inevitable rupturing of surface capillaries by the blow.

 

[Draca]

Welcome to the forum bolint. Don't expect a warm welcome when you question the prevailing view on this thread. A new member would normally deserve better.

Ironically, some here insist that innocentisti are piled on and hounded out of this thread.

Why the jab? Why do you find that necessary to do?

I'm disagreeing just as much with Dan O. as Bolint at the moment. It's a difference of opinion and view. So what. That doesn't make anyone unwelcome.

 

[bolint]

stewarthome (posting at that time on PMF) was there (at the trial), his same day account:

"There was testimony that a person with a white or light colored jacket (lt. blue for example) was captured by the CCTV and believed to be Meredith...but that could not be verified. How could they say it was Meredith?..it was agreed identity could not be confirmed. The carabinieri stated that the time on the CCTV was actually 10 minutes late..hence an image captured at 8:50pm was really captured t 8:40pm. "

 

[lionking]

Why the jab? Why do you find that necessary to do?

I'm disagreeing just as much with Dan O. as Bolint at the moment. It's a difference of opinion and view. So what. That doesn't make anyone unwelcome.

It's about being new to the forum. A little more courtesy is usually expected, but no, not here.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't remember any of the pro-guilt side putting forward the idea that the victim was covered in bruising, I do remember that the argument was the lack of defensive wounds suggested she was held by at least one other person while being assaulted by another, otherwise "if Meredith had at any stage had her arms free enough to have been clawing at people (all of whom apparently had knives....), she would very probably have received significant knife wounds to her hands and forearms", to quote yourself.

However, you seem to be suggesting that the victim in this case would be less capable to put up a struggle against a single attacker than with multiple attackers.

No, you're misunderstanding me. My point was that many pro-guilt commentators are actively suggesting that the condition of Meredith's body indicates that she was restrained by multiple people - and that this in itself is strong indication of multiple participants. I am saying that the condition of Meredith's body implies no such thing.

My view is that the evidence actually suggests that Meredith was only ever forcibly restrained by her neck, and that this is consistent with a single attacker forcing her into a submissive position by use of a knife, then holding her by the throat. The lack of any significant defensive wounds does not actually suggest that Meredith was being forcibly restrained, because if that had been the case there would also have been significant visible bruising to her wrists or arms. There was no such bruising found. This therefore heavily implies that Meredith was not forcibly restrained in such a way, and instead implies that she was submissive up to a certain point in the attack (which, as I've pointed out before, is an entirely logical and reasonable reaction by a victim if being threatened by a powerful man with a knife).

Of course, it's perfectly possible that there could have been one or two other people in the room at the same time, neither of whom were making significant physical restraint contact with Meredith. But the point is that there's no evidence that Meredith had to have been being forcibly restrained by more than one person.


ETA: There are actually plenty of pro-guilt commentators who have made the misleading and erroneous claim that Meredith's body was covered in bruises.