Why The FOA’s Increasingly Hapless Steve Moore Should Probably Stay Well Away From TV
Steve Moore’s presentation in the recent Case for Innocence forum in Seattle to a small bunch of undergrads and other parties left me nearly speechless.
I consider that the number of errors in Moore’s presentation were so numerous that it was quite astonishing that this was the work of a man who claims he has been involved on this case for a year and who claims he has professional experience in law enforcement.
A big statement but it’s not one that’s hard to justify. Steve Moore will be our principal witness. He will repeat for you, if you watch the above youtube video, at least six absolute howlers of misstatement, misunderstanding and exaggeration and many other medium sized ones.
Worst of all of these, he states a core aspect of the prosecution case (proof of the staged break-in at the cottage due to broken glass being on-top of clothes that had already been tossed on the floor) completely upside down. 180 degrees wrong and back to front… and he does it repeatedly in a way that makes it impossible to conclude anything else than he doesn’t actually understand central and important points of evidence against the person he would seek to help. For a law enforcement or legal professional, that is a serious issue.
Let’s begin:
Steve opens by asserting he has been involved with sticking away nine people to a sentence of life without parole. Crassly, and I think he thinks it is humorous, he states that “two of them have completed that sentence” (think about it - he means they are dead and is seeking to have a laugh about it) “..and seven remain in prison.” He is met with not a single titter. Steve gets really crass by having another go at the same joke: “Actually the other two remain in prison too, they’re just not aware of it.” Deafening silence.
Remember Steve is the guy who positioned a bible, an ammo clip and a mortgage statement behind him in interview (seriously) and whose wife Michelle likes to remind people he’s a sniper? All part of the tough-god-fearing-guy image. The dead-convicts thing is part of the same swagger. I’m really impressed myself. How about you?
In passing, shall we reflect that if you’ve been in the FBI for nearly 25 years and were a “supervisor”, nine sentences of life without parole is really rather surprisingly low?
At 41:20 of the YouTube clip, we start to see an old line used before: “Just prior to the conviction my wife said “˜I’ve seen some things that concern me’”. Steve goes on to say that he said to Michelle “I will prove within a day that she’s guilty” but that this turned into two months of investigation where he concluded “she” *(Amanda) was not. Three issues with this:
- I don’t know a single law enforcement professional or lawyer who would ever say to you that they could prove someone was guilty or not guilty in a single day review of a capital crime case. It’s just not feasible and anyone who does this for a living knows this. The hyperbole is off the charts, as per usual.
- Steve’s story about Michelle’s challenge and the “one day” proof doesn’t match anything he wrote on the Injustice in Perugia website where instead he said “But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts” which led him to investigate. Which one is it? A one day challenge or a gradual accumulation of knowledge and investigation?
- In fact, as we know, Michelle herself let slip that the Moores were “approached” by Bruce Fisher, a pseudonym for the person who runs Injustice In Perugia, and when this was pointed out on PMF.org that it flatly contradicted the previously announced statement (a wifely challenge to a husband with no prior contact), that same day, she deleted her entire “Michellesings” blog from the web ““ all of it ““ to remove what she had said in what bore a remarkable resemblance to a panicked action.
It was further underlined when Michelle subsequently re-created her blog with just a single letter difference in the title. That give away on the internet undermines the whole story of how Steve Moore, from LA, got involved in this case which he has told many times (in various versions admittedly) in public.
At 43:22 Moore makes a baseless overstatement ““ “[Rudy Guede] was a known burglar who had 5 to 6 burglaries in the last month”. We have to stop the clock here and be very serious: this is an exaggeration which neither I nor anyone I know who has a good handling of the facts of this case has ever stated. It was once stated by a Daily Mail journalist many moons ago, the same Daily Mail the Friends of Amanda revile for other articles but *it never made it into evidence* because of course it wasn’t true. And by this time, in 2011, one needs to know the *evidence* not repeat baseless conjecture because it supports “your” case. Please reflect for a second”¦
Guede is accused of being in a school without permission for which the police didn’t even bother to prosecute, so it wasn’t a burglary. Bzzt. We all know he handled a stolen laptop but there was no suggestion of a burglary related to it, as much as one can see the hypothesis.
We know that another witness said someone like Guede was in his house but he was discounted as unreliable. I am a vociferous critic of Guede but one cannot take a law enforcement professional seriously who massively inflates evidence. “5 or 6 burglaries in a month”? NO-ONE in the case, in the official body of evidence, has ever suggested that.
Such a suggestion from a law enforcement professional is hugely undermining if it can’t be proven, and it can’t. Nor has it been ever suggested by Amanda or Raffaele’s own legal counsel. If this was stated in court without proof (and, again, there is none), we would all rightly expect that to destroy the credibility of that law enforcement professional. Baseless assertion is a serious issue.
Moore then suggests that Meredith came home after Guede broke in. Sounds prima facie reasonable, but again, anyone who knows the evidence and is familiar with the scene knows that the green outer shutters were open and the gate and the walk up the drive faced that window. And Meredith didn’t see the broken-into window? Oh really?
Rudy Guede, a burglar standing directly in front of an open window apparently half-pulled one shutter to, but left the other open three open and himself clearly visible from the drive when “tossing” Filomena’s bedroom - without taking anything? Then how about Amanda Knox, walking in day-light up to the house the next morning who claims she didn’t see the open shutters.
It is over one hundred feet from the gate to that window, and on the 2nd of November, the shutters were open on the left as we look in and marginally more shut on the right. This is consistent with the police statements at the time and it is trite to say, no, they haven’t been opened by the police.
The left hand one (right as Massei relates from a direction of looking *out* from the house) is “half-closed in the sense that fully open is with it pushed against the outside wall. The right hand one as you can see is marginally more shut.
Can you really imagine a burglar who has climbed up to the shutters to open them, then climbed down and gone up to the drive to find a rock, then climbed down under the window and up again before miraculously getting in without a scratch, nick or spot of DNA would turn round inside and partially close the right hand shutter but not close the left hand one? It makes literally no-sense.
Amanda Knox asks you believe that as she walked 100+ feet up the drive she didn’t notice it either. That’s the first time. The second time she returned to the cottage she was already “panicked” about the open door, the evidence of blood and unknown faeces and was returning to the cottage. And she walked up the hundred feet again and didn’t notice… again. Nor did Raffaele who was so concerned he suggested they return notice?
I suggest to you there’s more than enough reason Amanda has her hand to her face looking at the open shutters in this picture taken on 2nd November! (Please note, this image has IBERPress logo on it. I am linking it on another website, not created by us, which is publicly available and presumably asserts fair-use, but all rights are acknowledged by this site).
You’d leave that open as a burglar would you, facing the gate and the road? Total nonsense. And no, again, it hasn’t been moved.
Steve then suggests, in contravention of every banking security protocol I’ve ever heard of, that Guede, while having just murdered someone and held two towels to her neck in panic at that, then completely relaxed and phoned Meredith’s bank with her own mobile phone to try to get an ATM number *while still in the cottage* based on the mobile cell records.
Have you ever heard of a bank that will give you your pin number over the phone without substantial cross-checking of private passwords / other information that Guede couldn’t possibly know about Meredith? Moore also neglects to mention that Rudy would also have to have phoned Meredith’s voicemail two minutes before, something the call records show.
The reason for this suggestion is that Steve is trying to support the defence case for a time of death for Meredith that is incompatible with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s involvement. Steve neglects to mention that Amanda and Raffaele tried to establish an alibi for a time of *11pm* for their dinner at Raffaele’s flat which was destroyed by Raffaele’s own father who stated that Raffaele mentioned matters relating to having completed dinner at around 8.30pm. No-one at this panel talk ever heard of *that*...
Steve and others suggest Amanda and Raffaele dated for 2 weeks. The only people who disagree with this are Amanda and Raffaele’s team, who state one week. Ho hum. Not really important. Just sloppy.
Steve suggests that what the prosecution alleged in the trial was that Amanda and Raffaele “Decided for the first time that they are going to do a threesome” with Rudy Guede. Again, anyone with the slightest knowledge of this case knows the prosecution never alleged this “threesome”. They alleged a sexually aggravated murder of Meredith Kercher. A threesome? Where does Moore get this stuff from?
Again, totally undermining of his credibility. How many black marks are we up to? I’ve lost count. To be fair, Paul Ciolino the P.I. who has worked on the case and belongs to the FOA started covering his mouth during Steve’s presentation. In body language terms, that’s not terribly supportive…
On this topic of the threesome he’s invented in his head that no-one else mentioned, Steve states: “They decide to choose a burglar whom they don’t know real well ““ they’ve only met once. Raffaele had only met him that day. Raffaele said ‘that’s a great idea, lets bring this guy who is a burglar whom I don’t know and he can have sex with my girlfriend’”.
Rather inauspicious logic, Steve. If they didn’t know him, they would not have known he was a burglar? Yet you transplant those words into the mouth of a fictional Raffaele Sollecito to make a cheap, but ultimately beautifully self-defeating, point. Amanda, of course, says she met Rudy many times in passing, as did Rudy about Amanda. I’m very interested that Steve also stated “Raffaele had only met him that day” because of course Raffaele and Amanda never admitted that. Where does that come from? Please tell”¦. Bzzt, bzzt, bzzt.
Moore then states that the prosecution case is that “Rudy goes in first and then Meredith screams. Then Amanda comes in and sides with the rapist.” Again, anyone with a perfunctory knowledge of this case knows that is not the prosecution case. This is hugely undermining because once again he is misinforming a public gathering on the case presented against Knox.
You can disagree with the case against Knox, but actually fundamentally misstating it? At this point, with so many marks on the board, I started asking myself… how is it possible that he doesn’t know all this?
And that question I still don’t have an answer to.
But it gets worse…
Now we get to one of the most egregious sections of the whole presentation and misleading of the audience: concerning the blood spattered apartment, Moore makes a major case that Perugian police released the picture of the vividly pink Phenolphthalein stained bathroom as being the *blood* stained bathroom where Amanda Knox showered.
Please watch the video and see how nakedly this is suggested. He juxtaposes the picture of the sink as it was on November the 2nd with the post-phenolphthalein shot and says that the prosecution alleged “that’s what Amanda saw, that’s it.. that’s what was really there. That’s when you start saying ‘oh my god’. Knowing that the jurors are not sequestered”¦ they released this and said ‘that’s blood’”.
Here’s how Moore presented it:
The fact that the ACTUAL pictures of the scene *he himself uses on the left* were in the core evidence bundle in front of the jury as prime exhibits as any lawyer or serious law professional should immediately appreciate is ignored. It must be ignored because of course otherwise no-one could come up with such a patently incoherent line of logic. I’m losing count of the pieces of lack of knowledge and logic by now. How about you?
Re the staged break in ““ “one of the most incredible lies I have ever seen in a court-room outside of Iran.” Have you been involved in an Iranian court proceedings Steve? No. Mo(o)re hyperbole.
Next, a baffling and possibly funny line of reasoning if the matter wasn’t so serious. Moore proceeds to state that it was “very obvious the stone was thrown from outside and busted the shutter open.” So far so normal as an FOA meme ““ no issue. Except he then goes on to state more than once “The Perugian police said that a rock was thrown inside the house [to] outside the house.”
Huh? To “outside the house”? Are you perchance suggesting that the prosecution were saying the rock was thrown from “inside to outside” the house, then they went down and recovered it and replaced it in the bedroom where it was found and photographed which you would have seen if you had a sound knowledge of the case? Because no-one else has ever said that ever Steve! Not once! Huh? Outside the house? My head hurts. Does anyone have any pills?
Then Steve makes a point of highlighting some embedded glass in the wooden frame of the interior shutter as evidence of a rock thrown from the outside-in, when, again, it is blindingly obvious to anyone that the broken window could have been actioned from inside with exactly the same result. He’s so carried away with himself that he doesn’t even notice. It’s not that unsurprising I guess because he hasn’t noticed the legion other mistakes he’s made so far.
Next statement “Anyone who thinks the rock was thrown from inside out is either an idiot or lying”. It’s simply not logical Steve; as anyone can see it would have been possible to smash the window from inside, whether you actually agree that happened or not. Again, baseless exaggeration. You don’t have to agree but stop with the hyperbole!
56 minutes in we get to a huge howler where Moore completely misstates the prosecution case on the staged break-in and doesn’t appear to have even thought about it enough to see the obvious logical hole in what he is about to say. In my original notes to this talk I jotted down “Amazing and astounding ““ doesn’t understand the clothes / glass point:”.
Moore says:
They [the prosecution] say that the reason they know that this was staged is because when they got there, there was clothes on top of the glass, the broken glass in the room. Well you’d think that the glass would be on top of everything wouldn’t you? Unless a burglar came in and started throwing things on the floor after the glass was broken. If you look on the bed you’ll see a purse. You’ll see the contents of the purse all over the floor, all over the bed. You will see that he went through her clothes hamper there, her clothes cabinet there, threw everything on the floor. That is why there are clothes on top of the glass. Why is that so hard?
Steve, you’ve stated this 180 degrees completely wrong. The prosecution case is that both the police and Filomena, Amanda’s flatmate, stated there was glass on top of clothes which had been apparently tossed by a burglar (not vice versa) and on top of a laptop that was closed but which had previously been open. The point is that it shows that the room was ransacked and *then* the glass was broken, proving the staging of the burglary.
In any court of law I have seen, if you can show a supposedly authoritative witness, who shall we not forget has been on this case for a *year*, has such a bad handle on the evidence, you can get a jury laughing and that witness completely discounted. This is, in my opinion, what Moore did to himself somewhat prior to this point, but by the end of this point, absolutely comprehensively. How is it possible to misunderstand the case so clearly? Ciolino and Waterbury both look very uncomfortable at this point.
Next point: a pearly Steve quote: “When is a murder weapon not a murder weapon? When the Perugian police say it is.”
Uhhh”¦ think about it”¦. That’s not actually what you meant to say, is it? What you meant is “When is a non-murder weapon, a murder weapon? When the Perugian police say it is”. Given Steve’s penchant for getting things upside down and arse-backwards, perhaps we should not be surprised, but call me a stickler for suggesting people get their arguments right. Steve compounds this 180-degree misstatement in the Q&A session by stating that the defence will try and throw a million things against the wall in the appeal and see if something will stick. The defence? Like those representing Amanda Knox, Steve? Huh? With the glass, the “murder weapon” and “defence” points, Moore appears to not be able to listen to what he himself is saying. It’s just… bizarre…
Steve then makes a big point about the Raffaele cooking knife being the wrong shape for the mark on the bedsheet without mentioning the fact that two knives were posited in the case. Nice and misleading. Still not representing the basics of the case to those assembled.
As we approach the end of this car-crash, Moore makes a big point that “they say Amanda was in front of her and stabbed her like this”. He then mimics a vertical stabbing motion and makes a distinction of the lateral cut compared to vertical method of attack. But no-one ever said this definitively in court and Massei clearly states the blood spurts on the wardrobe (i.e. facing away from the attackers) are from the neck injury. Mo(o)re fabrication. How many is it now?
There is a chuckle-worthy moment where Moore uses the different exposures of pictures of the bra-clasp on the original investigation versus that taken on December 16th as clear evidence of “contamination”. A 2 second glance shows this is an exposure issue unsubstantiated by other pictures which again are in front of the jury.
Unsurprisingly, he then goes on to make the standard declaration that the gathering of the bra-clasp with Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on it on December 16th “delay” as “apparently not important” to the prosecution. He neglects to mention that it was a sealed crime scene where the passage of time can have no effect on the forensic value of evidence *if no-one is within the sealed crime-scene*. He also neglects to mention the delay was due in substantial part to the requirement to invite the defence to attend…
To finish, a damp whimper after these major trumpetings of lack of knowledge and/or understanding: a statement about a pillow under Meredith’s body: “Guess what they found on there ““ semen and the police refused to test it”. It has been suggested but without testing, we obviously can’t know it’s semen. Again, serious legal professionals don’t make absolute statements like this about unproven evidence.
Amanda Knox is incarcerated for 26 years. As someone who has been involved in many defences of individuals charged with serious criminal matters, it is unacceptable to me that people willing to hold themselves out as prominent supporters of an imprisoned person who have experience in the law or law enforcement show that they don’t know, appreciate, or are able to process core aspects of the case against that person.
In my opinion, this performance was inexcusably weak and must raise serious questions about the judgement of those seeking to help Amanda. Would you want this sort of standard of knowledge held out as adequate, as representing a member of your core Home team? I sincerely hope not. Only the lack of knowledge of the case and the partisan support in the room stopped Moore from being extremely badly shown up in the Q&A session.
There’s a meme in the supporters of Amanda camp that says that pro-prosecution commentators cost Moore his job at Pepperdine. It’s nonsense. Moore got himself removed before most of us had ever heard of him.
Neither I nor anyone else I am aware of ever wrote to his *former* employer before he was fired. Nor did I write to them afterwards either because I considered they had a simple case against him and he’d like it if we were involved. Once I did write that I wanted to take down Steve Moore, by which I meant stop him posting misleading statements about the Meredith Kercher case using his career as credentials.
But following this performance at the Case for Innocence forum, in my opinion, it is quite evident that Steve Moore has done it comprehensively and totally to himself.
Posted by SomeAlibi on 04/24/11 at 04:43 PM in News media & movies, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 3 No evidence hoax, 4 No firm DNA hoax, 6 No staging hoax, 8 No motive hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, 16 Interrogation hoax, 17 Fake memory hoax, 18 No drug use hoax, Hoaxes Sollecito etc, 25 RS persona hoax, 27 Single alibi hoax, 28 Not at house hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, Hoaxers from 2009, Steve Moore
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
Excellent post. Steve Moore should remember, if he doesn’t state the evidence fairly, then all his oh-so witty scorn and all his self-proclaimed “expertise” counts for nothing, if he wishes to be taken seriously.
Posted by Janus on 04/24/11 at 09:09 PM | #
4/24/11
Happy Easter! Death is defeated.
Our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead to give us the victory, everlasting life.
___________________
SomeAlibi shines a light on real blunders at the Forum. “A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum” movie comes to mind. Yes, Steve Moore was really off his game that April evening. But he has no excuse, he’s been talking about this case for a long time. Doesn’t he have some cheat sheets from all the important TV interviews he gave? His white can of energy drink didn’t help; maybe trade it for Red Bull.
All the forum participants seemed miserable that evening, squirming, restless and distracted. I guess they had bigger fish to fry.
Posted by Hopeful on 04/24/11 at 10:06 PM | #
Thanks SomeAlibi.
Whatever the matter is with Amanda, Steve Moore also has it in spades. It’s like they both have learning difficulties to which they are utterly blind. It is chronic with the pair of them. Perhaps Michelle was the first to see this.
I seriously doubt that Moore has ever been anywhere near the FBI. He is a complete Walter Mitty character and no-one has ever been able to validate his claim to have been with the organization.
There must be some sort of entrance test for the FBI. How did he ever pass that!
Once, for my own amusement, I took an on line test to establish whether I would make the grade for an MI5 field operative. It was against the clock and consisted of a series of complex scenarios on which the applicant was tested as to his powers of observation, understanding and logic, and his ability to set down his answers and conclusions precisely and accurately.
I failed despite being a university graduate and trained lawyer.
Moore couldn’t gain entrance to High School on his powers of observation, understanding and logic let alone the FBI unless, that is, FBI stands for Fatuous Blockheads Institute.
Posted by James Raper on 04/24/11 at 11:44 PM | #
To give him his due (which I don’t do a lot of), Moore definitely worked for the FBI because there’s pictures of him with alumni logo on a t-shirt next to other people with the same at an official FBI gathering.
What he did is unclear but he’s made a somewhat clear resume while being noticeably short of real details about his promotional level and rank. I think there’s a reason for this.
How he can have, given the state of his evidence understanding and reasoning, worked for the FBI, is much, much more up for debate imho based on this presentation.
It’s completely beyond me.
Posted by SomeAlibi on 04/25/11 at 12:27 AM | #
Wouldn’t be the first time someone has conned their way in to an official gathering. Anyway who wears t-shirts at official gatherings? He could be an FBI obsessive - like a trekie.
Posted by James Raper on 04/25/11 at 01:22 AM | #
Well I don’t think that’s really likely James given he’s had an appointment at Pepperdine which would have taken up references and the 9/11 commission testimony would be easy enough to check, but of course, if you can disprove it, you’d rather trump my post.
In the meantime, I think Moore has done everything necessary to dismiss himself as a serious commentator on this case so I’ll rest there.
Posted by SomeAlibi on 04/25/11 at 01:46 AM | #
I was just in one of my flippant moods. I couldn’t agree with you more. Great post though I had been following these points by you on PMF.
Posted by James Raper on 04/25/11 at 01:55 AM | #
Let’s not forget that Steve Moore chose to be dismissed at his job at Pepperdine with a secure income rather than stopping defending Amanda Knox (“for free” like he claims). I think he perfectly well knows he is being ridiculous with his numerous outlandish claims about the crime scene and the investigation, but he doesn’t care as long as it pays off financially.
In other words, I believe Steve Moore is being paid and that for him makes it worth it. We already know he is a liar, as his story how he got involved in the Amanda Knox PR campaign differs from what his own wife revealed. The truth is, he was approached by Bruce Fisher. They are organised and of course they are getting paid for their efforts. For what other reason these people would make such a fool of themselves?
No matter what history Steve Moore had with the FBI, he is no John Douglas, that’s for sure.
Posted by Nell on 04/25/11 at 05:46 AM | #
Thanks SomeAlibi for a great dismantling of this panel of court jesters.
Posted by Barry on 04/25/11 at 06:29 AM | #
Steve Moore has been making serious errors of fact right from the beginning. I went off his credibility when he burst on the scene initially claiming 25 years of FBI experience and in the next breath claiming Rudy’s “saliva†and â€hair†were found in dear Meredith’s room. You just cannot make such basic blunders and expect to be considered an expert after that. SA has done a comprehensive job in showing him up as a careless amateur who continues to play loose with the facts.
Posted by Hammerite on 04/25/11 at 09:50 AM | #
Once again a great post SA. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition aye Steve?
I dont know if it is deliberately misleading as most of the FOA output is, or just unadulterated buffoonery on the part of Steve Moore - probably a mixture of both.
I remember when he came bounding onto the scene, and the Bruce Fishers and Candace Dempsey et al were lauding him as some sort of ‘super advocate’.
A real (ex)FBI man! he must know his onions! Moore here destroys any credibility he may have had.
In this case, rather as an ‘super advocate’ I see him as more like John Cleese in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when the knight charges into the wedding party and slaughters all the guests single handedly.
Once again a spectacular own goal.
Posted by Black Dog on 04/25/11 at 12:38 PM | #
You can just bet that somewhere in the real FBI offices there must be howls of laughter at Moore’s pathetic mumblings. At the very least there will much shaking of heads. Also it’s indicative that there is a vast silence coming from so many real law and legal departments. It’s as though a general ‘Hand Off’ directive has been passed.
I find it very interesting too that everyone in the pro Knox group seems to be tared with the same mindset. Absolute and total denial. For sure its a very strange phenomenon, and one that seems to be confined to Seattle. Must be something in the water
Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 04/25/11 at 01:06 PM | #
Thank you SA for watching that video so I don’t have to.
I can’t make it through more than a couple minutes, even for a good laugh.
It is so full of hyperbole and misinformation that it bores me to death!
Posted by bedelia on 04/25/11 at 05:50 PM | #
Excellent work, SA. Given Moore’s pathetic crimescene analysis skills, perhaps it’s time to review those 9 “life-conviction” cases that Moore was involved in.
Can someone please give Dr. Greg Hampikian, director of the Idaho Innocence Project, a call and ask him to look into the sky-high potential for railroading and wrongful convictions in those cases?
Posted by Fly By Night on 04/25/11 at 07:54 PM | #
thanks for taking the time to write such an outstanding article! i love the fact that the moores etc are actually PROUD of this silly little forum/ debate and released this youtube video thinking it was a *good* thing.
i also love that they will without doubt have read this deconstruction of yours and will be huffing and puffing as a result.
every time they come out with more nonsense, we are all still here, ready to set the facts straight on record for the world to see. no matter how loud they shout, they will not rewrite this history.
Posted by flowers on 04/25/11 at 10:53 PM | #
I wait with baited breath and some trepidation to discover what has been the effect of Dr Hampikian’s input to the current DNA Review ordered by the Appeal Court, and indeed they must surely have started writing up that report by now.
I see that the Idaho Innocence Project is essentially a volunteer organisation relying on fundraising and personal donations. However the project did receive a 2 year grant from the Department of Justice at the beginning of November 2009.
I hope I am not being too cynical in thinking that Dr Hampikian has his thoughts on the day that grant runs out and whether it will be renewed in the current budget cutting climate.
Posted by James Raper on 04/26/11 at 12:09 AM | #
SomeAlibi’s great post is our eighth on the very hurtful lies of Steve Moore and his wife, and SA’s second. All the others can be seen here.
As James and others above suggest, they appear to demonstrate no learning curve whatsoever. Michele Moore seems the worst slimer of Meredith and her family on the web but Steve Moore also oozes condescension and contempt.
You can see it in the video and SA’s post. No wonder Pepperdine thought he was maybe not their type. Here’s a list I posted in December of who they have set out to diminish in their crazy enterprise to… achieve what?
**********
What Michelle Moore leaves out or fails to realise is the enormous number of people their slashing and burning antics (apparently she claims that they are being carried out with the blessing of god) are affecting for the worse.
Some are in fact being seriously hurt.
Just before Steve Moore came roaring out of the woodwork with an apparent extreme case of Security Guard Syndrome to stake his claim as yet another Amanda Knox White Knight (she saw nothing weird in that?!?!) the conspiracy theorists cause in the US was dying a slow death on the vine.
Nobody of importance was listening and their weird theories all failed to make a coherent whole.
Then Steve Moore with his self-important claims to FBI expertise arrived to rev it all up again.
Who have they so far accidentally or deliberately hurt in their campaign? Well, here is a first short list, and we could certainly add more.
Meredith’s hurting family and Meredith’s hurting friends who knew the REAL victim here and disbelieve all the conspiracy theories and truly despise Michele Moore for trying to make Meredith her own in her posts while subtly sliming her family. .
Amanda Knox herself (who really doesn’t need all the animosity and faux facts), her own lawyers (who have asked for it to stop), and other lawyers in the case (who have ridiculed Steve Moore).
In addition, the Perugia police, the Italian equivalent of the FBI in Rome, the crime scene investigators, the laboratory professionals, Judge Massei, the many other judges, the prosecutors in the case, and most stridently Giuliani Mignini (if anyone ever pulls a gun on him, Steve and Michelle Moore might be considered as inciters of hate).
In addition, American students in Italy, including Pepperdine students, who don’t need this xenophobic ranting against their host country in the context of two other American students recently committing murders of Italians.
In addition, officialdom in the US government are believed not to like it at all, including those in foreign affairs and those in federal law enforcement.
In addition, the general populations of the US and of Italy, who generally get along extremely well, and really dont need this divisiveness and polariziation driven by two daffy conspiracy theorists all at sea on the facts.
Maybe in particular Italian-Americans, who have been trying to wind down this kind of misguided sliming of their fine ancestral country for many years.
And in addition the staff and students of the quiet, conservative, respected Christian university of Pepperdine where Steve Moore should have been competently preserving the security of those on campus, many women like Meredith included, and the good name of Pepperdine, not incompetently misconstruing the evidence half a world away to cozy up to a convicted murderess.
Steve Moore and Michelle Moore really should get to grips with the facts of the case. Read Massei and THEN talk. They may sound a lot less weird, and wind down the un-Christian hurt.
Steve Moore has his lawsuit against Pepperdine University for his peremptory dismissal and eviction from the campus coming up in the New Year. What in the above will inspire Pepperdine to offer him a nice settlement or to have him back in his job?
Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/26/11 at 02:11 AM | #
Great post, SA.
As someone else similarly commented, Moore is just another white knight aboard the Knox crazy train.
Six degrees of Amanda Knox = Family, friends, white knights, carpet bagging profiteers, and odd balls.
Posted by giustizia on 04/26/11 at 06:29 AM | #
When I said that the independent experts must surely have started writing their report I think on reflection now that they have probably already written it subject perhaps to some last minute fine tuning.
The report is surely not going to be presented to the court on the 9th May unread by anybody. That would mean a heads down session on the 9th as the court, prosecution and defence teams get to grips with it.
I would have thought it more likely that it is disclosed on strictly confidential terms to interested parties at least a week beforehand.
Posted by James Raper on 04/26/11 at 12:06 PM | #
BREAKING NEWS. Hi James I hope your baited breath goes in and out now and again. It looks like the DNA report will come later. This is in an email from True North:
***********
http://www.libero-news.it/articolo.jsp?id=723735 This title reads ” Possible Extension for Scientific Report” Carla and Conti have asked for an extension beyond May 9th and will look at other scientific data.
As we already know they have concluded that the DNA on the knife is too small to do another test and that the bra clasp was too deteriorated to conduct any further tests on it. They are reviewing procedures.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 04/27/11 at 02:50 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Michael Wiesner: Ten Major Mistakes In His Ill-Researched And Malicious Claims
Or to previous entry Sad To See Anne Bremners Brother Doug Increasingly The Hottest Of The FOA Hotheads