• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. "


Well, Frank Sfarzo was there also and he says the defense and prosecution had differing opinions on Mar 13th. The prosecution trying to say the Postal Police actually arrived 10 minutes earlier and the defense that it was 10 minutes later.

"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."


I dont know stewarthome but his opinion doesn't make any sense. The prosecution was alway pushing the clock to be FAST not slow. The defense finally proved them wrong with the Oct 18th presentation.
 
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.

Pay closer attention, we're feuding amongst ourselves! You should be pleased and happy, all joy is yours now! Dan-O and Bolint think the image takes place at 9:03, Draca thinks 8:51-8:53 and I'm inclined to agree with her, but haven't weighed in as I've been hopping from computer to computer squinting at my screen.

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

Go back to Halides' post on the threats, and note the discussion on December 21st, 2009. That would be called a 'pile on' and he decided to stand and deliver instead of whimpering off, they even came to a 'consensus' he was being uncivil! He and Kestrel were right about the DNA that came out of the groove on the knife, incidentally.

Some people appear to think if they can get enough people to agree with them on something in a thread that it alters reality and it becomes the Truth. It doesn't actually work that way. That's why innocentisti will go over things again and again--maybe even learn something new--whereas others prefer to insist its 'been established' and hound away, or ban, all that disagree... ;)
 
Last edited:
I dont know stewarthome but his opinion doesn't make any sense. The prosecution was alway pushing the clock to be FAST not slow. The defense finally proved them wrong with the Oct 18th presentation.

Stewart Home would also be the one who said that Halloween masks were common in Perugia on November first. LondonJohn always thought that contention was amusing.
 
Pay closer attention, we're feuding amongst ourselves!

I was mainly referring to pipelineaudio's "don't expect us to do your work for you" jibe. Sure, not exactly uncivil, but hardly welcoming.

But I suppose pipelineaudio doesn't qualify as one of "ourselves".
 
Well, Frank Sfarzo was there also and he says the defense and prosecution had differing opinions on Mar 13th. The prosecution trying to say the Postal Police actually arrived 10 minutes earlier and the defense that it was 10 minutes later.

"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."


I dont know stewarthome but his opinion doesn't make any sense. The prosecution was alway pushing the clock to be FAST not slow. The defense finally proved them wrong with the Oct 18th presentation.


"Stewart Home" also tried to make the fatuous assertion that there would have been people wandering round Perugia on the night after Halloween (the night of the murder and the night of a fairly sombre family-oriented public holiday in Italy) wearing ghoulish Halloween costumes and masks. He did so in order to try to shore up Curatolo's credibility (this was at a time when Curatolo's credibility was still open to debate).

I therefore tend to disregard most of what he alleges as nothing more than blinkered spin, tailored to support a pro-guilt position.
 
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. "

Bolint,

Also, another observation about stewarthome's comment is WHY would the police move the time BACK to 8:41 p.m. and say it is likely MK arriving home when they knew that MK didn't depart the friends house until 8:45 p.m.? That makes zero sense. The English friends had already testified before Mar 13th. It doesn't even make sense to say they think it is MK arriving home at 8:41 p.m.

I have to get some shut eye. Night all. Welcome to JREF Bolint. :)
 
I have no issue with those supporting guilt doing so in a debate or a discussion of the facts. It is the attempt to quiet those that give opinions of innocence that exceed the boundaries of a discussion board that I find hard to comprehend.

ETA: An example would be sending letters and emails to a poster's employer in an attempt to silence them.

Evidence?

Regarding Steve Moore:

The Machine: Sat Sep 18, 2010 3:26 pm
I heard Steve Moore's interview with Bob Rivers yesterday and was disappointed with the way Bob Rivers conducted the interview….I sent Bob Rivers and his staff an e-mail predicting that Steve Moore would attribute Knox's and Sollecito's multiple conflicting alibis to the interrogation on 5 November 2007 and noted that all interviewers to date have accepted this answer. I pointed out that Knox and Sollecito lied before and after 5 November 2007 and gave them specific examples. Bob Rivers should have challenged him over these lies, but he chose not to….....

SomeAlibi: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:05 am
But what I'm going to pledge to do now is the two main jobs I consider I need to do:

i) I'm going to take down Steve Moore
ii) I'm going to try to persuade Rudy to tell the truth….

SA

Skeptical Bystander: Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:51 am
I think that Steve Moore will self-destruct and that his wife is a huge liability. However, that may take time, lots of it. So if you could speed up this process that would be just great!

Regarding Michael Krom:

Zorba: Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:42 pm
Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Staff
Professor Stephen Scott
BSc, PhD
Leeds University

I just wrote to this fellow, about Krom. Tried to put a few things into perspective. I mean in terms of comparatives though this fellow must have more brains than Moore, it seems similar nonetheless, I mean, do they even know he is saying what he is?…… I think it's shocking that a someone like Krom comes out with stuff like he has, I mean have some respect, after all, he obviously does not even know what he is talking about, at all yet is employed by the very uni Meredith attended

zorba: Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:56 pm
Have now forwarded my appeal for reason, to all of the Senior Board members at Leeds University.

Most of them are studied in business, etc, I posted and posted and found the one that deals with legal matters too, and sent him a copy, for sure, too.

So, then every Senior Member will be attended to the matter concerning Krom…..

Regarding Michael Wiesner:

Stilicho: Wed May 18, 2011 6:59 pm
This is an old conspiraloon favourite. Dig up individual nuts like this guy and promote his personal opinion as validation of your bizarre and unsupportable 'theories'. The folks who pay good money to send their kids to a prep school might be intrigued to learn of Wiesner's advocacy on behalf of a pair of vicious sex killers.

You can write a letter to the MPI here if you'd like:

Mid-Pacific Institute
2445 Kaala Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2299......

Maria: Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:58 pm
Would it be worth making a complaint about Michael Wiesner to his University about such badly researched material? I would not be happy if my friends or family were attending his course given the cost of Education these days.

The Machine Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:05 pm
I think it is obscene that a school teacher is campaigning for the release of two sadistic sex killers.

You can contact the principal, Grace Cruz, using the following link:.....

Maria Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:21 pm
Thank you The Machine, I agree and will compose something and also ask for a copy of their complaint procedures.

The Machine Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:31 pm
I hope everybody contacts the principal, Grace Cruz, because Michael Wiesner is using lies to indoctrinate his pupils. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are not political prisoners in some Third World country. They were unanimously found guilty of sexual assault and murder.

Regarding Bruce Fisher:

Skeptical Bystander: Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:44 pm
OT but important:
I would like to thank the people at the top at Technorati for removing Bruce Fisher's defamatory article, which was a watered-down version of his hideous blog post........I am now hoping that Technorati will delete the account of "Bruce Fisher" entirely, so that he will not be able to continue inciting hatred…….

Skeptical Bystander: Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:57 pm
As I indicated yesterday, I did contact the people at Technorati and they responded quite swiftly. I think they were fully aware that the soapbox piece by "Bruce Fisher" contained a number of potentially libelous claims and not just about me. I know that Peter Quennell was contemplating action but I don't know if he has taken it……

Skeptical Bystander: Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:00 pm
Bruce Fisher" is at it again. He has basically republished the article that Technorati removed as potentially libelous at a place called gather.com…….I have joined gather and made a complaint about this article…..

Skeptical Bystander: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:01 pm
I sent the people at gather.com a request to remove the defamatory "article" by "Bruce Fisher", which merely repeats material that the people at Technorati deemed potentially libelous and not in keeping with its standards. There was no hesitation on their part, and the article has now been removed.

Skeptical Bystander: Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:02 pm
And I am happy to report that ZIMBIO has also removed the article.

Skeptical Bystander: Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:59 am
......It has already been removed by Technorati, gather and zimbio. I have contacted yahoo, thanks for the heads up.

Regarding the presentation at Seattle University:

stint7: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:18 pm
If anyone has inclination to send a quick E-Mail to Seattle University regarding their sponsorship of the "Case For Innocence " Forum on 4apr, here are a couple contacts……
stint7: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:11 pm
Dr Edwin Weihe
Director
Film Studies
Seattle U

(FWIW; never got the courtesy of a reply from Dr Weihe to a *very* respectful, polite E-Mail asking why his Department saw fit to sponsor this 'event')

Regarding Judge Michael Heavey:

The Machine: Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:24 pm
All the regular posters on PMF and TJMK can make a difference. It only takes a few moments to write an e-mail to Reiko Callner, the Executive Director of the Commission of Judicial Conduct, about Judge Heavey's open letter……..

Here is Reiko Callner's e-mail address:.....

Skeptical Bystander: Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:00 pm
I have received a reply from the Commission, stating that complaints must be made using surface mail or fax channels. There is a link to online instructions for filing a complaint with the Commission….
 
Last edited:
"WHY would the police move the time BACK to 8:41 p.m. and say it is likely MK arriving home when they knew that MK didn't depart the friends house until 8:45 p.m.? That makes zero sense."

Because they were still betting on the postal police arrival contradiction and it is not compatible with neither Meredith nor Amanda being the female figure.
They sacrificed the female figure as it is was not direct identification anyway.
 
"I dont know stewarthome but his opinion doesn't make any sense. "

He simply stated that the carabiniere said that the timestamp of 20:50 corresponded to true time of 20:40.
Not much of "opinion" involved.
 
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.


It's a simple mistake to make. Most of the time when some compares the time on their watch to another clock they are interested in if their watch is fast or slow relative to the other clock. The officer looks at the CCTV time then at his watch which is 12 minutes fast and writes that in his report. Later when he reads the report, he doesn't have the information of which clock was fast and presumes if must be the CCTV clock because that is the important one.

Once they have accepted the report that the cctv clock is 12 minutes fast, the times on the tape are then treated as hard facts that trump everything else. The whole debacle about the postal police arriving before the 112 call may have been reconstructed from the incorrect CCTV time (unless you want to believe that officer looked at his watch and remembered the exact time in court two years later without writing it down). Dispatchers writing times in log books must have made a mistake because it doesn't jive with the "known" facts.
 
Pay closer attention, we're feuding amongst ourselves! You should be pleased and happy, all joy is yours now! Dan-O and Bolint think the image takes place at 9:03, Draca thinks 8:51-8:53 and I'm inclined to agree with her, but haven't weighed in as I've been hopping from computer to computer squinting at my screen.

if he looks really close, he might see that this feud is between happy skeptics throwing evidence instead of names and every piece of evidence that hits home is a joy to receive.


"I'd far rather be happy than right any day"
— Douglas Adams (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
 
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?

Well to me it looks like a long-haired girl in trousers. Can't see any skirt there.
Heavy shadows and highlights make some areas black and some almost white - it has nothing to do with actual colors.
 
It's a simple mistake to make. Most of the time when some compares the time on their watch to another clock they are interested in if their watch is fast or slow relative to the other clock. The officer looks at the CCTV time then at his watch which is 12 minutes fast and writes that in his report. Later when he reads the report, he doesn't have the information of which clock was fast and presumes if must be the CCTV clock because that is the important one.

Once they have accepted the report that the cctv clock is 12 minutes fast, the times on the tape are then treated as hard facts that trump everything else. The whole debacle about the postal police arriving before the 112 call may have been reconstructed from the incorrect CCTV time (unless you want to believe that officer looked at his watch and remembered the exact time in court two years later without writing it down). Dispatchers writing times in log books must have made a mistake because it doesn't jive with the "known" facts.

This is why going over old ground can be very useful! They probably did know that CCTV time was off, and had already made that mistake, as they would get Raffaele to 'agree' that he called the carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived during the November 5th interrogation! Being as that whole line of thought was damned silly, in context of all the other calls they were making before--and what would have had to have been after--they must have had at that point reason to believe it was possible that had occurred, and might explain why they called Raffaele in that night.

The fact the Postal Police never saw any of those calls being made, that it was the Postal Police who ended up giving directions to the caribinieri, that it's pretty dubious that were Raffaele and Amanda guilty they'd have wanted to bring more cops to the scene, and of course if they only wanted to deal with the carabinieri all they had to do was take the phones from the Postal Police and then just say they got suspicious when they tried to return them to Meredith--all that suggests the idea that Raffaele called them after the Postal Police arrived is insipid. They had to have a reason to come to such a counterintuitive conclusion, and I bet that's because they had already screwed up the direction of the timestamp error!

If that cop saw the timestamp of 8:53 and screwed up the polarity and thus they ended up assuming that video was at 8:41, then as Bolint would point out they'd eventually eliminate Amanda as being the figure in the CCTV video, (perhaps not yet knowing about/thinking about Popovic's testimony) but on November 5th they might well think that Amanda went to the cottage before Meredith did, and that Raffaele had lied to them about calling the caribinieri before the Postal Police arrived, thus 'Our Heroes' think they have hard evidence Raffaele and Amanda are involved, which causes them to put the screws to both of them. The stoned Raffaele 'admits' he called the carabinieri afterward, and that Amanda left him ('whatever dude') which very well might cause the police to line up Raffaele's tiny dancer in their sights!

Thus I agree with you and Bolint, that timestamp probably did read ~8:53, when the real time was actually 9:03-9:05!
 
Last edited:
Regarding Steve Moore:

Regarding Michael Krom:

Regarding Michael Wiesner:

Regarding Bruce Fisher:

Regarding the presentation at Seattle University:

Regarding Judge Michael Heavey:


I see that the "open letter Muppet" is at it again, this time directing his ire at a small UK publication for accepting a piece from a LibDem councillor about the case.

The frog (and others) are still also seemingly confused as to the role of Gogerty Marriott in the case. They have long since convinced themselves that Knox is the recipient of some sort of huge PR effort with multiple tentacles and the means of subverting the mass media. Again, I think this speaks volumes as to the reasoning ability, objectivity (lack of) and underlying state of mind of the people who have convinced themselves of this point of view.

And, by the way, "paid media" isn't what the frog seems to think it is. It is simply marketing jargon for advertising. It's not - as some seem to think - any sort of reference to paying media outlets in return for a certain type of coverage. So I'd be interested to see where the "Knox PR juggernaut" has taken out any advertising (page ads in newspapers, web banners, TV commercials, billboard advertising etc) to promote Knox's cause...
 
I was mainly referring to pipelineaudio's "don't expect us to do your work for you" jibe. Sure, not exactly uncivil, but hardly welcoming.

It was pretty clear from posts after his first claim that he was referencing a video some of us hadn't seen, and became far clearer after Draca posted a link to it. That would have been fine, but AFTER that decided to make a new claim of "clearly" about the skirt, and should have probably extended the courtesy of linking that pic or some evidence of its existence

But I suppose pipelineaudio doesn't qualify as one of "ourselves".

Yeah, as I am far to the right of most of the righties here and far to the left of most of the lefties, I don't think they'd appreciate being lumped in with me on any subject besides the hard science stuff
 
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.

Welcome bolint.

Comodi did move the police arrival time up some in her closing comments (12:46 IIRC) but still kept it slightly before Raffaele's calls to 112. (No proof required in a closing argument I guess).

From Massei:

She remembered that Meredith, that afternoon, was wearing a pair of rather loose blue jeans, fabric gym shoes, and a light blue sweatshirt with a zip fastener. Underneath she had a long-sleeved T-shirt and over this a top. She carried a cream coloured bag with a long shoulder strap.

I think the key to this quote is the long shoulder strap part. What you see as a skirt I see as this bag. No way to tell with certainty by the video provided.
 
Rose,

Audio for Saturday's and subsequent hearings
--------------------------------------------

I've talked to Corriere Dell Umbria about the availablity of audios. Need to call later when I can talk to the journalist who follows the case the closest. Alternatively, I can speak to someone in 'Direzione' ..... Head office or Admin dept ... only get voicemail now, but Italian lunches are taken seriously, I'll try later.
 
Rose,

Audio for Saturday's and subsequent hearings
--------------------------------------------

I've talked to Corriere Dell Umbria about the availablity of audios. Need to call later when I can talk to the journalist who follows the case the closest. Alternatively, I can speak to someone in 'Direzione' ..... Head office or Admin dept ... only get voicemail now, but Italian lunches are taken seriously, I'll try later.

Thanks Kevinfay. I have found out that although video in the courtroom by reporters once the trial starts is not allowed, there is a press room for overflow and there is a TV that they show the hearing on in the press room. The reason we see a lot of blurry TV images is because they are taking a video of the image on the CCTV provided to the press room. If we get some audio, great as well.

I appreciate your efforts on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom