Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


Last visit was: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:58 pm
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:58 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

VII. MAIN DISCUSSION, Feb 28 - April 09, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 10 of 11 [ 2519 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:26 pm   Post subject:    

FBN wrote:

Quote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Well, from what I heard Lumumba was suggested to her and she went with it. Of course that was incredibly stupid nevertheless. But she is so young and eccentric and American ....things happen


It would be very helpful if you were to provide information regarding where your information comes from. And if it is merely your personal opinion, just say so. In addition, there pages upon pages of resources associated with the Perugia Murder File site that can help you formulate better-informed statements.


Have you been following the trial at all, Lancelotti? I don't mean to be rude but, as others have pointed out, what you heard was floated around for months and months and then discredited by multiple witnesses - speaking under oath - at the trial. If you have a bona fide source today for "Lumumba was suggested to her", then please share it. By the way, her stepfather Chris Mellas is not a bona fide source on this issue.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:27 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
From that Barbie Nadeau article this about Cicciolino

Whatever he makes of the CSI efforts, Ciolino does have a prediction. "As it stands today, I believe that the likelihood of Amanda being convicted is very high," he says, blaming the media for poisoning the jury. "I think that Sollecito will probably be found not guilty."


You'd think Paul Ciolino is an expert on criminal cases from the way he speaks. I'm sick and tired of reading that he's a top investigator. It gives the impression that he's some high-ranking policeman who's cracked some important cases instead of some thick chancer, trying to weasle money out of gullible people.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:34 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Well, from what I heard Lumumba was suggested to her and she went with it. Of course that was incredibly stupid nevertheless. But she is so young and eccentric and American ....things happen


The police officers and the police interpreter testified at the trial that Amanda Knox claimed that Diya Lumumba had killed Meredith of her own volition. Lumumba name wasn't suggested by anyone else and Knox didn't retract her accusation the whole time he was in prison.


of course they say that NOW.

in november 2007, when they were so proud that they had solved the case, it sound a bit different:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

Mr De Felice said: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."

He said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died."


You're not quoting the police. You're quoting a newspaper article. Several different police officers and two interpreters have testified under oath. Neither Knox nor her attorney objected to their testimony. Knox could have made a spontaneous statement to this effect -- that the police suggested Patrick -- and she did not. She has objected to other testimony in this way.
Also, Knox was interviewed by Mignini in the presence of her attorney in December 2007. Mignini asked her why she had implicated Patrick and she refused to answer. It would have been the perfect time to clear this up.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
FBN wrote:
If you have a bona fide source today for "Lumumba was suggested to her", then please share it. By the way, her stepfather Chris Mellas is not a bona fide source on this issue.


No, not Chris Mellas. The Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice. I posted a quote, maybe you missed it.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
What really made me think today was Stewart's comment about the medical evidence being in no way a 'slam dunk' for multiple assailants. He is sounding notes of caution. He also said he had spoken with an Italian journalist today who'd heard from insiders that everyone (judges/police and lawyers) know they are innocent, but it has gone so far they cannot stop the trial. I could be classed as 'journalist' gossip, [I know several and they are notorious for it] but the two things together just nudged me back over to the unaccepting side again. I think I just cannot, perhaps refuse, to imagine Amanda being a part of this. I know I am being irrational, but it gets all mixed up in your heart and your head. Today is just a 'She couldn't have done it' day."


Where did Stewart mention insiders? I don't want appear to rude or impolite, but the bit about the judges, police and lawyers knowing they're innocent is complete and utter bullshit. What planet do you live on?

You are appearing both rude and impolite (aren't they the same thing!!??). I am merely quoting my memory of what a highly respected contributor to this board said. I will find the quote and you can ask him about it. Why so aggressive?

The Machine wrote:
You seriously need to start reading actual court documents and the official judges' reports rather gullibly believing an anonymous source on the Internet.


Um...Stewart is not 'an anonymous source on the internet'. He is actually THERE. I trust what he says. Don't you?

The Machine wrote:
Have you actually listened to one word the Kercher's lawyer, Marseca, has said? He's NEVER said that he thinks Knox and Sollecito are innocent. I hate to break this to you, but the defence lawyers are paid to say Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Forgive me, for me being a little cynical.


Duh, well I never would have expected Meredith's lawyers to say that! And I hate to break this to you, but the prosecution lawyers are paid to say that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.


The Machine wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Now we are having that trial, and we all have a right to argue, discuss and have doubts and certainties as and when they arise. That is what this forum is about, as I understand it!


I agree that this forum gives us the opportunity to argue, discuss and have doubts, but you're not giving me the opportunity to discuss the case with you because you still haven't answered any of my questions:



I never said I had the answers to all your questions. I said I was upset by today's evidence and concerned by some things I had heard. Sorry, isn't that allowed?

The Machine wrote:
Why isn't there a single one of Knox's fingerprints in her own bedroom ansd just one of her fingerprints in the entire cottage?


I have no idea.

The Machine wrote:
What was Knox's lamp doing in Meredith's room?


I have no idea, I will wait to see what Amanda says when asked.

The Machine wrote:
Why was the washing machine still warm when Filomena arrived at the cottage on 2 November?


I thought there was some doubt about this being the case.

The Machine wrote:
Why di dKnox take the bucket and mop from the cottage to Raffaele' Sollecito apartment the day after Meredith's murder?



I have no idea. I will wait to see what the evidence is.

The Machine wrote:
Why did Knox and Sollecito turn off their mobiles phones at approximately the same time shortly before Meredith was murdered?


I have no idea. I will wait to see what they say when asked.

The Machine wrote:
Why did Knox and Sollecito give triple alibis and lie repeatedly?


I have no idea. I will wait to see what they say when asked.

The Machine wrote:
Please don't say they didn't do it because they're so young and don't look the type; it makes you sound like an airhead.



Excuse me???? I don't expect personal insults on this site. It has always been a little more highbrow than that in the past. I am no airhead, I can assure you of that. You, on the other hand, are coming across as very rude.


The Machine wrote:
Before you get teary-eyed over Amanda Knox,
In case you've forgotten: Meredith Kercher is the victim of this shocking murder and Amanda Knox is the prime suspect.



I find these comments deeply offensive. I have ALWAYS seen Meredith as the victim of this crime. Try looking at my posts here and on other sites. Where I come from we try to see ALL sides of an argument before making up our minds. You just sound like a FOAs, only on the other side, allowing no questioning, no doubt, nothing. Just mocking and belittling someone who raises a point of view that is not your own. I have been in tears today, not over Amanda, but over Meredith. I have found today's testimony extremely upsetting, and you don't know why, and you don't know me or anything about my life. So back off. I know EXACTLY who the victim is here. I have found your reply to my post extremely rude and distressing. I have no desire other than to discuss this horrific case with intelligent and respectful others. Clearly some on this site are more intelligent and respectful than others.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:42 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
FBN wrote:
If you have a bona fide source today for "Lumumba was suggested to her", then please share it. By the way, her stepfather Chris Mellas is not a bona fide source on this issue.


No, not Chris Mellas. The Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice. I posted a quote, maybe you missed it.


I saw it and it doesn't say what you imply. Like I said, we have more up-to-date information now. It is better to run with that. Arturo de Felice is correct, however, in stating that Knox's alibi was no good and she crumbled. This is also consistent with testimony from one of the interpreters. It seems that everyone was surprised at how quickly Knox crumbled.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject:    

Excellent article Jools and thanks for the link.

"Theatrics" is an apt word. I agree with The Machine, listen to the Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca. He seems to be right on point.

The Bard, there are up days and down days -- keep the faith. Although this trial seems to drag on forever, as Barbie Nadeau says, "The two judges and six jurors are finally getting to the meat of the trial: the scientific evidence." And as Signore Maresca told Newsweek, "From this point we will start to see the real substance."

On another point, I have no idea what evidence Mr. Ciolino has to back up his assertion that the police are "lying about the evidence". Although he thinks Knox will be found guilty, but Sollecito will be found not guilty.

I also hadn't realized, "So far, 10 judges have reviewed the prosecution's case over the last year. All 10 have agreed that there is enough credible evidence to keep moving forward based solely on the merit of the forensics."

The Bard, if you're waffling, this is an article well worth reading, IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I saw it and it doesn't say what you imply. Like I said, we have more up-to-date information now. It is better to run with that.


I'll post it again...:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

Mr De Felice said: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."

He said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died."
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject:    

TM and TB (The Machine and The Bard),

Please take a couple of deep breaths. And then a couple more.

TM, TB is right about one thing: it isn't okay to call her an airhead, regardless of the reason.

When things get personal, the best course is to take them offline and avoid the temptation to want to get the last insult in.

Please be civil and, if you can't see eye to eye then politely ignore one another.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject:    

The Bard wrote:
Duh, well I never would have expected Meredith's lawyers to say that! And I hate to break this to you, but the prosecution lawyers are paid to say that Knox and Sollecito are innocent.


The Kerchers' lawyer, Maresca, is not a prosecution lawyer. He hasn't been paid to say that Knox and Sollecito are guilty or innocent. He is paid to represent the Kerchers.


Last edited by The Machine on Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:53 pm   Post subject: Brain Freeze   

Jools wrote:
From that Barbie Nadeau article this about Cicciolino

Whatever he makes of the CSI efforts, Ciolino does have a prediction. "As it stands today, I believe that the likelihood of Amanda being convicted is very high," he says, blaming the media for poisoning the jury. "I think that Sollecito will probably be found not guilty."


Looks like the Geraldo Rivera freezing of Paul Ciolino has left him with significant brain damage. Ciolino can't seem to recall what he was talking about that night over at the FOA event at Salty's. The Horrid Evil Mignini and Railroad Job From Hell seem to have been permanently erased from his memory banks. All Ciolino seems to remember is that some careless police work may have been performed, but he does seem to be aware that had Meredith been murdered in America things would have proceeded differently. This is promising for Ciolino's recovery but it begs the question, "Why is someone who knows only a few things about a few types of American cases, 1. being asked to investigate a murder in Italy, and 2. being interviewed as an expert about how an Italian murder trial is being conducted and will turn out?"
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:58 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I saw it and it doesn't say what you imply. Like I said, we have more up-to-date information now. It is better to run with that.


I'll post it again...:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

Mr De Felice said: "She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."

He said Knox's claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died."


Much of the information in this article has been supplanted by more recent facts. But nowhere does it say that the name Lumumba was suggested to Knox by the police. And this version has been disputed under oath by several witnesses, including an interpreter. Have you got something more recent, which casts doubt on the interpreter's testimony?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 844

Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:58 pm   Post subject:    

The Daily Beast will have a new report on the case tomorrow.


Last edited by Fast Pete on Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:03 pm   Post subject: swings etc.   

Dear Bard, I have swings and yes and no days exactly like you. There are indeed times when emotionally one can simply not believe it. This includes Rudy, too. Simply because we have seen his face and he is a human being and so are the others. It would be so much easier to say: some unknown third parties were there...

Machine is being very rigid about this. Stewart Home did indeed mention insiders, in a post earlier today (at 7 in the morning more or less):

"I had an opportunity to speak with some Italian journalists, who (through inside info) stated that the trial is just going through the motions as the prosecution has gone too far to stop, but that everyone knows (including Mattei, Mignini, Police, and etc.) that AK and RS are totally innocent. I laughed and asked if he was the same guy who wrote, Berlusconi is dead and the Prodi government would last for 10 years. There is a long way to go still...vediamo."

Stewart was obviously quoting someone, even if he just as obviously did not believe it. And we who are waiting for all the evidence to be presented at the trial, and who are not already imbued with a conviction of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt are not living on another planet. We are observing and reasoning. Yes, they lied enormously. Yes, their behaviour was all wrong. Yes, Amanda accused Patrick and then retracted. All of these things are scarily indicative. But they are not proofs of murder.

You say that the forensic evidence will show proof. I hope so, because we really need proof. But today's evidence seems to have led to doubt rather than proof. We learned that Meredith may have been attacked by more than one person, but she may not, there are medical experts on both sides. We learned from Stewart that this is not going to be a "slam dunk".

The questions Machine asks are not decisive ones. Why was Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room? Because someone put it there. Why was the washing machine warm? All testimony on that subject has disappeared from court proceedings. Why did they take the mop? Well, of course I don't believe this myself, but one could say it was to clean up the leak at Raffaele's. THESE THINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF -- especially when they have not yet been presented in court.

Bard, I was just about to post this when I saw yours. I am 100 % with you on all counts.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:05 pm   Post subject: Moderator Note   

Moderator Note:

Just a reminder to all posters to pleaae keep things respectful.


We need to remember that everyone here is going to have different viewpoints and provided they are debated in good faith, they are valid. I remember that sometime in our past, there was a particular individual that liked to accuse us of being all of one mind. Many posters pointed out the fact, that we are diverse and are no homogenous mass. That is a fact of which I am proud and approve of, for our diversity of opinion is one of our main strengths, since it tests our thinking and moves it forward. Without it, we'd stagnate and our ultimate goal, that of understanding the truth of what happened to Meredith, would not be achievable. I would hate to think that some posters would be afraid to post, just in case they say something wrong and become the target of someone's ire. If someone is wrong about something, they can be corrected kindly rather then harshly. It must also be remembered, that many posters are, compared to some others, relatively very new to this case and it's a lot for them to take in, especially considering the degree of misinformation out there. Therefore, patience and tolerance with newer students of the case is a must.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES


Last edited by Michael on Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:05 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Much of the information in this article has been supplanted by more recent facts. But nowhere does it say that the name Lumumba was suggested to Knox by the police. And this version has been disputed under oath by several witnesses, including an interpreter. Have you got something more recent, which casts doubt on the interpreter's testimony?


Are you winding me up :?: :?:

Of course the information in this article has been "supplanted by more recent facts". That's the problem!
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: Brain Freeze   

Fly by Night wrote:
Jools wrote:
From that Barbie Nadeau article this about Cicciolino

Whatever he makes of the CSI efforts, Ciolino does have a prediction. "As it stands today, I believe that the likelihood of Amanda being convicted is very high," he says, blaming the media for poisoning the jury. "I think that Sollecito will probably be found not guilty."


Looks like the Geraldo Rivera freezing of Paul Ciolino has left him with significant brain damage. Ciolino can't seem to recall what he was talking about that night over at the FOA event at Salty's. The Horrid Evil Mignini and Railroad Job From Hell seem to have been permanently erased from his memory banks. All Ciolino seems to remember is that some careless police work may have been performed, but he does seem to be aware that had Meredith been murdered in America things would have proceeded differently. This is promising for Ciolino's recovery but it begs the question, "Why is someone who knows only a few things about a few types of American cases, 1. being asked to investigate a murder in Italy, and 2. being interviewed as an expert about how an Italian murder trial is being conducted and will turn out?"


Because he has an Italian sounding name?
Sound more credible than Dempsey.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:09 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Stewart was obviously quoting someone, even if he just as obviously did not believe it. And we who are waiting for all the evidence to be presented at the trial, and who are not already imbued with a conviction of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt are not living on another planet. We are observing and reasoning. Yes, they lied enormously. Yes, their behaviour was all wrong. Yes, Amanda accused Patrick and then retracted. All of these things are scarily indicative. But they are not proofs of murder.


Here's an excerpt from Barbie Nadeau's most recent piece that addresses some of your concerns. The emphasis is mine:

Quote:
Even if Kercher had been murdered in Philadelphia instead of Perugia, in reality little would likely turn out differently. The evidence may even get more scrutiny in Italy. So far, 10 judges have reviewed the prosecution's case over the last year. All 10 have agreed that there is enough credible evidence to keep moving forward based solely on the merit of the forensics.

Neither suspect has a credible alibi for the night of the murder, and both told a variety of lies about that night. No one has confessed to the murder, and Guede's testimony this weekend is not expected to shed any light on what really happened. Still, the prosecution maintains that it has enough to convict both Knox and Sollecito. Among the most damning evidence against Sollecito is his DNA on the metal clasp of the bra that was cut from Kercher after she died. Maresca also points out that credible witnesses have shattered Sollecito's alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito says he was home that night working on his computer, but specialists have testified that his computer was dormant for an eight-hour period the night of Kercher's murder. Sollecito's attorneys contend that their client lied out of confusion and fear.

Key forensic evidence against Knox includes her footprint in blood in the hallway outside Kercher's room. There are also mixed traces of Knox's DNA and Kercher's blood on the fixtures in the bathroom the girls shared. And a knife was found in Sollecito's apartment with Knox's DNA on the handle and what the prosecution believes is Kercher's DNA in a groove on the blade. None of these pieces have been thrown out of the 10,000-page dossier of evidence against the two. All will be presented to the jury for their consideration. Defense attorneys for Knox, who at one time confessed to being at home when the murder took place, dismiss the forensic evidence as unreliable.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:12 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
in november 2007...


Lancelotti: FYI, the investigative phase of the Murder of Meredith Kercher is long over. At the moment there is an ongoing trial regarding the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. In this trial witness statements and forensic evidence are being introduced and it is the statements and evidence that are introduced in the actual trial that will determine the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. What you heard or read 15 months ago will have no bearing on the outcome of the trial.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:19 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Much of the information in this article has been supplanted by more recent facts. But nowhere does it say that the name Lumumba was suggested to Knox by the police. And this version has been disputed under oath by several witnesses, including an interpreter. Have you got something more recent, which casts doubt on the interpreter's testimony?


Are you winding me up

Of course the information in this article has been "supplanted by more recent facts". That's the problem!


I'm not sure what you mean by winding you up. But I fail to see how having facts where before we had only innuendo can possibly be a problem. For me, it is one more thing that has been cleared up. As FBN points out, what matters is what is emerging now. A lot of the early information has been discarded, and our approach here has always been to check reported information against the facts insofar as possible. Stewart Home has provided excellent information from inside the courtroom, and several journalists have been consistently fair and thorough. Barbie Nadeau is one; Andrea Vogt is another.

Incidentally, Vogt reported today that Lumumba testified under oath that he was not beaten by the police. So for me, that's another rumor that has been clarified.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:22 pm   Post subject:    

I'm about 90% certain of the guilt of Amanda and Raffa in this case when it comes to 'did they kill her'. This is based on my own interpretation of the evidence - both in the trial and how it's been discussed previously both here and elsewhere. I am 100% certain that they are not telling the truth about all that happened on that night.

Anyway, I do find one or two people on here to be too certain of the facts when a lot is still to be uncovered. I think we should be careful not to encroach on the likes of the cook's blog (and latterly the Frank blog) and be so 100% certain of things that it makes any challenges to such views futile.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:22 pm   Post subject:    

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
in november 2007...


Lancelotti: FYI, the investigative phase of the Murder of Meredith Kercher is long over. At the moment there is an ongoing trial regarding the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. In this trial witness statements and forensic evidence are being introduced and it is the statements and evidence that are introduced in the actual trial that will determine the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. What you heard or read 15 months ago will have no bearing on the outcome of the trial.


police - two different versions of events:

-nov 2007 (before police noticed they made a mistake)
- now 2009 (after police ...)

of course amanda and raffaele changed their stories a couple of times as well. but as this too was more than 15 months ago, I guess it doesn't matter anymore either...

ok then, good we cleared that up!
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:33 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Skeptical,
Of course the weight of the evidence the prosecution holds against them is enormous. Largely enough to send them to trial. It's just that being sent to trial should not be confused with having them already judged and condemned. This is the purpose of the trial. It is simply not the same as reading about leaks which tend to change over time (viz. the discussion with Lancelotti about statements changing over time) and which all emanate from the prosecution. That's why some of us are following the unfolding of the trial with bated breath. We are hoping that the truth will be clear, not just before, but after all sides have had their full say.

Bard, you made a funny Freudian lapsus, I think, when you wrote "the prosecutors are being paid to say that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent"! I think you meant that Machine was making it sound as though the defense lawyers are only saying they are innocent because they are paid to say so, and you wanted to point out that the other side is paid as well.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:36 pm   Post subject:    

Photo Gallery from Il Tempo.

http://tinyurl.com/cedan9



This is the caption for photo number 7.
"Raffaele guarda le foto delle sue impronte rilevate dalla polizia scientifica"

"Raffaele looks at photo of his print obtain by scientific police"
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:37 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
in november 2007...


Lancelotti: FYI, the investigative phase of the Murder of Meredith Kercher is long over. At the moment there is an ongoing trial regarding the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. In this trial witness statements and forensic evidence are being introduced and it is the statements and evidence that are introduced in the actual trial that will determine the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. What you heard or read 15 months ago will have no bearing on the outcome of the trial.


police - two different versions of events:

-nov 2007 (before police noticed they made a mistake)
- now 2009 (after police ...)

of course amanda and raffaele changed their stories a couple of times as well. but as this too was more than 15 months ago, I guess it doesn't matter anymore either...

ok then, good we cleared that up!


Lancelotti, you have failed to show that the police gave two different accounts. You also fail to show where, in the article you cited, anyone says "we suggested the name Lumumba and Knox delivered". It doesn't say that. Let's go back to your initial statement: "I heard that" etc. When challenged, the proof you offer is this article, which does not say what you imply. As FBN has pointed out, we now have testimony from the actual trial about how Patrick Lumumba came to be arrested. The testimony was given under oath and was not challenged by Knox or her attorneys. Knox's own attorney warned her in December 2007 about the seriousness of falsely accusing someone of a crime. In a December hearing, in the presence of her lawyer, Knox refused to reply when Mignini asked her why she had implicated Patrick Lumumba.

I have posted all of this once today. You haven't responded, except to reiterate what you heard, which in fact turns out not to be what you claim.

I don't really see the point in going around in circles, do you?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: swings etc.   

thoughtful wrote:
Dear Bard, I have swings and yes and no days exactly like you. There are indeed times when emotionally one can simply not believe it. This includes Rudy, too. Simply because we have seen his face and he is a human being and so are the others. It would be so much easier to say: some unknown third parties were there...

Machine is being very rigid about this. Stewart Home did indeed mention insiders, in a post earlier today (at 7 in the morning more or less):

"I had an opportunity to speak with some Italian journalists, who (through inside info) stated that the trial is just going through the motions as the prosecution has gone too far to stop, but that everyone knows (including Mattei, Mignini, Police, and etc.) that AK and RS are totally innocent. I laughed and asked if he was the same guy who wrote, Berlusconi is dead and the Prodi government would last for 10 years. There is a long way to go still...vediamo."

Stewart was obviously quoting someone, even if he just as obviously did not believe it. And we who are waiting for all the evidence to be presented at the trial, and who are not already imbued with a conviction of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt are not living on another planet. We are observing and reasoning. Yes, they lied enormously. Yes, their behaviour was all wrong. Yes, Amanda accused Patrick and then retracted. All of these things are scarily indicative. But they are not proofs of murder.

You say that the forensic evidence will show proof. I hope so, because we really need proof. But today's evidence seems to have led to doubt rather than proof. We learned that Meredith may have been attacked by more than one person, but she may not, there are medical experts on both sides. We learned from Stewart that this is not going to be a "slam dunk".

The questions Machine asks are not decisive ones. Why was Amanda's lamp in Meredith's room? Because someone put it there. Why was the washing machine warm? All testimony on that subject has disappeared from court proceedings. Why did they take the mop? Well, of course I don't believe this myself, but one could say it was to clean up the leak at Raffaele's. THESE THINGS DO NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF -- especially when they have not yet been presented in court.

Bard, I was just about to post this when I saw yours. I am 100 % with you on all counts.


Thank you very much Thoughtful. I think we would not be human and feeling if we did not allow doubt and questions to enter our minds at some point. It is the whole basis of law - question and answer, question and answer. That is what this site stands for, and has always been proud of since I have been reading. There are questions, some of us do not remember every detail, get things wrong. And some questions have no answers, and some have answers you don't expect, or don't fit in with your own thoughts. And surprisingly, there is more than one kind of truth. This is something one would only know through experience, but it is the case.

Having been a victim myself in the past I know how easy it is for evidence to be misinterpreted. The danger is when minds are set. That is when facts can be misinterpreted. It is the challenge of every judge in every court in every country in the world. Complete and utter lack of bias. It is extremely difficult. In my head I cannot refute the evidence I have seen on this site to date. It has been well argued, well presented and compelling. I feel that AK and RS are 'deeply implicated'. To what extent I don't know. We wait. All I do know is that this is all about Meredith, and justice for her.


Michael and Skep - thank you for your words. I am sorry I got upset with Machine. Today has been a difficult day.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:40 pm   Post subject:    

Nick Pisa has to be the busiest journalist around this case:

http://tinyurl.com/c6nver
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:43 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't really see the point in going around in circles, do you?


I agree with you on that. It's pointless!
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:43 pm   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Mike wrote:

Quote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
So the godly Amanda is hiding her face in her hands as graphic images of this crime are displayed for all the court to see poor dear.
No grinning and Cheshire cat smiling today?
Why not I wonder.
Would that be inapropriate?



Amanda is not smiling because they are not talking about her today.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:44 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
in november 2007...


Lancelotti: FYI, the investigative phase of the Murder of Meredith Kercher is long over. At the moment there is an ongoing trial regarding the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. In this trial witness statements and forensic evidence are being introduced and it is the statements and evidence that are introduced in the actual trial that will determine the guilt/innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. What you heard or read 15 months ago will have no bearing on the outcome of the trial.


police - two different versions of events:

-nov 2007 (before police noticed they made a mistake)
- now 2009 (after police ...)

of course amanda and raffaele changed their stories a couple of times as well. but as this too was more than 15 months ago, I guess it doesn't matter anymore either...

ok then, good we cleared that up!


I think police chief Arturo de Felice was trying to move swiftly in the initial stages of a criminal investigation at a time when suspect(s) in a murder case were deemed to be at-large. I am familiar with police opertions in the USA and can say that the the number one concern for someone in Felice's position early on would have been public safety. I think some of the things he said early on were influenced by his desire to assure the public that he was taking swift action to insure public safety. I doubt any of that would have had any influence whatsoever on the direction a prosecutor would take the case later on - for example, we saw Lumumba completely exonerated.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:48 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Dear Skeptical,
Of course the weight of the evidence the prosecution holds against them is enormous. Largely enough to send them to trial. It's just that being sent to trial should not be confused with having them already judged and condemned. This is the purpose of the trial. It is simply not the same as reading about leaks which tend to change over time... That's why some of us are following the unfolding of the trial with bated breath. We are hoping that the truth will be clear, not just before, but after all sides have had their full say.


I agree with you 100%. Despite rumors to the contrary (all from a single, mad source), I have not decided about the guilt or innocence of anyone who is currently on trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher. I just think that, since ten different judges have looked at more evidence than I have seen and decided it is sufficient to (a) hold the suspects and (b) hold a trial, then the prosecution's case is not inexistent. I also don't believe that evidence has been fabricated (as some seem to believe) or that a vast conspiracy exists within the departments of justice and law enforcement against Knox and Sollecito.

Personally, I think the best we can hope for is more clarity. I doubt we will obtain absolute clarity. Too much is invested now in silence and denial. I have entertained the idea for some time that Knox and Sollecito, even if they are not guilty, know more than they have admitted and did not fully cooperate from the start. Then their families stepped in and they were shut up and lawyered up.

The evidence will speak, but it won't tell the whole story.

Thoughtful added:
Quote:
Bard, you made a funny Freudian lapsus, I think, when you wrote "the prosecutors are being paid to say that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent"! I think you meant that Machine was making it sound as though the defense lawyers are only saying they are innocent because they are paid to say so, and you wanted to point out that the other side is paid as well.


Ha ha, I hadn't noticed that lapsus révélateur....

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:59 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
:

Thoughtful added:
Quote:
Bard, you made a funny Freudian lapsus, I think, when you wrote "the prosecutors are being paid to say that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent"! I think you meant that Machine was making it sound as though the defense lawyers are only saying they are innocent because they are paid to say so, and you wanted to point out that the other side is paid as well.


Ha ha, I hadn't noticed that lapsus révélateur....


Neither had I! :D
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:02 pm   Post subject: Re: swings etc.   

thoughtful wrote:
Stewart Home did indeed mention insiders, in a post earlier today (at 7 in the morning more or less):

"I had an opportunity to speak with some Italian journalists, who (through inside info) stated that the trial is just going through the motions as the prosecution has gone too far to stop, but that everyone knows (including Mattei, Mignini, Police, and etc.) that AK and RS are totally innocent. I laughed and asked if he was the same guy who wrote, Berlusconi is dead and the Prodi government would last for 10 years. There is a long way to go still...vediamo."

Stewart was obviously quoting someone, even if he just as obviously did not believe it. And we who are waiting for all the evidence to be presented at the trial, and who are not already imbued with a conviction of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt are not living on another planet. We are observing and reasoning. Yes, they lied enormously. Yes, their behaviour was all wrong. Yes, Amanda accused Patrick and then retracted. All of these things are scarily indicative. But they are not proofs of murder.

You say that the forensic evidence will show proof. I hope so, because we really need proof. But today's evidence seems to have led to doubt rather than proof. We learned that Meredith may have been attacked by more than one person, but she may not, there are medical experts on both sides. We learned from Stewart that this is not going to be a "slam dunk".



Phew...I just returned after a long day myself to see some heated discussion here!
Let me be clear so there is no doubt. Yes, I was talking to people (journalists) in Perugia who, like many in a small Italian town, claim to be on the "inside".
I simply quoted what THEY said about the case being, for lack of a better term, a sham, and I LAUGHED... and thought what BS.

I then stated, "yeah and your the same guy who said that Berlusoni was dead and the Prodi govt would last 10 years etc."
Well we all know that the Prodi govt didnt last two years and was replaced by Berlusconi's. That is an Italian way of saying you full of crap as we all know getting three years out of any government would be a long life in Italy. In short, I was making fun of them. If you live in small town Italy, you know what I am talking about...even the butcher the baker and candlestick maker have inside info.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:07 pm   Post subject:    

Note to the Bard: I sent you an email on your email sign-up account. I am noting this in case it is not your usual or only email account (which is often the case).

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
Nick Pisa has to be the busiest journalist around this case:

http://tinyurl.com/c6nver


Thanks for the link. I have never seen such a close-up of AK. She really does have a "masculine" quality to her face, especially if you compare it to the beautiful Italian woman standing behind her. And moving on through the article, RS has a "feminine" mystique. Rather interesting photos.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject:    

SH2000 wrote:

Quote:
If you live in small town Italy, you know what I am talking about...even the butcher the baker and candlestick maker have inside info.


Can you direct me to their blogs? :lol:

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:02 am   Post subject: Re: swings etc.   

stewarthome2000 wrote:
thoughtful wrote:
Stewart Home did indeed mention insiders, in a post earlier today (at 7 in the morning more or less):

"I had an opportunity to speak with some Italian journalists, who (through inside info) stated that the trial is just going through the motions as the prosecution has gone too far to stop, but that everyone knows (including Mattei, Mignini, Police, and etc.) that AK and RS are totally innocent. I laughed and asked if he was the same guy who wrote, Berlusconi is dead and the Prodi government would last for 10 years. There is a long way to go still...vediamo."

Stewart was obviously quoting someone, even if he just as obviously did not believe it. And we who are waiting for all the evidence to be presented at the trial, and who are not already imbued with a conviction of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt are not living on another planet. We are observing and reasoning. Yes, they lied enormously. Yes, their behaviour was all wrong. Yes, Amanda accused Patrick and then retracted. All of these things are scarily indicative. But they are not proofs of murder.

You say that the forensic evidence will show proof. I hope so, because we really need proof. But today's evidence seems to have led to doubt rather than proof. We learned that Meredith may have been attacked by more than one person, but she may not, there are medical experts on both sides. We learned from Stewart that this is not going to be a "slam dunk".



Phew...I just returned after a long day myself to see some heated discussion here!
Let me be clear so there is no doubt. Yes, I was talking to people (journalists) in Perugia who, like many in a small Italian town, claim to be on the "inside".
I simply quoted what THEY said about the case being, for lack of a better term, a sham, and I LAUGHED... and thought what BS.

I then stated, "yeah and your the same guy who said that Berlusoni was dead and the Prodi govt would last 10 years etc."
Well we all know that the Prodi govt didnt last two years and was replaced by Berlusconi's. That is an Italian way of saying you full of crap as we all know getting three years out of any government would be a long life in Italy. In short, I was making fun of them. If you live in small town Italy, you know what I am talking about...even the butcher the baker and candlestick maker have inside info.



Hi Stewart! Sorry to cause a storm! I was just citing two things today that made me think twice! I would have quoted the whole post but couldn't find it. Yes, you did put a caveat on it, I remembered that. But it stuck in my mind nonetheless. We shall see what transpires, as they say. Thanks for the wonderful reports, and for your measured approach. Huge asset to everyone. Medal. First Order.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:16 am   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
It is simply not the same as reading about leaks which tend to change over time (viz. the discussion with Lancelotti about statements changing over time) and which all emanate from the prosecution. That's why some of us are following the unfolding of the trial with bated breath. We are hoping that the truth will be clear, not just before, but after all sides have had their full say.


It's not true that all the leaks are emanating from the prosecution. Who do you think leaked the forensic police's video of the crime scene to Telenorba? Who do you think offered Skeptical Bystander access to Amanda Knox's diary?

thoughtful wrote:
Bard, you made a funny Freudian lapsus, I think, when you wrote "the prosecutors are being paid to say that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent"! I think you meant that Machine was making it sound as though the defense lawyers are only saying they are innocent because they are paid to say so, and you wanted to point out that the other side is paid as well.


Maresca is not a prosceution lawyer or a lawyer for the other side. He simply represents Meredith's family.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:52 am   Post subject: Re: swings etc.   

stewarthome2000 wrote:

I then stated, "yeah and your the same guy who said that Berlusoni was dead and the Prodi govt would last 10 years etc."
Well we all know that the Prodi govt didnt last two years and was replaced by Berlusconi's. That is an Italian way of saying you full of crap as we all know getting three years out of any government would be a long life in Italy. In short, I was making fun of them. If you live in small town Italy, you know what I am talking about...even the butcher the baker and candlestick maker have inside info.

:lol: :lol:

I would also add... The truffle blogger merchant, the TV quiz blogger, the movie maker, the shock blogger... he really claims to have inside info in fact he claims to have The Case.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:03 am   Post subject:    

Dear The Bard, I understand your feelings, it is clear for me that the case is very difficult and that defenses are betting high on their actual position, and I believe they think they can and will do everything to win.

I also do have maternal feelings, but not towards AK (she looks too strange for me and “He who makes his bed, so he must lie on it.” ), but to Meredith. Reading a comment at Miss R. “I feel I floated through, unaware of the danger” I understood the meaning, I was there too, and I am scare my children today are also surrounded by hidden danger difficult to recognize.

Now, I cannot wait for our “convitato di pietra” (RG), even if I know he will not tell us anything. Pls StewartHome2000, try to read between lines! :-)

For everybody: "Chi va piano, va sano e va lontano."
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:40 am   Post subject:    

TM wrote:

Quote:
thoughtful wrote:
It is simply not the same as reading about leaks which tend to change over time (viz. the discussion with Lancelotti about statements changing over time) and which all emanate from the prosecution. That's why some of us are following the unfolding of the trial with bated breath. We are hoping that the truth will be clear, not just before, but after all sides have had their full say.


It's not true that all the leaks are emanating from the prosecution. Who do you think leaked the forensic police's video of the crime scene to Telenorba? Who do you think offered Skeptical Bystander access to Amanda Knox's diary?


TM is right about this. One of the persistent myths surrounding this case is that all the leaks have come from the prosecution. But it is simply not true. The defense lawyers released the diaries that Knox and Sollecito were writing in prison in January of 2008, thinking this would help their clients' case. You can find an article in English to this effect in Newsweek by Barbie Nadeau, who has covered the case from the start. Then there is the Telenorba video, which was provided by the Sollecito family. Not to mention the crime scene video that Anne Bremner was looking at when she analyzed the wrong apartment. I was offered a peak at that video months ago, as well as access to the diary. The offer certainly did not come from Mignini.

On a slightly different level, it is undeniable that the families of both suspects have had incredible access to and coverage by the media, and have made ample use of it. I don't know about the Sollecitos, but Knox's parents have been coddled by the media (with the exception of the tabloids, of course) and have been given pretty much free rein to communicate their version of the facts. They have used this opportunity to state, over and over, that there is not a shred of evidence against Knox. They have promulgated certain falsehoods: for example, that Knox's false accusation of Lumumba was thrown out by the Supreme Court because it was coerced, when in fact coercion had nothing to do with it. Or that Knox had no interpreter during her questioning... Deanna Knox has said on camera that her sister is being persecuted because she is American. My point is simply that information - whether it is leaked, released, or emerges from an interview - is being put into the public domain from a variety of sources. So it is an error to say that all the leaks have come from the prosecution. In fact, I would say that this is far from being the case.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Giustizia


Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:13 pm

Posts: 113

Location: New York City

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:27 am   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
From Newsweek-Barbie Nadeau- "The Evidence, Please Theatrics aside, the Amanda Knox trial comes down to forensics." http://www.newsweek.com/id/192370

This article is troubling since it seems as if the medical examiner was trying to hedge his bets. Nadeau writes: "Those inside the courtroom say he testified that while there was evidence of sexual activity, sexual assault was inconclusive. But he also testified that the bruises on her body implied that sexual intercourse was forced and violent. When asked, he [medical examiner Luca Lalli] also said that he believes that more than one person was involved in Kercher's murder, though on cross-examination admitted that it could have also been done by one assailant."

Maybe this is an instance where 1) since the hearing was closed, we're hearing third-hand reports and 3) it's translated from the Italian so there's a gap in nuance, BUT...if I read Nadeau's reporting at face value, how can anyone, with a straight face, say "sexual assault was inconclusive" and yet testify that the bruises on the victim's body implied that "...sexual intercourse was forced and violent."

There's nothing inconclusive about 23 bruises on the victim's body. If you want, I'll connect the dots for you, and numbered dots don't require knowledge of Italian. Forced intercourse accompanied by multiple bruises is rape (and sexual assault too). There's nothing to parse there.
Top Profile 

Offline Giustizia


Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:13 pm

Posts: 113

Location: New York City

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:39 am   Post subject:    


Very interesting. If this is correct, then there were at least two attackers. And if there were two and only two attackers, then, given all the evidence so far, I'm convinced it was RG and AK.

That's not too difficult a conclusion to make - again, assuming that there were more than one attacker but less than three. RG has already been convicted of murder, and has steadfastly claimed that others were in the apartment. AK had keys to the apartment, she arrived there at 9 PM, she even claims to have heard Meredith's screams during the murder.

That said, I think there were more than two attackers in Kercher's death given the 23 bruises to her body. I find it more incredulous to believe that RS only arrived after the victim's murder and helped in the cover-up/staged burglary/bleach cleaning than that he was an active participant. Why would anyone help someone that they only met two weeks before cover up such a heinous crime?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:13 am   Post subject:    

Giustizia wrote:
...if I read Nadeau's reporting at face value, how can anyone, with a straight face, say "sexual assault was inconclusive" and yet testify that the bruises on the victim's body implied that "...sexual intercourse was forced and violent."


Hi Giustizia,

From the reports of reports that I seen so far (I'm collecting them for a digest; there's a whole wodge of them!), Lalli seems to have been trying to say:

- there were no external signs that could be read as sexual assault "in the strict sense" (I presume, legally; i.e., in my interpretation, there was no evidence to reveal a violent rape as traditionally depicted in, say, Law & Order episodes or in horror films)

- there was sexual contact prior to death and the violence of the wounds and marks would imply* that that sexual contact was non-consensual


* (- If I might add, completing his statement by filling in from the pathologist's standard phrase book: the phrase - "with a high degree of probability" - would normally slot into this position in the sentence in the testimony.)
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:18 am   Post subject: Catching up   

Just catching up on all the events of the day today (Friday). A difficult time in court indeed.

Hi "The Bard", :)

You wrote:
Quote:
I have no desire other than to discuss this horrific case with intelligent and respectful others.


I think every member here feels the same way, and for as long as I've been reading (from way back on Haloscan), the bumps in the road have been few and far between. I'm sorry today was a hard day for you. I'm sure it was difficult for many, in the courtroom and especially the Kercher family. :cry:

When I'm feeling confused or frustrated about this case, especially after reading all the spin found elsewhere on the internet, I revisit the reputable news reports from early on. I am reminded of what was troubling about this case from the onset - little details that haven't been resolved. I also revisit and reread the "True Crime" message board and even the old Haloscans, as much of the confusion has actually been discussed in depth on those boards. This site has many "nooks and crannies" that I'm discovering all the time - a wealth of information here in our own backyard! It gives me new perspective and sometimes new clarity on my thoughts. As Skep quoted Barbie Nadeau earlier, 10 judges feel there are very good reasons for Knox and Sollecito being tried right now.

It's sometimes overwhelming to think that we are not even 1/3 of the way through yet. There is much more to come, and MANY questions these two and their legal teams need to answer.

For instance, I have a nagging question that may be insignificant to some, but it's important to me. I would like to know if the bloody white cotton shoe found underneath Meredith's body belonged to her? Were those the shoes she was wearing that night? If so, why was the MATCHING white cotton shoe with it's bloody sole found on Meredith's bedside table? Did she remove her shoes? Were those particular bloody shoeprints found anywhere? Charlie Wilkes of the FOA claims Meredith was stabbed while she was flat on her back. If this is so, how did her blood get on the soles of her shoes? Why would someone place one underneath her and set one up on a table? It doesn't make sense to me. If Rudy was a lonewolf, why in the world would he do that? Do the shoes belong to someone else? Since the soles were bloody, was someone else wearing these shoes? (Page 6 of Rudy's 106 page sentencing report)

Anyway, we're all in this together; learning and evolving. We all have different personalities and thoughts about the case.

I think it's only going to get more difficult as the FOA fights harder for what they believe in. We need to stay the course, sort out the facts from the spin and march onward. I have strong faith in the Italian Justice System, and am here 'till the end.

Stay Strong! 8-)
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:48 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
Meredith: Guede non risponde
Processo in Corte d'Assise, ivoriano e' testimone accusa
(ANSA)- PERUGIA, 4 APR -Rudy Guede si e' avvalso della facolta' di non rispondere alla Corte di assise di Perugia al processo per l'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. L'ivoriano e' stato citato come testimone dall'accusa nel procedimento contro Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox. Guede e' rimasto nell'aula della Corte d'Assise di Perugia per pochi minuti. E' stato chiamato a testimoniare non appena cominciata l'udienza, subito dopo che nella Sala degli Affreschi avevano fatto ingresso i due imputati.

Rudy chose not to speak(F_CK)! The records of his interrogations before the trial were rejected. The trial goes on now with medical reports behind closed doors ...

Bear up, everybody! 8-)
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:21 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
I legali di Guede hanno annunciato che il loro assistito ha comunicato di avergli inviato una lettera, che non e' ancora giunta allo studio dell'avv. Walter Biscotti, di cui al momento non si conosce quindi il contenuto. Biscotti, ha accompagnato il suo assistito assieme alle polizia penitenziaria, fino al cellulare che lo ha riportato al carcere di Viterbo da dove era giunto stamane. ''Rudy Guede ha inviato ai propri legali una missiva che non e' ancora pervenuta - ha detto Nicodemo Gentile ai giornalisti - dove sicuramente descrivera' cose che noi gia' conosciamo che abbiamo reso pubblico e il perche' lui ha deciso di avvalersi di un suo diritto di un imputato in procedimento connesso: appunto la facolta' di non rispondere, e sostanzialmente si tratta di un discorso che ha sempre fatto. Quando avremo la lettera la renderemo pubblica''. Biscotti ha ringraziato la polizia penitenziaria che gli ha consentito di parlare per qualche minuto con Rudy Guede, prima che ripartisse per Viterbo: ''Gli abbiamo spiegato quando era accaduto ieri in udienza - ha aggiunto il legale -;

Rudy didn't speak but he sent a letter?! wtf? His lawyer is now his penfriend?
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:39 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
Rudy ha detto ai suoi legali di aver scritto loro una lettera spiegando il perche' non vuole parlare. A rivelarlo sono stati proprio gli avvocati, Biscotti e Nicodemo Gentile, che stanno aspettando la missiva. "Lo ho incontrato un attimo prima che lo accompagnassero fuori dall'aula e abbiamo parlato - ha sottolineato Biscotti - ha detto che ci ha scritto una lettera, che ancora non ci e' arrivata, e nella quale spiega le motivazioni per cui ha deciso di avvalersi della facolta' di non rispondere". "C'e' un processo che deve iniziare in Corte d'Appello - ha poi aggiunto il legale - e dove certamente Rudy confermera' quello che ha gia' dichiarato al gip e ai pm che lo hanno interrogato. Non ci sono cose nuove da dire, dovra' soltanto ribadire e riconfermare quella che e' stata la sua versione".


There are new things to say, and they'll confirm his story, says Rudy's new penfriend. He's going to publicize the letter Rudy wrote. :)
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:52 am   Post subject: Friday in PG   

Friday April 3, 2008

As I mentioned prviously, the public was asked to leave the court room on Friday when the autopsy was being discussed. I have not reported the rest till now so here is a brief.

After Professor Lalli, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Meredith finished his testimony behind closed doors, the public was let back into the court room to hear the testimony of Carlo Maria Rinaldi and Patrik Lumumba.

Rinaldi is the owner of the lingerie store in the center of Perugia called “Bubble”. He testified that AK and RS entered his store on November 3rd. They were holding each other close and showing affection in the store. They picked out a one pair of underwear (cost of less than 15 euro) and proceeded to pay for the product and Amanda was overheard saying “…we can have hot sex at home.” He was reminded in his testimony that it said “sesso selvaggio”, or wild sex, and he corrected them saying it must have been an Italian translation, “I speak English and I definitely heard “hot sex”. He proceeded to testify on the sequestering of the digital images by police and basta.

Enter Patrik Lumumba, which I caught only part of, but nevertheless I have the all of the testimony.
He comes in dressed in an orange p-coat, made of wool I think. Apparently the fashion police do not attend this trial. Anyway, he was asked how he met Amanda, and interestingly enough he met Amanda through Mez, they came in the bar together as friends and Amanda asked for work. This occurred sometime in early Sept, when the relationship between A and M had not soured yet. Asked if he knew RS, he said that RS had come in the bar a few times, about three, and described him as a good kid. He said “buona famiglia, buon educazione”…basically from a good family and good education (meaning well mannered and proper). Asked about Rudy Guede, he said that he saw him once in the bar but really did not know him.

When asked about the SMS to AK, he acknowledged that he sent the SMS not to come to work, and that he did receive Amanda’s reply. He stated that he knows lots of Americans and knew that, “ci vediamo piu tardi”…meant “see you later”..or basically goodbye. He did not expect to see her later that night at all. When asked how he found out about the murder, he replied that two Americans came in the bar and told him of the incident that evening saying the Amanda’s friend was dead. He called Amanda and interestingly enough she said that she could not talk as she was in the police station, but confirmed what he heard was true.
This part is a bit interesting. On Monday the 5th, he was asked by the office of the Universita’ per Stranieri, as he is there quite a bit, if he knew any students that spoke English as there were a lot of questions being asked and mostly in English from the press. He said he would see if he could round some up. Not long after, while he is in front of the Stranieri, guess who comes strutting in? That’s right Amanda. He says he was looking for people to talk to the press and she said that it has been decided that she and her roommates will not talk about the incident either on phone, or in person particularly to the press. “However”, she says to Lumumba more or less, “you have always been a good friend and always helped me out, so if you need to call me for any reason, give me a buzz”.
This is interesting because she used this meeting with Lumumba to make a statement to the police stating that Patrick met her in Piazza Grimani and asked lots of questions about the case, he wanted to know what the police knew etc. I am paraphrasing of course.
(Personal note: Changing the content of the meeting with PL that morning to furtrher incriminate PL...“che furba” as we say in Italy, which means “how shrewd she is!”. That took some sneaky calculating.)

Patrick was finally asked about his arrest. He stated that he was feeding his child at about 5-6am and there was a knock on the door indicating that they were the police. He opened and a sea of policemen entered (10 or so), telling him he was under arrest. He asked if he could get a sweater, they refused and took him away. He said that he had no idea what he was being arrested for; I guess Miranda rights are not something used or respected here. He said he was not hit, but he described it as a “situazione dura”, a very difficult situation, as he was placed in solitary for three days and was not allowed to shower or even speak with an attorney. Although not hit, he said he was stripped searched and required to stand against the wall naked for a good length of time.
He claimed financial hardship, as his bar was closed and he still had to pay his employees taxes and rent etc. Ghirga askjed if he paid the taxes on what he paid Amanda (obviously under the table) and he just looked at him like, gimme a break.

(One thing I did notice was that they did not go into depth about Lumumba's assessment of Amanda as a person, a waitress etc. Just some superficial innocuous chat. I was expecting the prosecution to get PL to say she was a lousy waitress, which she was apparently, but also details some other strange personality quirks he may have noticed. Nothing was really discussed much here.)

That was about it in a nutshell that I saw and heard for Friday, albiet I missed a few bits here and there while outside for sometime.
Ciao Tutti.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:06 am   Post subject:    

Grazie mille, Stew.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:04 pm   Post subject:    

Rudy's lawyer Biscotti explained Rudy's refusal to answer:
Quote:
"They always held him to not be credible and now the prosecution needs his testimony. For this reason, he decided not to speak."

[ Unione Sarda ] 04 April 2009


Though he was interested in the outcome of the medical evidence.
To me, it appears almost as if he thinks that the current case and his appeal are two different and separate things not touching on each other.
Top Profile 

Offline mylady007


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am

Posts: 50

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:21 pm   Post subject:    

I have no idea. I will wait to see what they say when asked.

Well, I'll try to get this 'quote' thing down right, but it's almost beyond me. I chuckled when I read the above quote. Like AK and RS can tell the truth. ha ha ha.
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:40 pm   Post subject:    

Guede is a low-life streak of slime, cowardly to his core and demonstrates all the brain stem activity of a tomato. The others would love to see him be the fall guy.

The only thing that might have got him some credibility and who knows, perhaps even a reduction in sentence in the long term was to come clean and tell the whole truth and show remorse. The Kercher family need the truth to come out and telling it is the only way for Guede to show remorse. Notwithstanding that anything he said would be seen through the prism of his past lies, it would have filled in a lot of gaps in the explanations of events and motives. He could have sunk the other two. The downside is that he would have to confess his own involvement. That is something he still will not do. Like the others he just wants to wash his hands of the whole thing and walk away. So it's back to stories of ipods and spicy kebabs and vague and shifting stories of faces and voices of the real murderers. If he thinks that his appeal will work with that then he is really really dumb. But then every decision this guy has made in his life has marked him out as a dumb loser and this is the culmination. He was adopted by a decent man who could have given him a great start in life and he has thrown it all away at every turn. The prosecutor asked for twenty five years and he gets handed thirty! Refusing to tell the truth at this trial is hardly going to win him browny points at the appeal. A pity they cannot hand him another ten on top.

Guede will soon be forgotten. The question is will he see his co-accused walk away and leave him as the only one with a life sentence. All his subsequent bleating from his cell about the 'injustice' will be whistling in the wind. He had his chance. He blew it. The debate may rage for a long time about the involvement of the others unles there is a 100% proven conviction. But there will be no part for Guede in the Amanda Knox story and only a walk on part for Sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:41 pm   Post subject:    

While Rudy was sulking in silence, other witnesses were able to move up the queue and have their turn:


Quote:
There was time during the proceedings to hear the Scientific Police on the matter of the recovery of Meredith Kercher’s two mobile phones. The phones were found in the garden of a condominium not far from via della Pergola. According to the Scientific Police witness, whoever threw those handsets had the intention of throwing them over a precipice near the garden. But evidently they did not have the necessary strength to succeed. This hyothesis was inferred from the presumed launch point which was determined by the police officer himself, via pebbles similar in shape to the phones.


[ Wall Street Italia ] 04 April 2009




[hr]
Edited to correct two typos.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:46 pm   Post subject:    

"To me, it appears almost as if he thinks that the current case and his appeal are two different and separate things not touching on each other. "

I think Rudy wants to get something for his testimony.
The prosecution is slowly getting into trouble as the witness testimonies are not so damning as expected and surely Rudy's lawyers told him to wait. (Whatever bull they say with that letter that has not arrived yet. :D)
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:52 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
According to the Scientific Police witness, whoever threw those handsets had the intention of throwing them over a precipice near the garden

The launcher must know the area very well since he/[s]she[/s] threw the phones at night (didn't he/[s]she[/s]?)! :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:58 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
"They always held him to be not be credible and now the prosecution needs his testimony. For this reason, he decided not to speak."

[ Unione Sarda ] 04 April 2009


If it's true then it's pretty childish. However, I don't believe that this is the real reason. If this were all, then his lawyers would have convinced him to testify.

I think the real reason is that they were afraid that of him being cut to pieces in cross-examination, and coming out of it looking worse or incriminating himself more. This is one more indication of his guilt. An innocent person would have taken any opportunity to try to clear himself.

It must be a great relief to Amanda and Raf that he didn't testify, because he could only have incriminated them.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:10 pm   Post subject:    

During the closed court session, Vincenza Liviero testified that Meredith was sexually assaulted and the other forms of violence that brought about her death were done “a più mani” (many-hands, i.e., by more than one person). Lalli, by contrast, had “great doubts” about any sexual assault and was not able to comment on how many people participated in the murder.
[ Virgilio ] 04 April 2009


Ironically, these closed court hearings have been getting more journalistic attention than the open ones.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:17 pm   Post subject:    

"I think the real reason is that they were afraid that of him being cut to pieces in cross-examination, and coming out of it looking worse or incriminating himself more. "

Only if the pair is innocent.
If they are guilty then there is no way that their lawyers could have harmed Rudy. It would have been suicidal for them to attack him.
They are very cautious with Rudy.
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:21 pm   Post subject: Sat April 4th   

Catnip wrote:
While Rudy was sulking in silence, other witnesses were able to move up the queue and have their turn:
Quote:
There was time during the proceedings to hear the Scientific Police on the matter of the recovery of Meredith Kercher’s two mobile phones. The phones were found in the garden of a condominium not far from via della Pergola. According to the Scientific Police witness, whoever threw those handsets had the intention of throwing them over a precipice near the garden. But evidently they did not have the necessary strength to succeed. This hyothesis was inferred from the presumed launch point which was determined by the police officer himself, via pebbles similar in shape to the phones.
[ Wall Street Italia ] 04 April 2009



Saturday - April 4th

It was a bit of a late start, but the first witness (or lack thereof) of the day was Rudy Guede. He arrived with little or no expression. Took the stand and stated when instructed by the judge how to respond to the questions, Rudy simply said something like, “non ho intenzione di rispondere.” That was it. Basically stating, I have no intention of testifying. He was then dismissed from the stand and out he went. It took all of 3 minutes.
We then took a long break as the judge was deciding to bring in Rudy’s “verbale” (recounted statement) and in the end the judge decided that it was not to be brought into the trial.

The next witness was the Assistant captain of the Scientific Police in Perugia (name?). He gave testimony on the two cell phones that were found in via sperandio. He stated that when he arrived that morning to the house in Via sperandio, there were two officers already there and already had the cell phones in hand (one Motorola one Ericsson) after being retrieved by the family. He described the locations where they were found; one in the grass or meadow of the villas yard, the other near the hedges not far away. The phones were taken to the police station and photographed and checked, etc. His testimony was not to discuss what was on the phones content, etc. but the location of the phones when they were discovered.

He stated that since on one-side near the house there is a large precipice, it was assumed the person(s) who threw the phones probably meant to throw them down the large precipice into the trees, but perhaps was not successful and they landed in the villa’s condominium yard. He stated that he simulated throwing stones of similar weight from the road and seeing where they landed. It would have taken considerable force to reach the precipice, which they obviously did not.
He took measurements of where they were located and etc. That was all. It was not worth much to get prints, etc because so many people had touched them repeatedly not knowing what they may have been erasing…”chi sapeva”..”who knew?”

Shortly afterwards, the medical examiner (Matteotti?), specifically the person to provide the gynecological report, took the stand and we were all required to leave. The trial was closed to the public for the rest of the day. I left, but many waited outside to get the details from the attorneys who exited periodically. From what I was told, the closed-door testimony of Lalli on Friday and the testimony today, seemed to simply reiterate what was written in the autopsy and coroners reports.

I understand that next Friday there is no court, but next Saturday they will take the jury to see the house in VdP in the afternoon around 4pm after the morning testimonies. A presto!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:27 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:

Raffaele Sollecito, in an interview with “Giornale dell’Umbria”, said that he felt so sick when looking at the [autopsy] images that he had to take a compressa [a compress or tablet] to bear the stomach pains. “It’s terrible what they did to Meredith, inconceivable, I don’t have the guts(?) [non ho retto] and I had to look away from the screen.”

[ Pupia ] 04 April 2009


From this passage, it’s not clear if Raffaele is referring to the murderer or the pathologist who had to do the autopsy (or both).

"What they did" ...
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: Sat April 4th   

stewarthome2000 wrote:

The next witness was the Assistant captain of the Scientific Police in Perugia (name?). He gave testimony on the two cell phones


Probably Rico Rolli, as per [ Libero ].
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:45 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Probably Rico Rolli, as per [ Libero ].

Luca Lalli and Rico Rolli? You've gotta be kidding me! Who comes next: Pepé Le Pew Porky Pig? :D
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Sat April 4th   

stewarthome2000 wrote:
I understand that next Friday there is no court, ...


It's Good Friday next Friday. And then Easter.
It's a public holiday in Australia too.
(The original sense: holy-day).
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:02 pm   Post subject: Only 1 pair?   

Hi SH2000,

Many thanks AGAIN for your reports!

From the Friday recap:
Quote:
Rinaldi is the owner of the lingerie store in the center of Perugia called “Bubble”. He testified that AK and RS entered his store on November 3rd. They were holding each other close and showing affection in the store. They picked out a one pair of underwear (cost of less than 15 euro) and proceeded to pay for the product and Amanda was overheard saying “…we can have hot sex at home.” He was reminded in his testimony that it said “sesso selvaggio”, or wild sex, and he corrected them saying it must have been an Italian translation, “I speak English and I definitely heard “hot sex”. He proceeded to testify on the sequestering of the digital images by police and basta.


The family, FOA and Candace Dempsey have been proclaiming that Knox had only the clothes on her back, so she needed some underwear. Ok, fair enough. So why only 1 pair? As her supporters say, she had plenty of money in her account, so wouldn't you think she'd splurge and perhaps pick up a few? Edda wouldn't arrive in Perugia to "take her shopping" for a few days...

In Frank's new post, he says she bought a "sweater and a loincloth". :lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:10 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Probably Rico Rolli, as per [ Libero ].

Luca Lalli and Rico Rolli? You've gotta be kidding me! Who comes next: Pepé Le Pew Porky Pig? :D


Yeah, names are always interesting. (Just look at some town names in England.)

And the names of things, too:
"pomodori" (literally, golden apples) are "tomatoes",
and "machina" is "car", whereas "machine" in English doesn't mean "mechanised cart".
And of course "Wednesday" (Wodan's Day) became Mittwoch in German.

There's always a story behind a name.
The English surname "Drinkwater" is "Bevilaqua" in Italian.
And Rudy's middle name is Hermann.

As for "lallo" and "rollo", and the family names based on them, I'll see what I can fiind out.
(There may be a Charlemagne connection with "rollo", in which case "Richard" would not be that surprising).
Top Profile 

Offline a shy reader


Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:31 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:28 pm   Post subject:    

Hi, I've been following this case for a while and appreciate the information people make available in this forum. I don't have any facts to add but would like to say I can appreciate The Bard's feeling torn about this case. While it seems to me that there are strong indications that AK and RS are involved in the crime, it upsets me too to think this about such young people or really about anyone. I don't enjoy thinking about this case, it's upsetting and sad and sickening, but I feel a strong desire for "closure" which I keep hoping to find by getting answers as to what happened. There's always the hope that new evidence will come out in the trial to change the picture, but so far that hasn't happened. The defense seems to depend on real improbabilities.

I do wonder whether Mr. Curatolo's testimony suggests a possibility I haven't seen discussed yet. What if AK and RS were not in the house when the assault began, but were aware of, and involved in planning and setting up, some kind of "prank" or petty crime to be done by RG? From the timelines, if Mr. Curatolo's testimony about times is accepted, then it seems possible that AK could have left RS's apartment first, and gone alone to her apartment, and let RG in to do the prank (or maybe theft?). Then AK and RS could have met in the park, and waited for some time, talking animatedly or agitatedly, before going to the apartment. I can imagine that they would not have planned murder per se but would have planned some kind of edgy mischief, maybe a sadistic "prank" to scare MK, maybe even also including a theft of the pot plants from downstairs as some have suggested here. But when they arrived, expecting the thing to be over without their being known to have played a role, instead things had taken a really violent turn and AK and RS were implicated in it. Maybe this is when the loud arguing was heard. Maybe they were agitated and arguing intensely about what to do, and then became directly involved in the violence during the 10:15-10:30 time frame when Brian S. reasoned the murder must have happened.

In speculating about this, I'm accepting the rumor of AK's "prank" at the UW as probably accurate, and trying to account for facts including:
-AK and RS almost certainly turned off their cell phones around 8:40, unusual behavior for them, which suggests they premeditated *something* they didn't want to announce they were planning to do
-RS agreed to take his acquaintance to the railroad station around midnight, suggesting that he didn't expect to be busy that late
-Neither AK nor RS has a convincing or even credible-sounding alibi, but it's hard to believe they truly don't remember what they were doing that night unless there was some unusual circumstance such as shock and dissociation to explain the memory malfunction.
-Mr. Curatolo's testimony has AK and RS seeming agitated and focused on the view toward the apartment.
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:29 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Yeah, names are always interesting.

You're right, foreign names are fascinating. I've never regretted to study latin exempli gratia since i'm able to extrapolate nearly every new word/name i see. You forgot to mention the lawyer of Rudy, "Mister Keks" (Mr. Spongecake) as Mr. Google Translate tells me everytime i ask him.
But what's really funny about Luca Lalli and Rico Rolli is the short punchy alliteration in it. You find the same in Duffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Ronald Reagan. :D
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
Yeah, names are always interesting.


I love the Google translations of names:

Walter Biscuits
Raffaele urge
Nara Bolsters

:D
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:49 pm   Post subject:    

From Nick Pisa on Sky News

Quote:
Outside forensic scientist Dr Vicenza Liviero said: "I told the court that in my opinion there were signs of more than one person being involved and there was also evidence of sexual violence."

Mr Maresca said: "The medical experts confirmed to the court the cruel signs of the wounds Meredith suffered and the fact that more than on person was involved.

"Mauro Marchionni, a gynaecologist, told the court in his experience he had not seen such wounds before on a person who had consented to sex.

"The court also heard that with so many bruises and wounds on her body from a knife, hands, suffocation a lone attacker would have had to have three hands or four hands."
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: Only 1 pair?   

Tara wrote:
Hi SH2000,

Many thanks AGAIN for your reports!

From the Friday recap:
Quote:
Rinaldi is the owner of the lingerie store in the center of Perugia called “Bubble”. He testified that AK and RS entered his store on November 3rd. They were holding each other close and showing affection in the store. They picked out a one pair of underwear (cost of less than 15 euro) and proceeded to pay for the product and Amanda was overheard saying “…we can have hot sex at home.” He was reminded in his testimony that it said “sesso selvaggio”, or wild sex, and he corrected them saying it must have been an Italian translation, “I speak English and I definitely heard “hot sex”. He proceeded to testify on the sequestering of the digital images by police and basta.


The family, FOA and Candace Dempsey have been proclaiming that Knox had only the clothes on her back, so she needed some underwear. Ok, fair enough. So why only 1 pair? As her supporters say, she had plenty of money in her account, so wouldn't you think she'd splurge and perhaps pick up a few? Edda wouldn't arrive in Perugia to "take her shopping" for a few days...

In Frank's new post, he says she bought a "sweater and a loincloth". :lol: :lol:


Huh? I mean I have not been taking detailed notes and I know that because I am so busy these days with work I am juggling a hundred things at once.
But I did not hear that she brought other clothes.. I heard she spent only or less than 15 euro. Unless I am mistaken, how does one but underwear, sweater and loincloth for 15 euro... not in PG. Perhaps she bought those items at other stores and they are reporting everything she bought that day, but not at this store.

Update: Today outside the court some interesting comments were made by sme of the attorneys. Lalli's report did mention bruising consistent with forced intercourse, but he was hesititant to say that she was forced or violated against her will. Today however there was compelling arguments by the expert (Rolli) to demonstrate that not only was she forced to have sex against her will, based his assessment of the internal bruising, but he also supported the "more than one" assailant theory based on the body and neck bruises. This is just coming out from overhearing what those who were present had to say. It may be what many reporters will document in their articles as exiting attorneys seems to be the only source of what happened inside the courtroom today. Granted the attorneys making these statements are reiterating exactly what they wanted to hear today. I bet you won't hear della Vedova, Buongiorno or Ghirga make many comments.
The courtroom is the pit, and the evidence the pendulum.


Last edited by stewarthome2000 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:53 pm   Post subject:    

There's a new article about today's trial on Sky News: 'More Than One Person' Attacked Meredith

The article included the following information:

Outside forensic scientist Dr Vicenza Liviero said: "I told the court that in my opinion there were signs of more than one person being involved and there was also evidence of sexual violence."

Mr Maresca said: "The medical experts confirmed to the court the cruel signs of the wounds Meredith suffered and the fact that more than on person was involved.

"Mauro Marchionni, a gynaecologist, told the court in his experience he had not seen such wounds before on a person who had consented to sex.

"The court also heard that with so many bruises and wounds on her body from a knife, hands, suffocation a lone attacker would have had to have three hands or four hands."
Top Profile 

Offline ragazza americana


User avatar


Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:27 pm

Posts: 17

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Rudy ha detto ai suoi legali di aver scritto loro una lettera spiegando il perche' non vuole parlare. A rivelarlo sono stati proprio gli avvocati, Biscotti e Nicodemo Gentile, che stanno aspettando la missiva. "Lo ho incontrato un attimo prima che lo accompagnassero fuori dall'aula e abbiamo parlato - ha sottolineato Biscotti - ha detto che ci ha scritto una lettera, che ancora non ci e' arrivata, e nella quale spiega le motivazioni per cui ha deciso di avvalersi della facolta' di non rispondere". "C'e' un processo che deve iniziare in Corte d'Appello - ha poi aggiunto il legale - e dove certamente Rudy confermera' quello che ha gia' dichiarato al gip e ai pm che lo hanno interrogato. Non ci sono cose nuove da dire, dovra' soltanto ribadire e riconfermare quella che e' stata la sua versione".


There are new things to say, and they'll confirm his story, says Rudy's new penfriend. He's going to publicize the letter Rudy wrote. :)


Maybe I am just not picking up on the sarcasm, but doesn't this say that there are *not* new things to say, that he will in fact just be reconfirming his stated version? Wish it were otherwise but don't get my hopes up...
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:06 pm   Post subject:    

Bella Ragazza, you're right. Google Translate simply ignores the "Non" in the sentence. Sorry...
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:07 pm   Post subject: Re: Only 1 pair?   

stewarthome2000 wrote:
Tara wrote:
Hi SH2000,

Many thanks AGAIN for your reports!

From the Friday recap:
Quote:
Rinaldi is the owner of the lingerie store in the center of Perugia called “Bubble”. He testified that AK and RS entered his store on November 3rd. They were holding each other close and showing affection in the store. They picked out a one pair of underwear (cost of less than 15 euro) and proceeded to pay for the product and Amanda was overheard saying “…we can have hot sex at home.” He was reminded in his testimony that it said “sesso selvaggio”, or wild sex, and he corrected them saying it must have been an Italian translation, “I speak English and I definitely heard “hot sex”. He proceeded to testify on the sequestering of the digital images by police and basta.


The family, FOA and Candace Dempsey have been proclaiming that Knox had only the clothes on her back, so she needed some underwear. Ok, fair enough. So why only 1 pair? As her supporters say, she had plenty of money in her account, so wouldn't you think she'd splurge and perhaps pick up a few? Edda wouldn't arrive in Perugia to "take her shopping" for a few days...

In Frank's new post, he says she bought a "sweater and a loincloth". :lol: :lol:


Huh? I mean I have not been taking detailed notes and I know that because I am so busy these days with work I am juggling a hundred things at once.
But I did not hear that she brought other clothes.. I heard she spent only or less than 15 euro. Unless I am mistaken, how does one but underwear, sweater and loincloth for 15 euro... not in PG. Perhaps she bought those items at other stores and they are reporting everything she bought that day, but not at this store.

Update: Today outside the court some interesting comments were made by sme of the attorneys. Lalli's report did mention bruising consistent with forced intercourse, but he was hesititant to say that she was forced or violated against her will. Today however there was compelling arguments by the expert (Rolli) to demonstrate that not only was she forced to have sex against her will, based his assessment of the internal bruising, but he also supported the "more than one" assailant theory based on the body and neck bruises. This is just coming out from overhearing what those who were present had to say. It may be what many reporters will document in their articles as exiting attorneys seems to be the only source of what happened inside the courtroom today. Granted the attorneys making these statements are reiterating exactly what they wanted to hear today. I bet you won't hear della Vedova, Buongiorno or Ghirga make many comments.
The courtroom is the pit, and the evidence the pendulum.


Is loincloth the same as ladies panties?

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Quote:
Main Entry: loin·cloth
Pronunciation: \-ˌklȯth\
Function: noun
Date: 1859
: a cloth worn about the loins often as the sole article of clothing in warm climates


When I hear the word "loincloth" Tarzan comes to mind.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:08 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Probably Rico Rolli, as per [ Libero ].

Luca Lalli and Rico Rolli? You've gotta be kidding me! Who comes next: Pepé Le Pew Porky Pig? :D


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:11 pm   Post subject:    

"a lone attacker would have had to have three hands or four hands"

Obviously the Lone Wolf used all four of his paws.
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:13 pm   Post subject:    

GreenWyvern wrote:
From Nick Pisa on Sky News
Quote:
Outside forensic scientist Dr Vicenza Liviero said: "I told the court that in my opinion there were signs of more than one person being involved and there was also evidence of sexual violence."
Mr Maresca said: "The medical experts confirmed to the court the cruel signs of the wounds Meredith suffered and the fact that more than on person was involved.
"Mauro Marchionni, a gynaecologist, told the court in his experience he had not seen such wounds before on a person who had consented to sex.
"The court also heard that with so many bruises and wounds on her body from a knife, hands, suffocation a lone attacker would have had to have three hands or four hands."


Yeah..I saw Nick Pisa and the other "English-speaking" reporters, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau, Falconi, all chasing the same sources...they are all pretty good journalists. Many Italian ones are good too, but check this out. This morning's 6:00am headlines in the local newspaper in PG was, "Meredith - Raped, Strangled, Tortured by a Group". So either they sensationalized what they heard yesterday, or they knew what was to be presented today well in advance...mmmmm.
also correction: I wrote Rolli as the expert in previous post, that was a mistake, it was Liviero and Marchionni.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:18 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Yeah..I saw Nick Pisa and the other "English-speaking" reporters, Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau, Falconi, all chasing the same sources...they are all pretty good journalists.

I think i can safely say you are the best reporter on this case!
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:29 pm   Post subject:    

"Guede, who has admitted being in the house at the time of the murder but denied any wrongdoing, did not look at the defendants when he took the stand on Saturday."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7983347.stm

"Escorted by prison guards, he appeared tense and did not look at Knox and Sollecito."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... -6USOXAFhA

How do you read the fact that RG didn't look at RS&AK? :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:36 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
Rudy's lawyer Biscotti explained Rudy's refusal to answer:
Quote:
"They always held him to not be credible and now the prosecution needs his testimony. For this reason, he decided not to speak."[Unione Sarda] 04 April 2009

Though he was interested in the outcome of the medical evidence.
To me, it appears almost as if he thinks that the current case and his appeal are two different and separate things not touching on each other.


If Guede/Biscotti had any doubt whatsoever that Knox or Sollectio would not be found guilty they would be testifying in the current trial.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject: Hugs turn to hate   

From SH2K's report on Friday's court session:
Quote:
This part is a bit interesting. On Monday the 5th, he was asked by the office of the Universita’ per Stranieri, as he is there quite a bit, if he knew any students that spoke English as there were a lot of questions being asked and mostly in English from the press. He said he would see if he could round some up. Not long after, while he is in front of the Stranieri, guess who comes strutting in? That’s right Amanda. He says he was looking for people to talk to the press and she said that it has been decided that she and her roommates will not talk about the incident either on phone, or in person particularly to the press. “However”, she says to Lumumba more or less, “you have always been a good friend and always helped me out, so if you need to call me for any reason, give me a buzz”.
This is interesting because she used this meeting with Lumumba to make a statement to the police stating that Patrick met her in Piazza Grimani and asked lots of questions about the case, he wanted to know what the police knew etc. I am paraphrasing of course.
(Personal note: Changing the content of the meeting with PL that morning to furtrher incriminate PL...“che furba” as we say in Italy, which means “how shrewd she is!”. That took some sneaky calculating.)


From Frank's latest at the Shock:
Quote:
When Patrick is asked to find some english speaking student to be interviewed by BBC he asks Amanda too and she refuses. But she hugs him and thanks him for being a friend and having helped her.
From Patrick's testimony everything seemed normal
, and a bit of cunningness from his side. No particular tensions between he and Amanda.



Hmmm, less than 24 hours (probably closer to 12) before Knox's police questioning and subsequent arrest she is hugging and declaring her friendship and gratitude to Patrick Lumumba?

Why the outburst when she sees his name on her cell phone, accuses him of murder and states she's very afraid of him?

What did Patrick possibly do on that Monday, November 5th to make her behave this way? I'd like to hear more from her about this... :roll:

P.S. I thought Amanda didn't like hugging people...maybe that's only at police stations! :shock:
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:54 pm   Post subject:    

Zopi wrote:
How do you read the fact that RG didn't look at RS&AK? :roll:


Guede is understandably not happy playing the roll of the "black man found, black man guilty" in this case. His strategy is to use what he believes will be the upcoming conviction of Sollectio and Knox to win his freedom in the appeal of his own murder conviction. There are no bonds between druggies when the chips are down.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:55 pm   Post subject: RS Lawyer and the butter knife   

From Il Messaggero.

The list keeps growing...
RS Lawyer under investigation for attempting to alter crime scene.

PERUGIA – Skin-deep nerves and very high tension in courtroom, but that’s not all.

The trial for the death of Meredith Kercher it also points to the background setting. And so, while the matter of investigating the cottage intrusion is still open, two in just twenty days, openly defying the police controls, a new case emerges.

The lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi, one of Raffaele Sollecito defenders at the beginning and chosen by the family of the accused youngster from Bari, has entered in the register list of suspects for having attempted to alter the scene of the crime.

The episode goes back to one of the visits to the cottage undertaken during the investigation by police investigators in the presence of suspects of the crime lawyers. At this visit, present was lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi and, according to police investigators, the defense lawyer at a certain point would discover a butter knife in the middle of the bushes.

The problem and the suspicion is that Tiziano Tedeschi just before finding the knife had move away. And, according to the investigation, while he felt as if he wouldn’t be seen by anyone else, he would put the knife in the bush.

A hypothesis that the lawyer strongly denies.
Top Profile 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:56 pm   Post subject:    

Francesco Maresca, the lawyer representing the Kercher family, told reporters today that the fact that defense lawyers objected to having Guede's statements admitted was significant.

"The defense has always said that Guede was unreliable, so why don't they want to hear what he has to say?" asked Maresca.

Ann Wise, abcNews
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject:    

From the Ann Wise report for ABC:

Quote:
Under interrogation by the prosecutor, Guede told the presiding judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he intended to exercise his right not to reply to questions. Prosecutors then requested that transcripts of the earlier police interrogation be admitted as evidence. The motion was turned down on the objections of defense attorneys.


Maybe Stewart can tell us what the grounds for the objection were and what the significance of denying this motion might be.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:17 pm   Post subject:    

According to Il Messaggero
«Amanda comprò un perizoma rosso
e Raffaele le disse: stasera faremo hot sex»

"Amanda bought a red G-string and Raffaele said to her: this evening we shall have hot sex."

Ridiculous as it sounds (Ghandi comes to mind) loincloth is what Frank opted to name what she bought, I just been to an Italian language forum and a 'perizoma' is a tanga, popularly refer to as dental floss, in English it will be a g-string.

But hey, maybe Frank's wears a 'perizoma' himself and as in Jesus or Ghandi for him is a loincloth. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:19 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
The list keeps growing...
RS Lawyer under investigation for attempting to alter crime scene.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Thank you Jools! Maybe im going too far now, but would a lawyer with reputation take the risk of doing something like that without knowing/believing his (wealthy) client is guilty. He'll loose his lawyer's license...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:19 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:

Quote:
But hey, maybe Frank's wears a 'perizoma' himself and as in Jesus or Ghandi for him is a loincloth.


And let's not forget that a cotton bath mat, for Frank, was a "hairy rag". :lol:

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:20 pm   Post subject:    

The alteration of the crime scene by a lawyer would certainly be rather bad I would think - particularly if it includes planting the 'weapon'. It wouldn't surprise me though. There seem to be many forces around RS that are working hard to get him off. Thankfully the authorities don't seem to be put off by it all. Despite all of the defence claims about injustice and railroad jobs, it is they who have been by far the most underhand.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject:    

Petafly wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
The list keeps growing...
RS Lawyer under investigation for attempting to alter crime scene.


Thank you Jools! Maybe im going too far now, but would a lawyer with reputation take the risk of doing something like that without knowing/believing his (wealthy) client is guilty. He'll lose his lawyer's license...


I remember when this happened, early in the investigation, it was widely thought that one of the defense lawyers had done it. I think he was not very adept at hiding what he was up to. It does make you wonder about the more recent break-ins to the cottage. Speaking of which, I'm surprised Frank isn't chasing down the scoop on those break-ins, which he hardly mentioned come to think of it.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject:    

Convicted witness refuses to testify at Knox trial
By ANDREA VOGT
SPECIAL TO SEATTLEPI.COM
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/404836_knox04.html
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:35 pm   Post subject:    

I'm pretty convinced the break-ins are linked Skep. I'll bet the prosecution have similar theories ;).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
The list keeps growing...
RS Lawyer under investigation for attempting to alter crime scene.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Thank you Jools! Maybe im going too far now, but would a lawyer with reputation take the risk of doing something like that without knowing/believing his (wealthy) client is guilty. He'll loose his lawyer's license...


I seem to remember that Tedeschi is the old family (provincial) lawyer, he was assisting RS at the beginning before Ms Bongiorno, my impression is that he is not much into the RS present defense team.

Possibly as Dr. Francesco Sollecito's lawyer it might be that doing something like that is precisely his reputation with his clients. A lawyer that fixes situations one way or another. :lol:

It will be up to a court judge if it reaches that stage to decide whether he did altered this crime clues or not.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:49 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
From the Ann Wise report for ABC:

Quote:
Under interrogation by the prosecutor, Guede told the presiding judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he intended to exercise his right not to reply to questions. Prosecutors then requested that transcripts of the earlier police interrogation be admitted as evidence. The motion was turned down on the objections of defense attorneys.


Maybe Stewart can tell us what the grounds for the objection were and what the significance of denying this motion might be.


No media seems to be explaining what the ground for objections were, but I guess the reason behind it is that if they (k&S defense) couldn't ask him any questions as he wouldn't respond why should his preliminary trial transcription be allowed in this trial.
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:01 pm   Post subject: Re: Hugs turn to hate   

Tara wrote:
From SH2K's report on Friday's court session:
Quote:
This part is a bit interesting. On Monday the 5th, he was asked by the office of the Universita’ per Stranieri, as he is there quite a bit, if he knew any students that spoke English as there were a lot of questions being asked and mostly in English from the press. He said he would see if he could round some up. Not long after, while he is in front of the Stranieri, guess who comes strutting in? That’s right Amanda. He says he was looking for people to talk to the press and she said that it has been decided that she and her roommates will not talk about the incident either on phone, or in person particularly to the press. “However”, she says to Lumumba more or less, “you have always been a good friend and always helped me out, so if you need to call me for any reason, give me a buzz”.
This is interesting because she used this meeting with Lumumba to make a statement to the police stating that Patrick met her in Piazza Grimani and asked lots of questions about the case, he wanted to know what the police knew etc. I am paraphrasing of course.
(Personal note: Changing the content of the meeting with PL that morning to furtrher incriminate PL...“che furba” as we say in Italy, which means “how shrewd she is!”. That took some sneaky calculating.)


From Frank's latest at the Shock:
Quote:
When Patrick is asked to find some english speaking student to be interviewed by BBC he asks Amanda too and she refuses. But she hugs him and thanks him for being a friend and having helped her.
From Patrick's testimony everything seemed normal
, and a bit of cunningness from his side. No particular tensions between he and Amanda.


Hmmm, less than 24 hours (probably closer to 12) before Knox's police questioning and subsequent arrest she is hugging and declaring her friendship and gratitude to Patrick Lumumba?

Why the outburst when she sees his name on her cell phone, accuses him of murder and states she's very afraid of him?
What did Patrick possibly do on that Monday, November 5th to make her behave this way? I'd like to hear more from her about this... :roll:
P.S. I thought Amanda didn't like hugging people...maybe that's only at police stations! :shock:


Yes.. she did hug him, I recall that too. She just forgot the Judas kiss.
The difference between my view and Frank's is that I see the "cunningness" not in Lumumba's testimony, but Amanda's use of the meeting with Patrick that day, which was totally innocent, to something more sinister when she talked to the police that evening!

I dont know what grounds the defense attorneys used exactly to object to using Rudy's"verbale", but I assume that it is because it is incriminating RS and AK, and without the opportunity of cross examination it can only hurt them...if that is he is actually believed. I dont think anyone, except Biscotti believes much of what he says.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:04 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:

Quote:
Ridiculous as it sounds (Ghandi comes to mind) loincloth is what Frank opted to name what she bought, I just been to an Italian language forum and a 'perizoma' is a tanga, popularly refer to as dental floss, in English it will be a g-string.

But hey, maybe Frank's wears a 'perizoma' himself and as in Jesus or Ghandi for him is a loincloth.


You forgot Tarzan. :)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:35 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Jools wrote:

Quote:
Ridiculous as it sounds (Ghandi comes to mind) loincloth is what Frank opted to name what she bought, I just been to an Italian language forum and a 'perizoma' is a tanga, popularly refer to as dental floss, in English it will be a g-string.

But hey, maybe Frank's wears a 'perizoma' himself and as in Jesus or Ghandi for him is a loincloth.


You forgot Tarzan. :)

Or Jane.
:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject: Re: Hugs turn to hate   

stewarthome2000 wrote:
Tara wrote:
I dont know what grounds the defense attorneys used exactly to object to using Rudy's"verbale", but I assume that it is because it is incriminating RS and AK, and without the opportunity of cross examination it can only hurt them...if that is he is actually believed. I dont think anyone, except Biscotti believes much of what he says.


Yes you can't criticise the judge for their decision on this one. What puzzles me is why the prosecution still wanted his statements since they've been so inconsistent (first Amanda definitely wasn't there, then she was at the door etc) they're practically useless as evidence.

I feel like I've passed my probation on this board having correctly predicted that Guede would opt out of testifying. However I am genuinely sorry for those who had invested some faith that he would come clean. Unfortunately he is a selfish coward with no remorse for ,at the very least , raping a young woman and leaving her to die and redeeming features are conspicuous by their absence.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject:    

Stewart,
When Guede walked into court, were you present?
I am interested as I would like to know what the reaction of Sollecito was on seeing someone he has been accused of knowing but maintains he's never met before.

Again sorry, perhaps he met him for the first time at the pre-trial hearing...

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Objection   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Yes you can't criticise the judge for their decision on this one. What puzzles me is why the prosecution still wanted his statements since they've been so inconsistent (first Amanda definitely wasn't there, then she was at the door etc) they're practically useless as evidence.



Well, the reason why the prosecution still wanted his statements, is probably for exactly the same reason the defence lawyers 'didn't' want them admitted ;)

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:07 pm   Post subject: Re: RS Lawyer and the butter knife   

Jools wrote:
From Il Messaggero.

The list keeps growing...
RS Lawyer under investigation for attempting to alter crime scene.

PERUGIA – Skin-deep nerves and very high tension in courtroom, but that’s not all.

The trial for the death of Meredith Kercher it also points to the background setting. And so, while the matter of investigating the cottage intrusion is still open, two in just twenty days, openly defying the police controls, a new case emerges.

The lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi, one of Raffaele Sollecito defenders at the beginning and chosen by the family of the accused youngster from Bari, has entered in the register list of suspects for having attempted to alter the scene of the crime.

The episode goes back to one of the visits to the cottage undertaken during the investigation by police investigators in the presence of suspects of the crime lawyers. At this visit, present was lawyer Tiziano Tedeschi and, according to police investigators, the defense lawyer at a certain point would discover a butter knife in the middle of the bushes.

The problem and the suspicion is that Tiziano Tedeschi just before finding the knife had move away. And, according to the investigation, while he felt as if he wouldn’t be seen by anyone else, he would put the knife in the bush.

A hypothesis that the lawyer strongly denies.



Hi Jools. Well, this comes as no surprise at all. Back on Haloscan, we all knew that butter knife was a plant. It was just too sweet wasn't it? The boy who couldn't remember hardly a thing about what he was doing on the night of the murder, yet suddenly recalled having seen a knife in the grounds of the cottage, a place he'd only ever been to a couple of times before, yet had never been seen by any of the people who actually lived there or the forensic police when they searched the grounds right after the murder! It stank so bad it was obvious. Of course, it didn't stop the Knox Camp at the time trying to twist it round and use it as another of their mechanisms at the time to smear the Italian police with the charge of 'incompetence' for not having found it when they swept the grounds. The reason they never found it, was because it wasn't there.

I'm with Skep's view...the compass is pointing clearly in the direction of those we should be looking at for the cottage break-ins!

Also, to follow up another of Skep's comments, in regard to Frank hardly bothering with the cottage break-ins...it is completely in accordance with Frank's strange and rather sudden shift from happily scrutinising Sollecito and family many months ago, to hardly mentioning him at all and even then, only when he has to in order to talk about Amanda or make a point about their innocence. I think the reason for that lies once again in the same direction the compass is pointing.

Where is Frank's finance for his planned film coming from? just askin'.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:18 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Also, to follow up another of Skep's comments, in regard to Frank hardly bothering with the cottage break-ins...it is completely in accordance with Frank's strange and rather sudden shift from happily scrutinising Sollecito and family many months ago, to hardly mentioning him at all and even then, only when he has to in order to talk about Amanda or make a point about their innocence. I think the reason for that lies once again in the same direction the compass is pointing.

Where is Frank's finance for his planned film coming from? just askin'.[/i]


If nepotism still alive and kicking in Italy as it once was, I guess is not a bad idea to have Ms. Bongiorno in your good books. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:25 pm   Post subject:    

SH2000 wrote:

Quote:
Yes.. she did hug him, I recall that too. She just forgot the Judas kiss.
The difference between my view and Frank's is that I see the "cunningness" not in Lumumba's testimony, but Amanda's use of the meeting with Patrick that day, which was totally innocent, to something more sinister when she talked to the police that evening!


It does seem that Knox went above and beyond the call of duty (or coercion) in the details she provided to lend weight to her Patrick did it/Patrick is bad/I'm very afraid of Patrick story. She actually took a random encounter and spun it a different way, telling police that when she saw him on campus Patrick was asking strange and insistent questions about what she was telling the police and what the police were asking her.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:31 pm   Post subject: Micheli's Son?   

Hmmm...I've just been reading elsewhere that apparently, I'm Micheli's son. It could be worse I suppose, they could be accusing me of being his dad! :lol:

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject:    

Richard Owen has written a report yesterday's and today's testimony in The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 036820.ece

"On Friday Dr Luca Lalli, the pathologist who conducted the post mortem told a closed session of the court that Ms Kercher had suffered 23 cuts and bruises to her body, and agreed with the prosecution that this suggested she had been attacked by more than one person.

Today, other police medical experts including a gynaecologist also told the court in closed session that Ms Kercher's wounds showed she had been stabbed, strangled and suffocated by several people. The defence claims that Ms Kercher was attacked by a lone burglar, and that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito spent the night of the murder at Mr Sollecito's flat smoking cannabis and watching films downloaded on Mr Sollecito's computer.

However this alibi has been dented by witnesses, including police technical experts who say there was no "human activity" on Mr Sollecito's computer during the hours when Ms Kercher was killed between nine in the evening and midnight, and a shopkeeper who says he saw Ms Knox at his store buying cleaning materials three hours before the time she claims to have arrived at the hillside cottage she shared with Ms Kercher and two Italian women on the morning of 2 November 2007
."

"The court is now beginning to hear crucial forensic evidence however. This includes the alleged discovery of Ms Knox's DNA on the handle of the presumed murder weapon, a kitchen knife found at Mr Sollecito's flat which had been cleaned with bleach, with Ms Kercher's DNA on the blade; a fragment of Ms Kercher's bra strap which allegedly has Mr Sollecito's DNA on it; and Ms Knox's footprint in blood outside Ms Kercher's bedroom. Defence lawyers say the DNA evidence is flawed and contaminated, and should be discounted."

Richard Owen's reporting of the case for The Times has been excellent.
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Hmmm...I've just been reading elsewhere that apparently, I'm Micheli's son. It could be worse I suppose, they could be accusing me of being his dad!

Boy, you're having your own StarWars moment! You know, when the guy in the black cape tells you he's your father... :D
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:13 pm   Post subject:    

In the style of the hormonal woman at the table:

Why is Edda really crying?

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:28 pm   Post subject:    

a shy reader wrote:
Hi, I've been following this case for a while and appreciate the information people make available in this forum. I don't have any facts to add but would like to say I can appreciate The Bard's feeling torn about this case. While it seems to me that there are strong indications that AK and RS are involved in the crime, it upsets me too to think this about such young people or really about anyone. I don't enjoy thinking about this case, it's upsetting and sad and sickening, but I feel a strong desire for "closure" which I keep hoping to find by getting answers as to what happened. There's always the hope that new evidence will come out in the trial to change the picture, but so far that hasn't happened. The defense seems to depend on real improbabilities.

I do wonder whether Mr. Curatolo's testimony suggests a possibility I haven't seen discussed yet. What if AK and RS were not in the house when the assault began, but were aware of, and involved in planning and setting up, some kind of "prank" or petty crime to be done by RG? From the timelines, if Mr. Curatolo's testimony about times is accepted, then it seems possible that AK could have left RS's apartment first, and gone alone to her apartment, and let RG in to do the prank (or maybe theft?). Then AK and RS could have met in the park, and waited for some time, talking animatedly or agitatedly, before going to the apartment. I can imagine that they would not have planned murder per se but would have planned some kind of edgy mischief, maybe a sadistic "prank" to scare MK, maybe even also including a theft of the pot plants from downstairs as some have suggested here. But when they arrived, expecting the thing to be over without their being known to have played a role, instead things had taken a really violent turn and AK and RS were implicated in it. Maybe this is when the loud arguing was heard. Maybe they were agitated and arguing intensely about what to do, and then became directly involved in the violence during the 10:15-10:30 time frame when Brian S. reasoned the murder must have happened.

In speculating about this, I'm accepting the rumor of AK's "prank" at the UW as probably accurate, and trying to account for facts including:
-AK and RS almost certainly turned off their cell phones around 8:40, unusual behavior for them, which suggests they premeditated *something* they didn't want to announce they were planning to do
-RS agreed to take his acquaintance to the railroad station around midnight, suggesting that he didn't expect to be busy that late
-Neither AK nor RS has a convincing or even credible-sounding alibi, but it's hard to believe they truly don't remember what they were doing that night unless there was some unusual circumstance such as shock and dissociation to explain the memory malfunction.
-Mr. Curatolo's testimony has AK and RS seeming agitated and focused on the view toward the apartment.


Hi ASR!! welcome.
I think your scenario is quite possible (I would like to believe there was not premeditation for murder), if it were a prank then maybe AK wouldn't want to be seen by MK and send RG. Maybe RG was sent to the cottage and to enter just asked MK to use the bathroom, and maybe MK did not see the danger and allowed him to enter, maybe RS&AK were too impatient and decided to see what was going on. Maybe there was a discussion when RG was in the toilets and he left in a hurry. Maybe things degenerated so bad. I don't believe AK only saw the stools the next day just before they disappear, that would be too many hours later.

Z.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject:    

I do believe there was premeditation regarding this awful and tragic crime.
Knox in my opinion must have considered this scenario at some point, however small and fleeting in her drug addled brain.
I do not think that this murder was a spontaneous happening.
God help us if this type of thing is so.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:01 pm   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I do believe there was premeditation regarding this awful and tragic crime.
Knox in my opinion must have considered this scenario at some point, however small and fleeting in her drug addled brain.
I do not think that this murder was a spontaneous happening.
God help us if this type of thing is so.


DF2000, you could be right and that's scaring, she could have played with the idea, but I don't see the three of them conspiring to commit this murder, but little I know.

I just read from Nesweek: "Maresca says that while he is sure the accused did not go into Kercher's room with the intent to kill her, there is ample evidence proving that what started as a game ended in her tragic murder. "Kids this age are all into quick thrills," he told NEWSWEEK. "What started as a threat or a game to scare Mez escalated to violence and ended in murder.""

I can only admire more MK's family, I see the Kerchers are opening a big door to AK&RS&RG... I hope they can see it.

Z.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:01 pm   Post subject:    

Zopi wrote:
I think your scenario is quite possible (I would like to believe there was not premeditation for murder), if it were a prank then maybe AK wouldn't want to be seen by MK and send RG. Maybe RG was sent to the cottage and to enter just asked MK to use the bathroom, and maybe MK did not see the danger and allowed him to enter, maybe RS&AK were too impatient and decided to see what was going on. Maybe there was a discussion when RG was in the toilets and he left in a hurry. Maybe things degenerated so bad. I don't believe AK only saw the stools the next day just before they disappear, that would be too many hours later.Z.


Meredith was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured with the knife and before someone plunged the knife through her throat which such force the point came out on the side of her neck. Meredith's last moments on earth were beyond hell on earth. The people who did this are not normal people, who got a bit carried away whilst playing a prank. They are evil and/or psychologically disturbed.

Meredith didn't die immediately. From the bloody handprint on the wardrobe it seems Meredith's tried to get to her feet. Meredith's killers fled the cottage shortly after she was stabbed. None of them phoned the emergency services because Meredith's murder was a group crime. It appears they did all they could to stop Meredith from getting any medical help: they locked her door, stole her mobile phones and tried to throw them into a precipice.

Two of them walked around in bare feet in Meredith's blood, presumably after Meredith had been killed. They cleaned away the trail of bloody footprints which led from Meredith's room to the bathroom, removed Meredith's bra and staged the break in.

Why did one of the killers cover Meredith's body with the duvet? I have two possible explanations. They either wanted to wrap her body in the duvet and remove it from the cottage. Hekuran Kokomani claimed that Guede wanted to borrow his car to move some "furniture". The broken down car and the breakdown truck on Via della pergola would have made it very difficult for them to do this.

Another explanation is one put forward by a criminal psychologist: Meredith was killed by a woman and she didn't want to see the dead victim. Note how Amanda Knox didn't look at any of the photographs of the autopsy or the video.

The knife used to stab Meredith was taken from Sollecito's kitchen. This shows clear intent to harm Meredith. It is premeditation. Knox and Sollecito turning off their mobiles at approximately the same time shortly before Meredith was killed lends further weight to the argument that the attack on Meredith was planned. The argument that Meredith's murder couldn't have been premeditated because the killers have limits on the evil they are capable of is nonsensical when you consider what they did.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:05 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Zopi wrote:
I think your scenario is quite possible (I would like to believe there was not premeditation for murder), if it were a prank then maybe AK wouldn't want to be seen by MK and send RG. Maybe RG was sent to the cottage and to enter just asked MK to use the bathroom, and maybe MK did not see the danger and allowed him to enter, maybe RS&AK were too impatient and decided to see what was going on. Maybe there was a discussion when RG was in the toilets and he left in a hurry. Maybe things degenerated so bad. I don't believe AK only saw the stools the next day just before they disappear, that would be too many hours later.Z.


Meredith was sexually assaulted, strangled, tortured with the knife and before someone plunged the knife through her throat which such force the point came out on the side of her neck. Meredith's last moments on earth were beyond hell on earth. The people who did this are not normal people, who got a bit carried away whilst playing a prank. They are evil and/or psychologically disturbed.


Yes TM, they are EVIL and definitively DISTURBED. ITA.

Z.
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:32 pm   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Stewart,
When Guede walked into court, were you present?
I am interested as I would like to know what the reaction of Sollecito was on seeing someone he has been accused of knowing but maintains he's never met before. Again sorry, perhaps he met him for the first time at the pre-trial hearing...


Yes, I was there. He walked in, not in handcuffs, and never looked at RS or AK, or anyone for that matter. He took the stand and before ya knew it he was on his way out the door. He looked no one in the eye. No reaction from RS or AK
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:37 pm   Post subject:    

Petafly wrote:

Quote:
Quote from Michael:
Hmmm...I've just been reading elsewhere that apparently, I'm Micheli's son. It could be worse I suppose, they could be accusing me of being his dad!

Boy, you're having your own StarWars moment! You know, when the guy in the black cape tells you he's your father...


Michael, I just wonder why you kept Harry waiting so long before answering his eminently reasonable question. :)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:50 pm   Post subject:    

If you are interested in seeing a photo of Tiziano Tedeschi, the attorney accused of planting a butter knife on the grounds around the cottage, here is a link to an article that appeared in November of 2007, shortly after the arrest of Sollecito, Knox and Lumumba. I can't embed the photo because it is copyright protected. Scroll down to the bottom of the article, where his photo appears next to a photo of Sollecito. Check out his shades!

http://tinyurl.com/cepxl9

And although this is certainly just an extraordinary coincidence, there is a company in Syracuse, New York called Sollecito Landscaping Nursery LLC (25 employees, annual sales close to 1 million dollars) whose attorney is named Tiziano Tedeschi.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:50 pm   Post subject: Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I do believe there was premeditation regarding this awful and tragic crime.
Knox in my opinion must have considered this scenario at some point, however small and fleeting in her drug addled brain.
I do not think that this murder was a spontaneous happening.
God help us if this type of thing is so.


Spontaneous in some ways, perhaps, but certainly not entirely. I believe each suspect had strong personal reasons for being in Meredith's home that night. Planning would have been sketchy and superficial, driven entirely by underlying emotions. Individuals found initial motivation to participate in a personal fantasy. Personal fantasies merged into group frenzy where the only thing held in common was a willingness to let things go as far as possible. The actions of one feed the emotions of another without shame. Who would be capable of such things? Certainly not them and owning up to anything by light of day would be next to impossible. Extremely liberating for anyone harboring sociopathic tendencies and so deeply personal that talking about it would be a betrayal that liberation. I've always thought of this as a Perfect Storm of Dysfunctional Complicity. Horrifically simple.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:51 pm   Post subject:    

Zopi,

What kind of "game" are we talking about here?
I wish someone would be specific on this.
I have never believed this is a game "gone wrong".

Ok, for arguments sake there was a game.
It went wrong.
What caused it to go wrong, this game?
What type of game?
I have never been party to this scenario at all.
Perhaps Knox spun this rubbish to the cops when intially interviewed, I dont know.
So they were playing find the sausage and it "went wrong" so they murdered her with the carving knife they brought round from Sollecitos house for the "game".
Nah... can't see it.

I find it chilling Knox described Meredith staying home and doing her coursework "like a good little girl" as much as giving Patrick Lumumbas wife the death stare on their first meeting/introduction.
I am also very interested in the middle aged guy she had sex with on the train on the way to Perugia (with her sister with her) and the photos of him she took of their sex session and posted on her myspace (or whatever it is) page.

They were removed very rapidly from the said page but comments from the adolescent friends of Amanda can still be seen in the cached version:
"I know you are weird Amanda, but this is gross" and so forth.

It's telling.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:25 pm   Post subject:    

A shy reader wrote:

Quote:
I do wonder whether Mr. Curatolo's testimony suggests a possibility I haven't seen discussed yet. What if AK and RS were not in the house when the assault began, but were aware of, and involved in planning and setting up, some kind of "prank" or petty crime to be done by RG? From the timelines, if Mr. Curatolo's testimony about times is accepted, then it seems possible that AK could have left RS's apartment first, and gone alone to her apartment, and let RG in to do the prank (or maybe theft?). Then AK and RS could have met in the park, and waited for some time, talking animatedly or agitatedly, before going to the apartment. I can imagine that they would not have planned murder per se but would have planned some kind of edgy mischief, maybe a sadistic "prank" to scare MK, maybe even also including a theft of the pot plants from downstairs as some have suggested here. But when they arrived, expecting the thing to be over without their being known to have played a role, instead things had taken a really violent turn and AK and RS were implicated in it. Maybe this is when the loud arguing was heard. Maybe they were agitated and arguing intensely about what to do, and then became directly involved in the violence during the 10:15-10:30 time frame when Brian S. reasoned the murder must have happened.



Before your comment gets lost in the shuffle, I wanted to say welcome to our board.

I notice some reluctance to accept the idea of a prank gone wrong, on the grounds that it doesn't tally with the brutality of the crime or that it suggests a degree of normalcy at odds with same. However, many people don't see how it can have been premeditated either, at least not in the classic sense. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of a prank - albeit an extremely vicious one - that went further than anyone anticipated. It doesn't mean I think normal people have carried it out. Some pranks are extremely vicious in intent, and people are killed "accidentally" in the course of such pranks. I see them as a species of the stupid and dangerous activities that some humans are attracted to, for whatever reason.

In this case, you have one guy who wants to please (Rudy), one young woman who will apparently do anything on a dare (according to her stepfather, in his recent mud puddle anecdote), and one guy who is infatuated with the daring young woman and also with violent manga comic books and knives. Do we know if any or all of the three were into role-playing games?

If you add drugs into the mix, not to mention every secret thing that each participant brought to the mix, then I can certainly see FBN's "perfect dysfunctional storm". Simultaneous extinction of cell phones is consistent with this scenario.

As for your suggestion that Knox may have let Rudy into the house and then met Sollecito in Piazza Grimana, this is possible. We may never know the identity of the woman in white seen entering the car park at 8:43 pm. But it could well have been Knox.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Zopi,

What kind of "game" are we talking about here?
I wish someone would be specific on this.
I have never believed this is a game "gone wrong".

Ok, for arguments sake there was a game.
It went wrong.
What caused it to go wrong, this game?
What type of game?
I have never been party to this scenario at all.
Perhaps Knox spun this rubbish to the cops when intially interviewed, I dont know.
So they were playing find the sausage and it "went wrong" so they murdered her with the carving knife they brought round from Sollecitos house for the "game".
Nah... can't see it.

I find it chilling Knox described Meredith staying home and doing her coursework "like a good little girl" as much as giving Patrick Lumumbas wife the death stare on their first meeting/introduction.
I am also very interested in the middle aged guy she had sex with on the train on the way to Perugia (with her sister with her) and the photos of him she took of their sex session and posted on her myspace (or whatever it is) page.

They were removed very rapidly from the said page but comments from the adolescent friends of Amanda can still be seen in the cached version:
"I know you are weird Amanda, but this is gross" and so forth.

It's telling.


-What kind of "game" are we talking about here?
I have no clue, that's something I cannot grasp. If I try to imagine something I would say a nasty game to humiliate MK. Quoting Skep "a vicious one".
-What caused it to go wrong, this game?
Evilness. Just that.

Z.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:04 am   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
What kind of "game" are we talking about here?
I wish someone would be specific on this.
I have never believed this is a game "gone wrong".

Ok, for arguments sake there was a game.
It went wrong.
What caused it to go wrong, this game?
What type of game?
I have never been party to this scenario at all.
Perhaps Knox spun this rubbish to the cops when intially interviewed, I dont know.
So they were playing find the sausage and it "went wrong" so they murdered her with the carving knife they brought round from Sollecitos house for the "game".
Nah... can't see it.


I've never believed Meredith's murder was the result of a prank that went too far or a game that went wrong. Knox and/or Sollecito took knife from his apartment and the knife was used to stab Meredith. Knox and Sollecito intended to hurt/kill Meredith with the knife when they were at Sollecito's apartment.

There are elements of Knox's confession that are true: she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and she heard a terrible scream. We know that Diya Lumumba wasn't there and Rudy Guede was. Knox said that Diya Lumumba wanted Meredith. I think Knox just exchanged Guede's name with Diya Lumumba's name. It's clear that Guede wanted to have sex with Meredith and Meredith refused. Meredith was threatened with the knife and eventually cut with it in order to force her into sexual activity with Guede.

I wouldn't be surprised if Knox met Guede at the Piazza Grimana before they went to the cottage. I don't believe that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were at the cottage and bumped into Meredith by chance and things escalated in a horrific fashion. There was a plan to hurt/kill Meredith or to force her into sexual activity with Guede.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:12 am   Post subject: Rudy's Handwritten Letter   

Here's the link to Rudy's handwritten letter - can't Google translate. Also Carlo Torre makes some ridiculous statements about Meredith's wounds in the actual article. It's about the 6th article down on the page:

LA REPUBLICCA RUDY'S LETTER
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:50 am   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:


I find it chilling Knox described Meredith staying home and doing her coursework "like a good little girl" as much as giving Patrick Lumumbas wife the death stare on their first meeting/introduction.


I only had a vague memory from long ago of the "death stare incident" that DF2K mentioned, so I searched it and found this article (Daily Mail=unreliable tabloid usually, but most of it appears to be direct quotation) which refreshed my recall of a number of things said about Amanda--in case anyone else might be interested:

THE DAILY MAIL

Didi



(MODERATOR EDIT: Michael - Shortened url)
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:32 am   Post subject: P.S.   

In regard to the DM article I just posted, I'd only read 2/3 of it before I put the link up (not a good practice, I guess, especially with the DM) and just finished it. Now I'm wondering about the truth insofar as Lumumba's statements. I thought he had recently said in court that he wasn't physically harmed by the police, just made to stand naked in the cold, etc. So can this journalist be trusted? Anyone know? If we buy this then what can be said about Amanda's "scapolotti"? Fog and mirrors.

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.

D.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:58 am   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
In regard to the DM article I just posted, I'd only read 2/3 of it before I put the link up (not a good practice, I guess, especially with the DM) and just finished it. Now I'm wondering about the truth insofar as Lumumba's statements. I thought he had recently said in court that he wasn't physically harmed by the police, just made to stand naked in the cold, etc. So can this journalist be trusted? Anyone know? If we buy this then what can be said about Amanda's "scapolotti"? Fog and mirrors.


This interview was repudiated by Lumumba some time ago. He even appeared on Italian television to explain that he was misquoted. So no, it isn't a good source. And your instinct about tabloids is the right one. Nearly every single time we have found a source to be problematic, it is because the information was published in a tabloid. If it were up to me, I would require that people avoid quoting from them, taking anything they say as valid, or even wasting time reading them. This doesn't mean everything in them is false. Just that you need to beware of the obviously sensationalistic stuff.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:01 am   Post subject: Re: Rudy's Handwritten Letter   

Tara wrote:
Here's the link to Rudy's handwritten letter - can't Google translate. Also Carlo Torre makes some ridiculous statements about Meredith's wounds in the actual article. It's about the 6th article down on the page:

LA REPUBLICCA RUDY'S LETTER


Meo Ponte in "The Repubblica" is having one of his "They might not have done it" days, as the medical evidence is being tossed up and turned over by the lawyers, and he is feeling a bit jaded about the overall lack of closure in the case after such a long time (i.e., there is no single obvious slam dunk).

Anyway, his Rudy report is the last four paragraphs.
There is a slight touch of being having been let down by Rudy.

Quote:


Another protagonist in the current hearing was Rudy Guede. He is the only one who, with certainty, was in number 7 via della Pergola on the night of the murder. His improbable account [of events] earned him 30 years in prison via a fast-track trial. Nowadays, he’s persisting with a suicidal defence strategy, fronting up in court for a couple of minutes to say: “I intend to exercise my right to not respond.”

A bit later though he wrote to his lawyers to explain the reasons for his silence, a letter that ended up punctually on TV, feeding the shameful market of diaries and memoirs that up until now have garnered their authors only further damage. In reality, in this upteemth letter from prison, Rudy does not add to what he’s said so far: he continues to proclaim himself innocent, he laments about not been believed, he regrets not being able to save Meredith. Lawyer Francesco Maresca, the Kercher family legal representative, asked the Court to admit his statements [into evidence] but President Massei upheld the objections of Amanda and Raffaele’s defence teams.

Rudy is the only one who knows what really happened on the night of 1 November in number 7 via della Pergola. And instead of launching a search for the mysterious blonde who on his word could confirm the fact that he knew [or: met] Meredith some day(s) before her death, he would do better to make up his mind to tell what he knows.

It would have been interesting to listen to his answers in court, especially to the questions by Court President Giancarlo Massei, who is the magistrate on whose shoulders the strain of giving credibility to a difficult case rests. Massei has also displayed at certain irony in fixing the 18th of April for the Court’s inspection in the murder house. On the 18th of February and 18th of March, in fact, the place was “inspected” by mysterious visitors who took possession of various macabre souvenirs, including the mattress from Meredith’s bed.


[ Repubblica ] 04 April 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:15 am   Post subject:    

Thanks for the translation, Catnip.
Ponte is right. If Rudy is truly remorseful for his failure to save Meredith's life, then he could go along way towards atoning for this by speaking up in court and helping to clarify many, many things that remain shrouded in darkness and silence.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:30 am   Post subject: Re: Rudy's Handwritten Letter   

Tara wrote:
Rudy's handwritten letter...It's about the 6th article down on the page:

LA REPUBLICCA RUDY'S LETTER


Tara,

I found the image of the letter.
Rudy is right-handed, the writing is almost scribble, and the fax the letter came through on chops off about half a word or so on the left margin.

The phrasing used is very legalistic and formulaic for a 20-yr-old (but the spelling and grammar is as expected), so I think it might have been dictated (in parts at least), or he has picked up the stock legal phrases and is trying to use them to his best advantage.

I'll try and do a full translation, but the gist of it is:

Quote:
...I've always told the truth...
...I suffered the trauma of seeing a girl die in my arms...
...I ask myself, why this intention to cite me as a witness if they discounted my words...
...I intend to avail myself of the right to not respond...
Top Profile 

Offline ghana37


Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:49 pm

Posts: 12

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:43 am   Post subject: Sollecito Landscaping Nursery   

Dear Skeptical Bystander, I live in Rochester, NY but will be visiting Syracuse tomorrow. Unfortunately I probably won't have time to check out the Sollecito Landscaping Nursery. I discovered that they have a website at www.sollecito.com. Does that not beat all? I'm guessing that Friends of RF would have loved to use this address for their own purposes...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:59 am   Post subject:    

Ghana 37 wrote:

Quote:
Dear Skeptical Bystander, I live in Rochester, NY but will be visiting Syracuse tomorrow. Unfortunately I probably won't have time to check out the Sollecito Landscaping Nursery. I discovered that they have a website at www.sollecito.com. Does that not beat all? I'm guessing that Friends of RF would have loved to use this address for their own purposes.


I went to the website and looked in vain for a photo of Tedeschi demonstrating the fine art of hiding and then finding butter knives in lushly landscaped yards and gardens. :lol:

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:38 pm   Post subject:    

More on Rudy Guede letter. I don't have anytime now to put the whole thing up (is nothing new from RG anyway) or translate, I just quickly put up this bit of a paragraph in Italian for now:

...questo e un processo che non mi riguarda, il processo in cui credo sia ora che le persone, che fino ad ora hanno sempre mentito e continuano a farlo, ammettano il male che hanno versato e continuano a versare a Meredith e a me...


Last edited by Jools on Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:40 pm   Post subject:    

Barbie Nadeau has written another excellent article for the Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... ad-to-say/
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:41 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:


I only had a vague memory from long ago of the "death stare incident" that DF2K mentioned, so I searched it and found this article (Daily Mail=unreliable tabloid usually, but most of it appears to be direct quotation) which refreshed my recall of a number of things said about Amanda--in case anyone else might be interested:

THE DAILY MAIL

Didi[/quote]

I remember this article. What strikes me very much is PL's partner's comments on Amanda.

'Economics graduate Aleksandra adds: "Amanda was so cold. She seemed like a girl who would do anything to get her way, and her man. If she had wanted Patrick I'm sure she wouldn't have thought twice about pushing me aside."'

I can get a real sense of Amanda from 'another woman's' viewpoint here. She actually met Amanda when the mask wasn't on. She was 'cold'. Not kookie, or smily or cute, or fresh-faced. Cold. Cold and distainful. Jealous and petualant. Patrick saw her with the 'mask' on, in the bar at night - she was fun, flirtatious, centre of attention all with men. I think the picture is very much how we have speculated in the past. A highly insecure girl, who felt some reflected sense of worth through the use of her sexuality. That the insecurity in the face of other attractive females was so threatening to her is interesting. I think she found it unbearable. They threatened to take away, or dilute the only thing she felt secure and powerful about - her interaction with and the attention of men. A very confused young lady. Along with Skep I think this was not a pre-formed intention as such. It could have been fully formed in her deep psyche, but she may not have been aware just how savage it could become. Likewise the others.

Rage, cf. Miss Represented. Puppet Master, cf. Miss Represented.

Thanks disinterested for reminding me of this rare quote from someone who actually met the 'unmasked' Amanda; even if the rest of the article as been renounced, those couple of lines are interesting.


(MODERATOR EDIT: Michael - Shortened url in quote)
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:44 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
And although this is certainly just an extraordinary coincidence, there is a company in Syracuse, New York called Sollecito Landscaping Nursery LLC (25 employees, annual sales close to 1 million dollars) whose attorney is named Tiziano Tedeschi.


Hey, you're right:
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Tedeschi ... 86944.aspx
This is so weird! Investigating the Sollecitos is like stiring up a hornets' nest. The wealth of the family (remember: his Dad is just a doctor!), Bari, the over the top attorneys and the repeated attempt to manipulate the trial already deludes me to call it 8-) Mafia-esque 8-). But knowing they have subsidiaries in the states, camouflaged as caste Flowery things, is like a proof to me...

Oh, I forgot to mention Raffaeles peroxide blonde Stepmother, the generic "Mafiabraut"... :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:35 pm   Post subject:    

Barbie Nadeau notes the significance of Vincenza Liviero's expert testimony:

"The number of people involved in Kercher’s murder is crucial for the prosecution’s case. If experts can prove that only one person was involved, it will be difficult to convict Knox and Sollecito since Guede is already serving time for this murder. So far that hasn’t been a problem. On Saturday, lawyers said that medical examiner Vincenza Liviero testified she found that “there were more than two hands” involved in sexual violence against Kercher. Francesco Maresca, attorney for the Kercher family said that Kercher’s body was so badly violated that he had no doubt that there were at least two people involved. “There were so many wounds caused by a knife and caused by hands," he said. "The only way they could have been from one person is if that person had three or four hands.”

Liviero's findings will not be lost on the judges and jury.

The Telegraph highlights Liverio's findings in their headline:

Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted by more than one person, forensic scientist says

"Meredith Kercher, the British student who was murdered in Perugia, was sexually assaulted and attacked by more than one person, a forensic scientist told a court on Saturday."
Top Profile 

Offline Wistar


Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:25 am

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:43 pm   Post subject:    

The FOA may have disbanded, but Kelly's still at it! From the Free Amanda Knox cause on facebook:

'This weekend in Court was indeed a very sad time as pictures of the victim, Meredith Kercher, were reviewed and the circumstances of her death discussed. Amanda simply placed her head on the desk unable to view the gruesome images of her murdered friend.

Because this section of the trial was held behind closed doors out of respect to the Kercher family all information is being relayed by the attorneys. Much of the press coverage is based on comments by the Kercher family attorney, a local named Francesco Maresca. He was not hired by the Kercher family but appointed by the Italian government to represent them; and he only gets paid if Amanda is found guilty. So he has lots of reasons to spin information against her and has often been seen side by side with prosecutor Mignini at press conferences. Unlike the prosecution the defense makes only brief statements to the press preferring to argue the case in Court rather than trying the accused in the tabloid media.

This weekend we heard from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, Dr. Lali. He was unable to confirm that the victim was raped or that there were multiple attackers. Because this has always been his position he was fired early in the investigation by prosecutor Mignini who then brought in medical examiners from Rome. These second examiners only worked off pictures as Meredith’s body had already been returned to England by the time they were brought in. Not surprisingly, Mignini’s hand picked examiners backed his view that there was sexual violence and multiple attackers; and Mr. Maresca championed this to the media today. Amanda goes free if it can be shown that there was only one attacker.

Amanda’s lawyers said that their own medical experts will demonstrate the errors in the conclusions of the hand picked examiners. And of course, proof of sexual violence and multiple attackers does not prove Amanda’s involvement. There is unknown finger print and DNA evidence of others at the scene and it is certainly possible that Rudy Guede worked with others.

Speaking of Rudy he appeared in Court, refused to look at Amanda or Raffaele, and then refused to answer any questions. Patrick Lumumba, Amanda’s former employer who is suing her for slander, had nothing but nice things to say about Amanda but described at great length his abuse while in police custody. He was arrested after Amanda was hit during an all night interrogation in which the police suggested to her that Patrick was the killer based on African hair found on the victim (both Patrick and Rudy are black) and a text message the night of the crime which police incorrectly interpreted as an appointment between Amanda and Patrick.

So overall another bust for the prosecution as nothing emerged that suggests Amanda was involved. Please continue to invite your friends to our Cause. Much more to come. '
Top Profile 

Offline Rhonda


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:23 pm

Posts: 44

Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:45 pm   Post subject:    

stewarthome2000 wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Stewart,
When Guede walked into court, were you present?
I am interested as I would like to know what the reaction of Sollecito was on seeing someone he has been accused of knowing but maintains he's never met before. Again sorry, perhaps he met him for the first time at the pre-trial hearing...


Yes, I was there. He walked in, not in handcuffs, and never looked at RS or AK, or anyone for that matter. He took the stand and before ya knew it he was on his way out the door. He looked no one in the eye. No reaction from RS or AK



I find this so strange. Perhaps they were all told not to react, but even if they didn't know each other how could they not want to look their accuser in the eye. After all, they are basically pointing the finger at each other. If I were any of them I wouldn't be able to take my eyes off the the person that I felt was putting me at the center of this horrible crime.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:20 pm   Post subject:    

Wistar wrote:
The FOA may have disbanded, but Kelly's still at it! From the Free Amanda Knox cause on facebook:

'This weekend in Court was indeed a very sad time as pictures of the victim, Meredith Kercher, were reviewed and the circumstances of her death discussed. Amanda simply placed her head on the desk unable to view the gruesome images of her murdered friend.

Because this section of the trial was held behind closed doors out of respect to the Kercher family all information is being relayed by the attorneys. Much of the press coverage is based on comments by the Kercher family attorney, a local named Francesco Maresca. He was not hired by the Kercher family but appointed by the Italian government to represent them; and he only gets paid if Amanda is found guilty. So he has lots of reasons to spin information against her and has often been seen side by side with prosecutor Mignini at press conferences. Unlike the prosecution the defense makes only brief statements to the press preferring to argue the case in Court rather than trying the accused in the tabloid media.

This weekend we heard from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, Dr. Lali. He was unable to confirm that the victim was raped or that there were multiple attackers. Because this has always been his position he was fired early in the investigation by prosecutor Mignini who then brought in medical examiners from Rome. These second examiners only worked off pictures as Meredith’s body had already been returned to England by the time they were brought in. Not surprisingly, Mignini’s hand picked examiners backed his view that there was sexual violence and multiple attackers; and Mr. Maresca championed this to the media today. Amanda goes free if it can be shown that there was only one attacker.

Amanda’s lawyers said that their own medical experts will demonstrate the errors in the conclusions of the hand picked examiners. And of course, proof of sexual violence and multiple attackers does not prove Amanda’s involvement. There is unknown finger print and DNA evidence of others at the scene and it is certainly possible that Rudy Guede worked with others.

Speaking of Rudy he appeared in Court, refused to look at Amanda or Raffaele, and then refused to answer any questions. Patrick Lumumba, Amanda’s former employer who is suing her for slander, had nothing but nice things to say about Amanda but described at great length his abuse while in police custody. He was arrested after Amanda was hit during an all night interrogation in which the police suggested to her that Patrick was the killer based on African hair found on the victim (both Patrick and Rudy are black) and a text message the night of the crime which police incorrectly interpreted as an appointment between Amanda and Patrick.

So overall another bust for the prosecution as nothing emerged that suggests Amanda was involved. Please continue to invite your friends to our Cause. Much more to come. '

Mr Maresca has NOT been appointed by anybody else but the Kercher family who has chosen to file a civil suit. Mr Maresca is on the list of attorneys recommended by the UK consulate in Florence and he is NOT a "local", but living and practicing in Florence. Mr Maresca is NOT going to be paid if Amanda is found guilty, he is being paid by the Kerchers regardless. Dr Lalli has been fired because he leaked news to the press, NOT because of the autopsy results.

Sometimes I wonder if there's a limit to the creativity of some FOA supporters in fabricating fact, but I guess not. What Kelly wrote is more than enough to be be rolling on the floor laughing, if this wasn't such an horrific crime.
Top Profile 

Offline rxflg


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:16 am

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:56 pm   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:
Wistar wrote:
The FOA may have disbanded, but Kelly's still at it! From the Free Amanda Knox cause on facebook:

'This weekend in Court was indeed a very sad time as pictures of the victim, Meredith Kercher, were reviewed and the circumstances of her death discussed. Amanda simply placed her head on the desk unable to view the gruesome images of her murdered friend.

Because this section of the trial was held behind closed doors out of respect to the Kercher family all information is being relayed by the attorneys. Much of the press coverage is based on comments by the Kercher family attorney, a local named Francesco Maresca. He was not hired by the Kercher family but appointed by the Italian government to represent them; and he only gets paid if Amanda is found guilty. So he has lots of reasons to spin information against her and has often been seen side by side with prosecutor Mignini at press conferences. Unlike the prosecution the defense makes only brief statements to the press preferring to argue the case in Court rather than trying the accused in the tabloid media.

This weekend we heard from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, Dr. Lali. He was unable to confirm that the victim was raped or that there were multiple attackers. Because this has always been his position he was fired early in the investigation by prosecutor Mignini who then brought in medical examiners from Rome. These second examiners only worked off pictures as Meredith’s body had already been returned to England by the time they were brought in. Not surprisingly, Mignini’s hand picked examiners backed his view that there was sexual violence and multiple attackers; and Mr. Maresca championed this to the media today. Amanda goes free if it can be shown that there was only one attacker.

Amanda’s lawyers said that their own medical experts will demonstrate the errors in the conclusions of the hand picked examiners. And of course, proof of sexual violence and multiple attackers does not prove Amanda’s involvement. There is unknown finger print and DNA evidence of others at the scene and it is certainly possible that Rudy Guede worked with others.

Speaking of Rudy he appeared in Court, refused to look at Amanda or Raffaele, and then refused to answer any questions. Patrick Lumumba, Amanda’s former employer who is suing her for slander, had nothing but nice things to say about Amanda but described at great length his abuse while in police custody. He was arrested after Amanda was hit during an all night interrogation in which the police suggested to her that Patrick was the killer based on African hair found on the victim (both Patrick and Rudy are black) and a text message the night of the crime which police incorrectly interpreted as an appointment between Amanda and Patrick.

So overall another bust for the prosecution as nothing emerged that suggests Amanda was involved. Please continue to invite your friends to our Cause. Much more to come. '

Mr Maresca has NOT been appointed by anybody else but the Kercher family who has chosen to file a civil suit. Mr Maresca is on the list of attorneys recommended by the UK consulate in Florence and he is NOT a "local", but living and practicing in Florence. Mr Maresca is NOT going to be paid if Amanda is found guilty, he is being paid by the Kerchers regardless. Dr Lalli has been fired because he leaked news to the press, NOT because of the autopsy results.

Sometimes I wonder if there's a limit to the creativity of some FOA supporters in fabricating fact, but I guess not. What Kelly wrote is more than enough to be be rolling on the floor laughing, if this wasn't such an horrific crime.


Thanks Nicky for a succinct shred of yet another FOA "spin" that is nothing but a bald-faced lie!
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:43 pm   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:
Wistar wrote:
The FOA may have disbanded, but Kelly's still at it! From the Free Amanda Knox cause on facebook:

'This weekend in Court was indeed a very sad time as pictures of the victim, Meredith Kercher, were reviewed and the circumstances of her death discussed. Amanda simply placed her head on the desk unable to view the gruesome images of her murdered friend.

Because this section of the trial was held behind closed doors out of respect to the Kercher family all information is being relayed by the attorneys. Much of the press coverage is based on comments by the Kercher family attorney, a local named Francesco Maresca. He was not hired by the Kercher family but appointed by the Italian government to represent them; and he only gets paid if Amanda is found guilty. So he has lots of reasons to spin information against her and has often been seen side by side with prosecutor Mignini at press conferences. Unlike the prosecution the defense makes only brief statements to the press preferring to argue the case in Court rather than trying the accused in the tabloid media.

This weekend we heard from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, Dr. Lali. He was unable to confirm that the victim was raped or that there were multiple attackers. Because this has always been his position he was fired early in the investigation by prosecutor Mignini who then brought in medical examiners from Rome. These second examiners only worked off pictures as Meredith’s body had already been returned to England by the time they were brought in. Not surprisingly, Mignini’s hand picked examiners backed his view that there was sexual violence and multiple attackers; and Mr. Maresca championed this to the media today. Amanda goes free if it can be shown that there was only one attacker.

Amanda’s lawyers said that their own medical experts will demonstrate the errors in the conclusions of the hand picked examiners. And of course, proof of sexual violence and multiple attackers does not prove Amanda’s involvement. There is unknown finger print and DNA evidence of others at the scene and it is certainly possible that Rudy Guede worked with others.

Speaking of Rudy he appeared in Court, refused to look at Amanda or Raffaele, and then refused to answer any questions. Patrick Lumumba, Amanda’s former employer who is suing her for slander, had nothing but nice things to say about Amanda but described at great length his abuse while in police custody. He was arrested after Amanda was hit during an all night interrogation in which the police suggested to her that Patrick was the killer based on African hair found on the victim (both Patrick and Rudy are black) and a text message the night of the crime which police incorrectly interpreted as an appointment between Amanda and Patrick.

So overall another bust for the prosecution as nothing emerged that suggests Amanda was involved. Please continue to invite your friends to our Cause. Much more to come. '

Mr Maresca has NOT been appointed by anybody else but the Kercher family who has chosen to file a civil suit. Mr Maresca is on the list of attorneys recommended by the UK consulate in Florence and he is NOT a "local", but living and practicing in Florence. Mr Maresca is NOT going to be paid if Amanda is found guilty, he is being paid by the Kerchers regardless. Dr Lalli has been fired because he leaked news to the press, NOT because of the autopsy results.

Sometimes I wonder if there's a limit to the creativity of some FOA supporters in fabricating fact, but I guess not. What Kelly wrote is more than enough to be be rolling on the floor laughing, if this wasn't such an horrific crime.


Well said bella Nicki!!
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:08 pm   Post subject: For RG... 2nd November?   

What Rudy Guede in his latest letter says about the night of the crime.

... I think that I have spoken clearly to the investigators and judges that have heard me, of what had happened and what I have heard and seen the night of November 2 ...

...This trial process is not mine, process in which I think is about time that the people, who until now have always lied and continue to do so, admit the evil they have done and continue to do for Meredith and me...



Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:13 pm   Post subject: Mea culpa   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
This interview was repudiated by Lumumba some time ago. He even appeared on Italian television to explain that he was misquoted. So no, it isn't a good source. And your instinct about tabloids is the right one. Nearly every single time we have found a source to be problematic, it is because the information was published in a tabloid. If it were up to me, I would require that people avoid quoting from them, taking anything they say as valid, or even wasting time reading them. This doesn't mean everything in them is false. Just that you need to beware of the obviously sensationalistic stuff.


SB,

I was focused on finding the reference to Lumumba's wife which popped up in the article, but shouldn't have gone any farther. I DO know better than to trust the Daily Mail (once you've questioned it, the article seems to be nearly a complete fabrication rather than what could be called a "misquote"). I seem to remember now that someone, probably FOA or Frank, accused him of taking pay for the interview. Lumumba is such an interesting figure and his early wrongful arrest, before he was really in the public awareness, did darken his image--as he himself has described--to the point of ruining his business. But I think he's come back to his previous high regard as a sort of a charming, local hero and a real friend to Meredith's memory. (And not letting it drag him down to their level, but expressing an almost saintly public near-forgiveness for AK. I think I wanted to hear those bad remarks about Amanda! That's where sensationalism finds its audience...)

No more tabloids, I promise. I fear for my brain.

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:48 pm   Post subject:    

Zopi wrote:

I just read from Nesweek: "Maresca says that while he is sure the accused did not go into Kercher's room with the intent to kill her, there is ample evidence proving that what started as a game ended in her tragic murder. "Kids this age are all into quick thrills," he told NEWSWEEK. "What started as a threat or a game to scare Mez escalated to violence and ended in murder.""

I can only admire more MK's family, I see the Kerchers are opening a big door to AK&RS&RG... I hope they can see it.

Z.


Hi Zopi

I'm struggling to get my head round this. I'd agree it looks like an open invitation to confess to manslaughter. It's inconceivable that Maresca hasn't cleared this with the family first so why would they settle for Maresca's "truth" (which reads a bit like a middle-aged man's indulgence of youthful excess) and possibly lenient sentences as a result ?

The only reason I can come up with and it's a sad one is that the lengthy trial is having serious effects on Mrs Kercher's already fragile health and they've instructed him to try and get an early closure whatever the cost. I hope I'm wrong.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:50 pm   Post subject:    

"...This trial process is not mine, process in which I think is about time that the people, who until now have always lied and continue to do so, admit the evil they have done and continue to do for Meredith and me... "

Oh, I'll cry my eyes out for poor Rudy. :D
It took him a couple of months to remember that he had seen Amanda, another couple of months that he had seen Raffaele and now he had another year to make up his mind and then he came up with this.

After this non-testimony I am completely satisfied that he had got the 30 years sentence.
He deserves every second of it.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: Rudy's Handwritten Letter   

Catnip wrote:
Tara wrote:
Rudy's handwritten letter...It's about the 6th article down on the page:

LA REPUBLICCA RUDY'S LETTER


Tara,

I found the image of the letter.
Rudy is right-handed, the writing is almost scribble, and the fax the letter came through on chops off about half a word or so on the left margin.

The phrasing used is very legalistic and formulaic for a 20-yr-old (but the spelling and grammar is as expected), so I think it might have been dictated (in parts at least), or he has picked up the stock legal phrases and is trying to use them to his best advantage.
I'll try and do a full translation, but the gist of it is:

Quote:
...I've always told the truth...
...I suffered the trauma of seeing a girl die in my arms...
...I ask myself, why this intention to cite me as a witness if they discounted my words...
...I intend to avail myself of the right to not respond...


I remember an interview posted with Walter Biscotti where he talked about Rudy. I found my post back on the old True Crime Board:

Quote:
Tara

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: Interview with Biscotti

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BISCOTTI INTERVIEW

At the end, it looks like Biscotti says that Rudy is "quiet/calm and determined". Some of his activities in prison are studying law and writing, and he's "serene".


Maybe Rudy Guede has picked up some legalese in his law studies! :lol:

He has 30 years to perfect his new found career...

Thanks Catnip!
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:24 pm   Post subject: Stink eye   

Rhonda wrote:
stewarthome2000 wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Stewart,
When Guede walked into court, were you present?
I am interested as I would like to know what the reaction of Sollecito was on seeing someone he has been accused of knowing but maintains he's never met before. Again sorry, perhaps he met him for the first time at the pre-trial hearing...


Yes, I was there. He walked in, not in handcuffs, and never looked at RS or AK, or anyone for that matter. He took the stand and before ya knew it he was on his way out the door. He looked no one in the eye. No reaction from RS or AK



I find this so strange. Perhaps they were all told not to react, but even if they didn't know each other how could they not want to look their accuser in the eye. After all, they are basically pointing the finger at each other. If I were any of them I wouldn't be able to take my eyes off the the person that I felt was putting me at the center of this horrible crime.


Rhonda, I couldn't agree more with you. I know I'd be glaring at the person(s) responsible for my 1 1/2 years of incarceration if I had nothing to do with the murder. :shock:

I wouldn't doubt for a minute that Guede, Knox and Sollecito are "coached" by their legal teams. I read in some of the Italian press that Sollecito actually shed some tears in the closed hearings this weekend. And we know Knox's fine talents as an actress in her recent prison film debut! :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:19 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
MikeMCSG wrote:

The only reason I can come up with and it's a sad one is that the lengthy trial is having serious effects on Mrs Kercher's already fragile health and they've instructed him to try and get an early closure whatever the cost. I hope I'm wrong.

Also hope you're wrong about the Arline Kerchers vitality. Where does this rumor come from? I'm actually more concerned about Meredith's father...
Imho the Kerchers act in the right way to build a "bridge of gold" for the accused. AK, RG (and RS?) are still kids, just look at Amanda. My 12 year old niece is more mature than she is. Or Rudy. And they're facing a draconic sentence, italy is so much tougher with penalties than e.g. the Uk.

(If the-Machine reads this and already has started to write what they've done to Mez: Stop! I'm completely with you! But i do think everybody earns a second chance after say maximum 20 to 25 years in prison. Don't they?)
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:31 pm   Post subject:    

re-iterating what Nick Pisa has said, but here's Tom Kington from the Observer (the Guardian on Sunday)

Meredith Kercher was victim of group sex attack, Italian court told

Two experts giving evidence to a Perugia court yesterday backed a theory that murdered British student Meredith Kercher was the victim of a group sex attack.

Evidence given by police doctor Vincenza Liviero and gynaecologist Mauro Marchionni supported the argument of prosecutors who are seeking to convict American student Amanda Knox, 21, and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 25, of the killing of Kercher, who was found semi-naked with her throat slashed in November 2007.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:38 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
MikeMCSG wrote:

The only reason I can come up with and it's a sad one is that the lengthy trial is having serious effects on Mrs Kercher's already fragile health and they've instructed him to try and get an early closure whatever the cost. I hope I'm wrong.

Also hope you're wrong about the Arline Kerchers vitality. Where does this rumor come from? I'm actually more concerned about Meredith's father...
Imho the Kerchers act in the right way to build a "bridge of gold" for the accused. AK, RG (and RS?) are still kids, just look at Amanda. My 12 year old niece is more mature than she is. Or Rudy. And they're facing a draconic sentence, italy is so much tougher with penalties than e.g. the Uk.

(If the-Machine reads this and already has started to write what they've done to Mez: Stop! I'm completely with you! But i do think everybody earns a second chance after say maximum 20 to 25 years in prison. Don't they?)



Hi petafly

Mrs Kercher's health is not a rumor; it was the reason Meredith had 2 phones. That it could be the reason behind Mr Maresca's comments is my own speculation.

Don't be too hard on TM - he/she posts those details when someone tries to sanitise the nature of the crime not necessarily to support draconian punishment.
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:30 pm   Post subject:    

Do you mean, Mez' british phone was solely a emergency phone? Oh...
Thx for info!
Quote:
Don't be too hard on TM - he/she posts those details when someone tries to sanitise the nature of the crime not necessarily to support draconian punishment.

Wasn't my intention to make that connection. If TM wouldn't do the job, i would do it!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:47 pm   Post subject: Cal's Post   

I'm just copying over a post by new poster 'Cal', who posted this in the 'Polls' forum by mistake:


Cal wrote:
Posted: 05 Apr 2009 03:15 pm Post subject: Motive

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am having trouble with the "refusal to participate in a sex game" theory. I feel that there might have been an argument that precipitated the attack. Perhaps Meridith caught them stealing and tried to call the police or got into a verbal altercation with them. Once they had put their hands on her, if they didn't kill her they would have gone to jail for assault. I just can't see that having had a relativly friendly relationship before, the other 3 would turn on her in such a violent manner unless there was some precipitating factor. I don't know, it all seems so bizarre...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:18 pm   Post subject:    

We all have different beliefs about rehabilitation.

Life is sacred. Meredith's life was sacred. I believe in retribution. I believe that anyone found guilty of Meredith's cruel and sadistic murder should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Life in prison is nothing compared to what they did to Meredith.

The Kerchers will live in their own private hell for the rest of their lives. Special times of the year like Christmas and birthdays will never be the same. Meredith's birthday should have always been a time of celebration. Instead it will probably a particularly painful day for her family.

I seriously doubt whether there is any treatment for people like Knox, Sollecito and Guede. I'm not opposed to rehabilitation in all cases. For example, if Meredith had been killed by single blow to the head with a bottle during a heated, drunken row with Knox, then I'd agree that that Knox should have the opportunity to be rehabilitated after serving a lengthy prison sentence.

This case is different. Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured and had a knife plunged through her neck. She was left to die slowly and in agony. Sometimes, I try to picture the scene inside the cottage that night. It's bad enough, just imagining it.

Knox and Sollecito have done their best to get away with Meredith's murder. It seems that they were excited and thrilled by what they did. There is not a flicker of remorse or regret. 15 months later and they are still lying through their teeth. They are monsters. They forfeited any right to parole or early release by what they did to Meredith on 1 November.

Knox, Sollecito and Guede still have the gift of life behind bars. They can still socialise, read books, watch television, play games, eat, drink, exercise and speak to their families.

They stole Meredith's life from her. Meredith will never grow old. She will never get married, have children or have the opportunity to fulfil her all dreams. Meredith would have touched the lives of the children she taught.

Meredith's friends cried in the police station whilst Amanda Knox laughed and joked with Raffaele Sollecito, she pulled silly faces and did cartwheels. Rudy Guede went disco dancing after he had sexually assaulted and killed Meredith.

There has to be a price to pay.


Last edited by The Machine on Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:33 pm   Post subject:    

Please, can one of the moderators remove my previous message entirely? I did something wrong and pasted in my entire computer screen instead of just the message itself. I am sorry to be so clumsy. I am reproducing the message itself here:

Dear Machine,

This is already old hat (one day ago!) but the Bard's remark that the prosecution lawyers are also paid was not a reaction to anything you said about Maresca or an error in naming his actual position. It was a reaction to your sarcastic "I hate to break this to you, but the defence lawyers are paid to say Knox and Sollecit are innocent. Forgive me for being a little cynical."

I must say that I am amazed to have learned from you that Amanda's prison diary was leaked by her family. Are they crazy? I thought police had taken it from her and leaked it to the Italian papers. Why on earth would her family want to publicize that embarrassing document full of artificial observations sounding fearfully like lies ("All the details of that evening are coming back to me now..."), shamefully -- or shamelessly -- lacking in feeling and emotion, foolish and superficial, and cherry on the cake, riddled with ignorant spelling errors that destroy once and for all the ridiculous "brilliant student" image that has been painted of her. (Brilliant students do not systematically write "halerious" for "hilarious" or other similar... Brilliant students do not stammer "in broken Italian" after two years of university study... Brilliant people, students or otherwise, do not choose to write down their innermost thoughts in a sticky-fake, articifially infantile tone...)

I honestly would never have guessed that Amanda's family would want anyone to read that. Hum.


(EDIT, Moderator Note: Michael - Done! :) )
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:50 pm   Post subject: TV 7 report   

Did any of our Italian speakers see this TV 7 report? I watched it (of course couldn't understand!) but they had a criminologist, the woman who wrote the book from Corriere della Sera, interviews with Nara, Rudy's gradeschool principal?, Chris and Edda Mellas, Curt Knox, "Amico" of Sollecito's, Ghirga (or Maori), Gentile, Giulia, a lengthy chat with Curatolo on his bench with good shots of the basketball court and more.

Lots of court video and the music was cool. Sure wish I could understand Italian!

Here's the link:

TV 7, APRIL 3, 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:07 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Knox and Sollecito have done their best to get away with Meredith's murder. It seems that they were excited and thrilled by what they did. .


The Machine, this is so very true. It's astonishing anyone could behave the way they did at the police station. Also, it's improbable one would go out and buy sexy underwear and talk about hot sex the day after their roomie was murdered and sexually assaulted. It defies credulity.

Another aspect of this case which interests me is the two different approaches that the Sollecito and Knox families are taking in regards to their children. One family is trying to "fix it" in a very familial, hands-on approach (and possibly corruptive) and the other has chosen "not to believe it" in a disjointed, PR sort of way.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline a shy reader


Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:31 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:22 pm   Post subject:    

Hi, and thanks to Skeptical Bystander for the welcome and also thanks to other replies to my post. I just want to add that I don't think either that this murder could have been the result of just an ordinary prank among undisturbed pals. I think that if the assault began as a "prank" it was a sick, sadistic prank which was already a kind of violence, or a way of rationalizing taking a step toward even more overt violence. The reason I find the "prank" rumor credible is because it's such a strange story, it's hard to imagine someone making it up; and it's also a cruel and very disturbed, aggressive, non-funny and strikingly unusual kind of "joke" to play. Especially for a girl or woman to play on her female housemate.
Top Profile 

Offline Giustizia


Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:13 pm

Posts: 113

Location: New York City

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:50 pm   Post subject: RG keeps quiet   

I can't understand why RG didn't testify on Saturday. Another poster pointed out some time ago that the two suspects (RS and AK) and Rudy are like an isoceles triangle: equally culpable, and dependent on the other two not to break, so that together the three of them, who each witnessed each other, can claim: I wasn't there, and I don't know who did it.

If I were Rudy, and I had been imprisoned for thirty years for a crime I didn't commit, I am CERTAIN I would testify, and tell the absolute TRUTH. Even if I were guilty, if there were two others who were part of the crime, I'd take them down with me. By not testifying, he's taking a chance that something outrageous happens during the trial - not only RS and AK getting off, but some quirk of law that then allows him freedom.

Then again, because of the nature of Italian law, RG has an automatic appeal, so it seems that his lawyer's defense strategy is a wait-and-see approach. RG's lawyer wants to see what happens w/RS and AK's trial before his client says anything else.
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:26 am   Post subject: Re: RG keeps quiet   

Giustizia wrote:
I can't understand why RG didn't testify on Saturday. Another poster pointed out some time ago that the two suspects (RS and AK) and Rudy are like an isoceles triangle: equally culpable, and dependent on the other two not to break, so that together the three of them, who each witnessed each other, can claim: I wasn't there, and I don't know who did it.

If I were Rudy, and I had been imprisoned for thirty years for a crime I didn't commit, I am CERTAIN I would testify, and tell the absolute TRUTH. Even if I were guilty, if there were two others who were part of the crime, I'd take them down with me. By not testifying, he's taking a chance that something outrageous happens during the trial - not only RS and AK getting off, but some quirk of law that then allows him freedom.

Then again, because of the nature of Italian law, RG has an automatic appeal, so it seems that his lawyer's defense strategy is a wait-and-see approach. RG's lawyer wants to see what happens w/RS and AK's trial before his client says anything else.


IMHO RG cannot say anything against AK&RS because he is saying he wasn't involved in the crime. Also I think he doesn't want to 'alborotar el avispero' because they can also have a lot to say about RG.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:56 am   Post subject: Re: RG keeps quiet   

Giustizia wrote:
If I were Rudy, and I had been imprisoned for thirty years for a crime I didn't commit, I am CERTAIN I would testify, and tell the absolute TRUTH. Even if I were guilty, if there were two others who were part of the crime, I'd take them down with me. By not testifying, he's taking a chance that something outrageous happens during the trial - not only RS and AK getting off, but some quirk of law that then allows him freedom.


Guede and Biscotti have to be 99.9% certain that Knox and Sollecito will be convicted. They understand ALL of the evidence and the counter-arguments, and are in an excellent position to predict how the Italian court will respond.

A successful appeal by Guede, including a claim of complete innocence, hinges entirely on Knox and Sollecito being convicted. If they are not convicted Guede/Biscotti may as well not even go forward with the appeal because it all comes back to Guede.

Testimony from Guede (that would include an eyewitness account from someone who claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the murder) would surely be damaging to the Knox and Sollecito defense. But it would also give the prosecution and defense lawyers opportunities to punch holes in Guede's story in open court that would not be helpful to Guede's appeal.

Testifying in the hot media spotlight of the current courtroom environment would be viewed by Biscotti as a completely necessary risk if there were any possibility of Knox and Sollectio being found innocent. However, they made the bold decision to not take that risk and Guede/Biscotti's decision should therefore be viewed as a very strong indicator of how this trial will be resolved.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 am   Post subject:    

Steve Huff just alerted me:

Quote:
ROME (Reuters) - A 6.7 magnitude earthquake struck central Italy Monday about 53 miles northeast of Rome, the U.S. Geological Survey reported.

A Reuters correspondent in Rome said he and his family had been woken by the quake.

No other details were immediately available.



More from the NY Times (Rachel Donadio filed the story - she wrote one article for the NY Times on this case):

Quote:
At least six people, four of them children, died and others were injured when an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.3 shook central Italy early Monday morning, seriously damaging buildings in the mountainous Abruzzo Region east of Rome, officials told Italian news media.


The situation is “extremely critical, as many buildings have collapsed,” Luca Spoletini, a spokesman for Italy’s Civil Protection Agency, told the ANSA news agency.

Two people died in Fossa, a town near L’Aquila, Italy’s SKY 24 television channel reported.

Four children died after being taken to a hospital after their house collapsed, ANSA reported.

The quake struck around 3:30 a.m. and could be felt as far away as Rome, some 95 miles to the west, where it rattled furniture and set off car alarms.

Part of a student dormitory, a church tower and other historic buildings were reported to have collapsed, ANSA said. L’Aquila cathedral was damaged.

Electricity, phone and gas lines were also reported damaged, as aftershocks continued.

Hundreds of L’Aquila’s 80,000 residents rushed from their houses and gathered in the central Piazza Duomo, where nuns from a local convent attended to frightened residents, ANSA reported.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:11 am   Post subject: Re: RG keeps quiet   

Fly by Night wrote:
Giustizia wrote:
If I were Rudy, and I had been imprisoned for thirty years for a crime I didn't commit, I am CERTAIN I would testify, and tell the absolute TRUTH. Even if I were guilty, if there were two others who were part of the crime, I'd take them down with me. By not testifying, he's taking a chance that something outrageous happens during the trial - not only RS and AK getting off, but some quirk of law that then allows him freedom.


Guede and Biscotti have to be 99.9% certain that Knox and Sollecito will be convicted. They understand ALL of the evidence and the counter-arguments, and are in an excellent position to predict how the Italian court will respond.

A successful appeal by Guede, including a claim of complete innocence, hinges entirely on Knox and Sollecito being convicted. If they are not convicted Guede/Biscotti may as well not even go forward with the appeal because it all comes back to Guede.

Testimony from Guede (that would include an eyewitness account from someone who claims to have seen Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the murder) would surely be damaging to the Knox and Sollecito defense. But it would also give the prosecution and defense lawyers opportunities to punch holes in Guede's story in open court that would not be helpful to Guede's appeal.

Testifying in the hot media spotlight of the current courtroom environment would be viewed by Biscotti as a completely necessary risk if there were any possibility of Knox and Sollectio being found innocent. However, they made the bold decision to not take that risk and Guede/Biscotti's decision should therefore be viewed as a very strong indicator of how this trial will be resolved.


Hi FBN this is all plausible but do beware of placing too much faith in Biscotti's judgement. This is the guy who went for a shortform trial and achieved a thirty year sentence for his client when the prosecution were asking for twenty-five.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:19 am   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
We all have different beliefs about rehabilitation.

Life is sacred. Meredith's life was sacred. I believe in retribution. I believe that anyone found guilty of Meredith's cruel and sadistic murder should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Life in prison is nothing compared to what they did to Meredith.

The Kerchers will live in their own private hell for the rest of their lives. Special times of the year like Christmas and birthdays will never be the same. Meredith's birthday should have always been a time of celebration. Instead it will probably a particularly painful day for her family.

I seriously doubt whether there is any treatment for people like Knox, Sollecito and Guede. I'm not opposed to rehabilitation in all cases. For example, if Meredith had been killed by single blow to the head with a bottle during a heated, drunken row with Knox, then I'd agree that that Knox should have the opportunity to be rehabilitated after serving a lengthy prison sentence.

This case is different. Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured and had a knife plunged through her neck. She was left to die slowly and in agony. Sometimes, I try to picture the scene inside the cottage that night. It's bad enough, just imagining it.

Knox and Sollecito have done their best to get away with Meredith's murder. It seems that they were excited and thrilled by what they did. There is not a flicker of remorse or regret. 15 months later and they are still lying through their teeth. They are monsters. They forfeited any right to parole or early release by what they did to Meredith on 1 November.

Knox, Sollecito and Guede still have the gift of life behind bars. They can still socialise, read books, watch television, play games, eat, drink, exercise and speak to their families.

They stole Meredith's life from her. Meredith will never grow old. She will never get married, have children or have the opportunity to fulfil her all dreams. Meredith would have touched the lives of the children she taught.

Meredith's friends cried in the police station whilst Amanda Knox laughed and joked with Raffaele Sollecito, she pulled silly faces and did cartwheels. Rudy Guede went disco dancing after he had sexually assaulted and killed Meredith.

There has to be a price to pay.


Machine

I find it difficult to diasgree with this. Nevertheless I think that throwing them out on the streets bewildered in their fifties after institutionalisation might actually be harder than a whole life behind bars.
Top Profile 

Offline lady garden


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:46 pm

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:32 am   Post subject:    

I hope they get their retribution in prison-no segregation would be ideal-hopefully they don't have too many supporters in the inside
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:13 am   Post subject:    

MikeMCSG wrote:
I find it difficult to diasgree with this. Nevertheless I think that throwing them out on the streets bewildered in their fifties after institutionalisation might actually be harder than a whole life behind bars.


Hi Mike,

It might be harder for Knox, Sollecito and Guede to be thrown out on the streets, but you cannot just release people who are evil and/or psychopathic/criminally insane because there is a very strong likelihood that they could reoffend. The saftey of the general public should always be paramount.

It's worth revisiting the reasons why the judges refused to grant Knox and Sollecito bail:

The Italian Supreme Court to Raffaele Sollecito:

"Your danger to society matches your weak character and your personality, which we can't define in terms of harmless juvenile stereotypes, since the context includes the habitual use of drugs."

Claudia Matteini to Amanda Knox:

"The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a 'strange' enjoyment of her suffering.

Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who --for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints-- was subject to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person.
In such a situation the danger of repetition of the crime is certainly very high and can't be considered to have diminished due to the mere passage of time, during which -- as a reminder -- you have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life
.
"

"your conduct after the murder is symptomatic of a personality which, considering your young age, provokes no small measure of dismay and apprehension, considering how extremely easy it was for you to control your states of mind"

Italian Supreme Court to Amanda Knox:

"The restrictive measure cannot be denied due to the gravity of the crimes; your negative personality, which we have deducted from the investigation and from your behavior during investigation and court hearings"

Judge Massimo Riccarelli to Amanda Knox:

The American girl suspected of murdering British student Meredith Kercher is “crafty and cunning” and could reoffend, an Italian judge has said.

Amanda Knox, who calls herself Foxy Knoxy, is “unattached to reality” and her alleged role in the killing was “by no means secondary”, it was claimed.

Judge Massimo Riccarelli gave the damning characterisation of the 20-year-old in a report in which he outlined why he refused bail to her and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.

He said the "severity of the proof to hand legitimised the custodial measure applied to the pair who are accused of murder and sexual violence."

Judge Riccarelli wrote, in the conclusion to a report released four days after the suspects’ bail bid was turned down, Knox was "privy of any refraining inhibitions and could reoffend."

"From the reconstruction there is the concrete possibility of reoffending and the [alleged] role of Amanda Knox was by no means secondary," he wrote.

The judge described her as "crafty and cunning" with a "multi-faced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated, one would say fatal capacity" to repeat her offence
. (The Daily Telegraph 7 December, 2007).


Last edited by The Machine on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:27 am, edited 7 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:14 am   Post subject: Google Street View   

Hi Everyone,

For some time I've been meaning to getting around to populating PMF's Photo Album forum. It's still on my 'To Do' list. Since it's been empty for months, many of you may not have visited it for a long time. As a FYI, PMF member 'Mariopuzu' has created a thread there and uploaded screenshots from Google Street view of the cottage and the approach to it HERE This will be extremely useful for those members and guests who may have a very low spec PC or the technophobes among us, who are unable to use the Google software. Visitors who'd like to have a bash at using it, along with basic instructions on how to locate the cottage, can find the tool HERE in the 'Forum Tools' thread in 'The Murder of Meredith Kercher' forum.

What is most poignant for me, on having viewed the screenshots Mariopuzu posted, is that they show the cottage all overgrown, with the windows and doors all covered with the police seals. It may be, that in the coming months or years, the cottage, now tainted with its horrific and tragic history, may be converted to some other use (commercial, storage, etc,) or knocked down and the land used for something else, but the Google guys just happened to pick the time to cover Perugia for their software during the saddest period in the cottage's history, freezing it in that moment. Landscapes change and I've no idea if Google have set a time frame to retake their city scape pictures after a set amount of years or if they ever will again. It is therefore most poignant that for many years to come or even indefinitely, anyone who travels through Perugia using Google Street View will pass by the cottage as it is now, long after the seals have been ripped off and the paint brushes applied or the bulldozers have moved in. In Google World, the cottage has been frozen in time.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:12 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
"Your danger to society matches your weak character and your personality, which we can't define in terms of harmless juvenile stereotypes, since the context includes the habitual use of drugs."

Machine, you're quoting pretrial statements of the prosecution, all on the assumption of full guiltiness, which is imho not fair anymore. These statements were used/necessary? to justify a more than a year imprisonment and a following trial for murder. They are much too harsh for what we actually know what happened (by now) and i assume the reason why these statements are this way was the immense pressure to let them go.

I'm very careful to claim someone is evil and/or psychopathic/criminally insane and therefore must rot in jail forever because (s)he'll always be, even if my gut instinct tells me so. I doubt anybody is easily capable of judging them right. Therefor we have legal science these days, and they try to be as righteous to the accused as they can be, even at the risk of not avenging the victim the way we'd like (Avenging the victim is not the first purpose of this trial, although most people think it is. It ain't "eye for an eye" no more.)
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:49 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Machine, you're quoting pretrial statements of the prosecution, all on the assumption of full guiltiness, which is imho not fair anymore. These statements were used/necessary? to justify a more than a year imprisonment and a following trial for murder. They are much too harsh for what we actually know what happened (by now) and i assume the reason why these statements are this way was the immense pressure to let them go.


I'm not quoting ANY statements of the prosecution. The statements were made by judges who examined the evidence and listened carefully to the prosectors and the defence lawers. The judges didn't make ANY assumptions. They based their decisions on the evidence presented to them and concluded there were serious indications of guilt.

Why are these statements too harsh? Knox, Sollecito and Guede were examined by psychologists in prison and the judges would have had access to the psychological reports.

petafly wrote:
I'm very careful to claim someone is evil and/or psychopathic/criminally insane and therefore must rot in jail forever because (s)he'll always be, even if my gut instinct tells me so. I doubt anybody is easily capable of judging them right. Therefor we have legal science these days, and they try to be as righteous to the accused as they can be, even at the risk of not avenging the victim the way we'd like (Avenging the victim is not the first purpose of this trial, although most people think it is. It ain't "eye for an eye" no more.)


The people who sexually assaulted, tortured and butchered Meredith are evil. I make no apologies for writing that. It's abundantly clear that all three are psychologically disturbed. We don't know as yet what psychological disorders they have.

An eye for an eye would mean that Knox, Sollecito and Guede are sexually assaulted and killed. Nobody is advocating that. The punishment for murdering someone is life in prison.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:20 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Machine

Of course if people are dangerously insane they should not be released into the community at any time until there is professional confidence that they no longer pose a risk (not foolproof I know).

However , despite the hints in the pre-trial reports you've quoted above this trial is proceeding on the basis that the 2 defendants are fully sane and responsible for their actions. Presumably both have been examined and formally declared to be fit to plead. Given the nature of the families involved I would also guess that neither defence team would be allowed to go for an insanity defence.

I would be interested if someone with more knowledge could answer the question - if neither prosecution nor defence are claiming insanity can the judge order psychiatric reports and make that call him/herself ?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:45 pm   Post subject:    

MikeMCSG wrote:

I would be interested if someone with more knowledge could answer the question - if neither prosecution nor defence are claiming insanity can the judge order psychiatric reports and make that call him/herself ?


Hi Mike,

I'll go through the Penal Code and find it, if no-one knows straight off.

In this case though, the defence to the charges has already been entered as: "I wasn't there".

Not knowing the difference between right and wrong (which is what the defence of unsound mind relates to) has already been undermined by the staging of the burglary and the rape scene, so it would be an unlikely defence stratagem.

You may be thinking about mental and emotional state on the length and type of sentencing. I'll find out about that, too.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:58 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S. wrote:
fast pete wrote:
The one reason I can think of for wanting to do that manouever (rather than simply open the gate it was was closed, and drive right is face-forward) is to load something in the car by the lift-up door at the back of the car (an A3 has one) and get out of there in a hurry.

Or perhaps not load something in - but still be out of there in a hurry. Premeditation (again) anyone?


The best I can think of is stealing the guy's plants from downstairs.

We've talked about the value of the plants on this board before.

Defintely a few hundred euro if they were anywhere near mature. (they were grown under lights).

I'm sure they'd fit in the boot(trunk) of a car.




Questions and more questions

Partway through Amelie at Raffaele’s place, Amanda answers the door to a young female medical student who does domestic work for Raffaele. She’s come to say that she does not need Raffaele to give her a lift any more. Amanda says that he’s in the bathroom. The medical student does not come inside. She notices that Amanda is smiling and happy, sufficiently memorable enough that she mentions it in her testimony.

Less than an hour later Curatolo spots Amanda and Raffaele as a couple having an earnest discussion in Piazza Grimana with enough of their attention directed towards via della Pergola that Curatolo himself eventually goes to see what they were looking at.

Questions. Many questions. I ask myself: what would a young couple likely be having an earnest discussion about? (Did they even watch the end of the film? Or did they forget?)

It’s too early in the relationship to be discussing marriage or children, and too serious to be about what kind of pizza to have for dinner tomorrow. One partner has one strong view, and the other has an opposing view, otherwise what is there to be earnest about?

Serious enough to be about money? Quick money? Why quick? Cannabis or alcohol doesn’t create such yearning, do they? Why the interest in the house at via della Pergola? No one was there. Amanda could get in – she had a key, at least to the upstairs apartment.

So were they waiting for Meredith to get back? Because Meredith had something they needed? Did Meredith have Giacomo’s keys to the downstairs apartment (where his private stash of cannabis plants were)? Did Meredith carry Giacomo’s keys with her (in her purse, perhaps? Did she take her purse with her that evening?), or did she lock his keys away in her room, along with her share of next month’s rent money in the drawer of her nightstand? No one was in the cottage that evening, the cottage was empty, so would she have thought about whether she should leave her room unlocked? Especially with Amanda floating about? And the temptation of the money?

Why would Amanda say it was normal for Meredith to lock her door, when such a thing was a surprise to Filomena (who said Meredith only locked her door when she went back home to England)? Was Amanda there long enough to have experienced a time that Meredith went home? Did she find or know that Meredith’s door was locked earlier that evening? Did she think that is what Meredith usually did?

Cannabis plants have market value and can be converted to some cash in the right places. Do they have enough value to make a sustained attack on Meredith worthwhile? And such a deeply personal attack? In her own room? Would Meredith not have handed Giacomo’s keys over, even though she was developing a liking for Giacomo? But the rent money would have been a more tempting prize. Its loss might even be claimed back on student insurance if it can be proved it was a burglary. Would the appropriate knife wounds be sufficient evidence? Take that! And that! And that!

Would even the easy money have been enough? Were principles brought into play, raising the stakes? Erasmus versus anti-Erasmus. A battle, a war of souls, between those who succumbed to temptation and those who chose not to? Would Meredith have been brave enough to say, “I’m not going to lie, no matter what you do. I’ll tell them, and they’ll send you back! You’ll see!”

The last thread snaps. No thinking. The mind fragments. Forgetfulness. Stumbling. Emotion. The money is still handy, though. Daylight already.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:17 pm   Post subject:    

MikeMCSG wrote:
Hi Machine

Of course if people are dangerously insane they should not be released into the community at any time until there is professional confidence that they no longer pose a risk (not foolproof I know).

However , despite the hints in the pre-trial reports you've quoted above this trial is proceeding on the basis that the 2 defendants are fully sane and responsible for their actions. Presumably both have been examined and formally declared to be fit to plead. Given the nature of the families involved I would also guess that neither defence team would be allowed to go for an insanity defence.

I would be interested if someone with more knowledge could answer the question - if neither prosecution nor defence are claiming insanity can the judge order psychiatric reports and make that call him/herself ?


I am not an expert on the Italian justice system, but I would assume that it's similar to most other countries in this respect. If they are found guilty and the judge has to consider sentencing, then at that point he could send them for psychiatric evaluation, even if it's not requested by the prosecution or defense, and then perhaps send them to a secure psychiatric institution rather than prison.

I very much doubt that this will happen with AK or RS though. I'm sure they have some psychiatric problems, but not so serious that they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, or unable to understand the consequences of their actions, or that they are suffering from paranoia or delusions, etc.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:53 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:

I would be interested if someone with more knowledge could answer the question - if neither prosecution nor defence are claiming insanity can the judge order psychiatric reports and make that call him/herself ?


Hi Mike,

I'll go through the Penal Code and find it, if no-one knows straight off.

In this case though, the defence to the charges has already been entered as: "I wasn't there".

Not knowing the difference between right and wrong (which is what the defence of unsound mind relates to) has already been undermined by the staging of the burglary and the rape scene, so it would be an unlikely defence stratagem.

You may be thinking about mental and emotional state on the length and type of sentencing. I'll find out about that, too.


Thanks Catnip

It's not unknown here in the UK for someone to be sentenced as a "normal" criminal and then subsequently removed to a secure hospital. I was wondering if the same could happen in Italy.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:59 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
The people who sexually assaulted, tortured and butchered Meredith are evil. I make no apologies for writing that. It's abundantly clear that all three are psychologically disturbed. We don't know as yet what psychological disorders they have.


TM, I am not having a go at you here, as I think you speak for many. But I have to say that as someone who works in the Mental Health field in the area of policy, particularly surrounding mental health discrimination and stigma, I feel uncomfortable with the notion that people with such a severe mental illness that they commit murder, are 'evil'. This is not particularly helpful word when considering psychiatric illness. The majority of those with mental health problems are as peaceable as anyone else. Mental illness is like any other illness. Cancer, diabetes, manic depression, schizophrenia...all just illnesses. Horrific events do occur from time to time, but people who are mentally ill are statistically far more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else.

This is a complex and sensitive area. Anyone who committed this crime is, of course, disturbed in some way. If it turns out that any of them are suffering from a mental illness then I have every faith that the Italian system will deal fairly, and humanely with that individual. There are many reasons why people lose control and act in the way that they did in this instance. We all know and accept, thanks to The Machine's reminders - which I do think are useful - that the crime was particularly horrendous in nature. We are all with TM on this and it is not in dispute. We are all sickened by it. What will be really fascinating to see is what psychiatric reports have been made on all three. I don't myself feel that they are suffering from a mental illness. I think there could well be a personality disorder in Amanda. RS I am less sure. I have not seen enough of Guede to form a judgment on him. In the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis one is indeed left with truly depraved perpetrators.

Many people who are perfectly sane do the most appalling things to others and have no stress reaction to it at all. No PTSD, no bad dreams, nothing. Evil, or there just 'something missing'? That judgment cannot be made yet about this lot. We don't have the evidence yet. They could be 'mad' or they could be 'bad' as the old debate used to go, (before the word 'mad' was banned!) It is beyond our capacity to compute, that is for sure.

For an informed discussion of the psychological issues that may or may not be relevant in this case newcomers should see Miss Represented's excellent site 'Lies Our Mother Told Us'. She has a background in psychology and has posted several very interesting and knowledgeable articles on the site. In particular her discussion of 'group actions' is very relevant i.e group murders, and the escalation of violence when more than one person is involved. I think the sum may well have been greater than the parts in this crime, and a diabolic synergy occurred. But we just don't know enough yet.

Sorry to interupt the discussion, and I am emphatically not having a go at TM, but I do feel passionately that words like 'evil' when related to mental illness should be thought about very carefully. 'Evil' is a word that indeed may apply if a verdict of sane and guilty is arrived at. But the very notion of evil is one that sets apart that individual from the rest of us. If they are sane and guilty then they are no different to the rest of us, which is a far more unsettling notion, n'est pas?

Discuss!
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:05 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Catnip,

You've put forward an intrigung scenario that takes into account the timings that Curatolo thought he saw Knox and Sollecito. Judge Paolo Micheli regarded Curatolo as a reliable and trustworthy witness because he had given evidence at another trial and his testimony helped secure a conviction. It seems certain that Knox and Sollecito were watching the gate of the cottage, checking if the breakdown truck and broken down car had left Via della Pergola and to see if anybody had called the police or the emergency services.

It had crossed my mind that Knox and Sollecito had gone to Piazza Grimana first before going to the cottage. I'm very cautious about believing anything Knox says or writes. However, I believe there are elements of her confession that are factual e.g. she was the cottage when Meredith was murdered and Meredith screamed loudly. The best liars include facts in their otherwise ficitious accounts in order to lend them credibility.

Perhaps, Sollecito and/or Knox had arranged to meet Guede in Piazza Grimana. Knox wrote in her confession that she met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana and then they went to the cottage together. The problem with this scenario is that Curatolo didn't see Guede. I've always thought that Knox and Sollectio must have arrived at the cottage at approximately 9.30pm as the last known human interaction with Sollecito's computer was at 9.10pm. If they went to the Piazza Grimana first, ties in with Curatolo's recollection that he saw them some time after 9.30pm.

I have many questions: Where did they meet up with Guede? Why did they meet up with Guede? Did they have a specific meeting place e.g. Piazza Grimana? Who supplied Knox and Sollecito with their drugs? Sollecito was an habital drug user and he took Class A drugs.

Ragazza Americana speculated that there might have been somebody else involved that night. This is something else that has crossed my mind. I've often wondered if Hekuran Kokomani was Sollecito's dealer and that's why he was in the vicinity of the cottage on 31 October and 1 November. Did they intend to steal Merdith's money and the cannabis plants, thinking that no-one would be at the cottage at 9.30pm?
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:15 pm   Post subject: Re: RG keeps quiet   

MikeMCSG wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Testifying in the hot media spotlight of the current courtroom environment would be viewed by Biscotti as a completely necessary risk if there were any possibility of Knox and Sollectio being found innocent. However, they made the bold decision to not take that risk and Guede/Biscotti's decision should therefore be viewed as a very strong indicator of how this trial will be resolved.


Hi FBN this is all plausible but do beware of placing too much faith in Biscotti's judgement. This is the guy who went for a shortform trial and achieved a thirty year sentence for his client when the prosecution were asking for twenty-five.


Are you saying that Biscotti did not argue the case effectively, or perhaps would have better served Guede with a full trial concurrent with Knox & Sollecito? I hardly think so. From a defense perspective Guede was a lost cause all along. Going forward with the argument that Guede was completely innocent left Biscotti with only one possible strategy: 1. isolate Guede from the others, 2. move Guede through the system first, 3. sit back and watch Knox and Sollecito get convicted, 4. argue in the appeal that the already-convicted Knox and Sollecito were the sole killers.

Will Biscotti's strategy work?
No, but that doesn't make him poor judge of the situation. He has seen all of the evidence and knows his options are severely limited. Just like Knox and Sollecito, the only chance at something approaching a plausible defense comes with having someone else convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Biscotti clearly believes that Knox and Sollecito will be convicted without having Guede take the stand in the current trial.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:52 pm   Post subject:    

The Bard wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to interupt the discussion, and I am emphatically not having a go at TM, but I do feel passionately that words like 'evil' when related to mental illness should be thought about very carefully. 'Evil' is a word that indeed may apply if a verdict of sane and guilty is arrived at. But the very notion of evil is one that sets apart that individual from the rest of us. If they are sane and guilty then they are no different to the rest of us, which is a far more unsettling notion, n'est pas?


I agree with The Bard wholeheartedly. Someone in my family was diagnosed with a severe mental disorder (bipolar) when he was in his early 20's. He is not an evil person, but before he got proper treatment he did things that were scary and menacing. Obviously, the mental state of all three - Guede, Sollecito and Knox - is an important factor to consider. I don't see any of them pleading insanity.

I doubt we'll ever solve the conundrum of whether sane people commit heinous acts. Some would say that such acts attest to the insanity of those who commit them, as in "no one in his or her right mind would ever..."

If it turns out that all three of these people are guilty and that one or more suffer from some mental disorder (bipolar disorder or schizophenia, extreme NPD, etc.) this will not change the fundamentally horrendous nature of the crimes committed against Meredith Kercher. If it turns out that, having committed such atrocities, they then decided to cover them up to mislead investigators, then this shows a degree of callous disregard that is truly shocking.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that the mental state of criminals and the notion of evil are very complex issues that have never been resolved to full satisfaction despite several centuries of debate in literature, philosophy, psychology and religion.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Anyway, I just wanted to say that the mental state of criminals and the notion of evil are very complex issues that have never been resolved to full satisfaction despite several centuries of debate in literature, philosophy, psychology and religion.



My neighborhood makes me think about this complexity of crime and mental illness ALOT. It's full of half-way houses, homeless shelters, clinics…let me tell you, you name the- ethnicity, religion, mental condition, criminal record, sexual orientation, drug addiction, economic group, etc. etc.- they live in my neighborhood: crackheads, refugees, lawyers, sex offenders, yuppies, schizophrenics, the whole world. Especially when it’s warm out I see people on the sidewalks that I have never seen before, read about, heard of, basically unimaginable. Some of these people, because they look different, behave and speak different does not mean they are harmful. Most of the crime in my neighborhood revolves around youth, gangs, muggings, guns. Any fear comes from- not the passing by of someone with an obvious mental illness or a crack addict (though I keep my eyes open) but the- did we just walk through a drug deal, prostitution deal, etc., ie: things that people don’t want witnessed. My neighborhood can look scary but it’s bark is worse than it’s bite. There is also no reason to go to the movies. A neighborhood bar with a window is plenty.

Whatever their mental condition pre-crime I imagine committing murder affected it and also that the time in jail has affected it. Especially for someone like AK who sounds like someone in constant need of male attention.


Re: the earthquake in Italy. Are all the Italian members of PMF ok?


Last edited by Shirley on Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline a shy reader


Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:31 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:17 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to interupt the discussion, and I am emphatically not having a go at TM, but I do feel passionately that words like 'evil' when related to mental illness should be thought about very carefully. 'Evil' is a word that indeed may apply if a verdict of sane and guilty is arrived at. But the very notion of evil is one that sets apart that individual from the rest of us. If they are sane and guilty then they are no different to the rest of us, which is a far more unsettling notion, n'est pas?


I agree with The Bard wholeheartedly. Someone in my family was diagnosed with a severe mental disorder (bipolar) when he was in his early 20's. He is not an evil person, but before he got proper treatment he did things that were scary and menacing. Obviously, the mental state of all three - Guede, Sollecito and Knox - is an important factor to consider. I don't see any of them pleading insanity.

I doubt we'll ever solve the conundrum of whether sane people commit heinous acts. Some would say that such acts attest to the insanity of those who commit them, as in "no one in his or her right mind would ever..."

If it turns out that all three of these people are guilty and that one or more suffer from some mental disorder (bipolar disorder or schizophenia, extreme NPD, etc.) this will not change the fundamentally horrendous nature of the crimes committed against Meredith Kercher. If it turns out that, having committed such atrocities, they then decided to cover them up to mislead investigators, then this shows a degree of callous disregard that is truly shocking.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that the mental state of criminals and the notion of evil are very complex issues that have never been resolved to full satisfaction despite several centuries of debate in literature, philosophy, psychology and religion.


I agree very much with The Bard and Skeptical Bystander. I'm a mental health professional as well, and both during my own childhood--which unfortunately taught me much about both violence and mental illness--and through my professional experience I've seen that mental illness is not the same as evil, and most mentally ill people are not dangerous to anyone but themselves. In fact, mental illnesses are as common as any other kind of illness, with depression and anxiety as widespread as the common cold. I agree that we're primarily talking about violence here, and any role played by mental illness is secondary.

One of the hardest things about abusive crimes such as rape and sadistic violence, for the victims, the survivors and for the community at large, is that such abusers so often are absent or even dead, emotionally and psychologically. The abuser can't be reached, can't be made to feel remorse or even a sense of loss or gravity. Or even a sense that the ones they've harmed truly exist and matter! Punishment just makes them pity themselves more. It's horrifying and infuriating to see how impenetrable an abuser's or murderer's self-absorption and self-centeredness can be. I can see this as evil, but prefer to try to understand it in human terms, bring the offenders down to human size and scale. There's a big difference between empathy and sympathy. It doesn't hurt anything to try to understand empathetically what can lead a person to do horrific violence. One can understand and still condemn the crime and hold the perpetrators accountable.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:48 pm   Post subject: Goofy Alert   

Moderators,

Goofy is about with a Goofy post and a Goofy name full of misleading info in a new thread. :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:03 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:

Quote:
Moderators,

Goofy is about with a Goofy post and a Goofy name full of misleading info in a new thread.


Maybe he finally got tired of playing with himself over at Frank's. Even though I'm sure Harry Wilkens likes to watch! :)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:17 pm   Post subject:    

Sorry, have to go now is late here but I will post this article as it is, in Italian, perhaps someone can translate please. From today's Il Messaggero. It quotes Meredith's mother via their lawyer Francesco Maresca.

Lunedì 06 Aprile 2009 Chiudi
PERUGIA - La promessa arriva dall'Inghilterra, dove l'occhio scuro di una madre guarda la giustizia italiana con il profilo indiano della figlia uccisa la notte dei Santi di due anni fa: «Al momento della sentenza, ci saremo, vogliamo vedere se la giustizia ritiene loro gli assassini della mia Mez».
La madre di Meredith Kercher lo dice a quasi ogni contatto con l'avvocato Francesco Maresca impegnato a seguire per conto della famiglia di Mez le udienze del processo a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox, gli altri due imputati, assieme a Rudy Hermann Guede, accusati di essere gli autori dell'omicidio. Per poi aggiungere: «Non ci è piaciuto come è stata trattata mia figlia in questo processo, come è stata coinvolta nelle storie torbide degli imputati. Meredith era una brava ragazza e l'hanno ammazzata in modo barbaro forse proprio per questo». Maresca è fiducioso: «Il processo è sulla buona strada per l'accertamento della verità».
L'ultima puntata processuale ha visto protagonisti i due consulenti dell'accusa, il ginecologo Mauro Marchionni e il medico legale Vincenza Liviero. Quest'ultima ha parlato di "azione a più mani e di violenza sessuale". Secondo Maresca gli esperti hanno riferito di una "pluralità di lesioni e di causalità diverse".
A suo avviso una "valutazione logica" porta così a ipotizzare l'azione di più persone e un approccio sessuale non consenziente con Mez. Ricostruzione senza prove scientifiche però secondo le difese e l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, uno dei difensori della Knox, che ha parlato di "scontro frontale".
"I consulenti - ha aggiunto - continuano a portare acqua al mulino dell'accusa ma con argomenti privi di scientificità". Ghirga ha sostenuto che non ci sono riscontri della presenza di più persone, ma anche l'arma a suo avviso non è quella individuata dall'accusa (un coltello con tracce genetiche di Meredith e Amanda).
Voci alte invece sulla lettere con cui Rudy ha spiegato la sua volontà a non testimoniare nel processo ad Amanda e Raffaele. : "...avermi chiamato a testimoniare mi sembra una presa in giro...questo è un processo che non mi riguarda, il processo in cui credo sia ora che le persone che fino ad ora hanno sempre mentito e continuano a farlo ammettano il male che hanno versato e continuano a versare a Meredith e a me...".
L'accusa di Rudy è chiarissima: loro mentono quando dicono di non avere ucciso Meredith e sostengono di essere stati a casa di Raffaele la notte del delitto.
Immediata la replica dei legali di Sollecito: "Continuiamo a ritenere che l'azione lesiva sia stata prodotta da un unico soggetto ben conosciuto e riscontrata in una sentenza del gup di Perugia", hanno sottolineato gli avvocati Luca Maori e Marco Brusco facendo riferimento a Guede senza mai nominarlo. L'ha nominato invece Raffaele stesso: Rudy Guede è stato condannato perché è l'unico assassino.
I. Carm. e V.Ug.

http://tinyurl.com/csdj4t
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:17 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
Sorry, have to go now is late here but I will post this article as it is, in Italian, perhaps someone can translate please. From today's Il Messaggero. It quotes Meredith's mother via their lawyer Francesco Maresca.

Lunedì 06 Aprile 2009 Chiudi
PERUGIA - La promessa arriva dall'Inghilterra, dove l'occhio scuro di una madre guarda la giustizia italiana con il profilo indiano della figlia uccisa la notte dei Santi di due anni fa: «Al momento della sentenza, ci saremo, vogliamo vedere se la giustizia ritiene loro gli assassini della mia Mez».
La madre di Meredith Kercher lo dice a quasi ogni contatto con l'avvocato Francesco Maresca impegnato a seguire per conto della famiglia di Mez le udienze del processo a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox, gli altri due imputati, assieme a Rudy Hermann Guede, accusati di essere gli autori dell'omicidio. Per poi aggiungere: «Non ci è piaciuto come è stata trattata mia figlia in questo processo, come è stata coinvolta nelle storie torbide degli imputati. Meredith era una brava ragazza e l'hanno ammazzata in modo barbaro forse proprio per questo». Maresca è fiducioso: «Il processo è sulla buona strada per l'accertamento della verità».
L'ultima puntata processuale ha visto protagonisti i due consulenti dell'accusa, il ginecologo Mauro Marchionni e il medico legale Vincenza Liviero. Quest'ultima ha parlato di "azione a più mani e di violenza sessuale". Secondo Maresca gli esperti hanno riferito di una "pluralità di lesioni e di causalità diverse".
A suo avviso una "valutazione logica" porta così a ipotizzare l'azione di più persone e un approccio sessuale non consenziente con Mez. Ricostruzione senza prove scientifiche però secondo le difese e l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga, uno dei difensori della Knox, che ha parlato di "scontro frontale".
"I consulenti - ha aggiunto - continuano a portare acqua al mulino dell'accusa ma con argomenti privi di scientificità". Ghirga ha sostenuto che non ci sono riscontri della presenza di più persone, ma anche l'arma a suo avviso non è quella individuata dall'accusa (un coltello con tracce genetiche di Meredith e Amanda).
Voci alte invece sulla lettere con cui Rudy ha spiegato la sua volontà a non testimoniare nel processo ad Amanda e Raffaele. : "...avermi chiamato a testimoniare mi sembra una presa in giro...questo è un processo che non mi riguarda, il processo in cui credo sia ora che le persone che fino ad ora hanno sempre mentito e continuano a farlo ammettano il male che hanno versato e continuano a versare a Meredith e a me...".
L'accusa di Rudy è chiarissima: loro mentono quando dicono di non avere ucciso Meredith e sostengono di essere stati a casa di Raffaele la notte del delitto.
Immediata la replica dei legali di Sollecito: "Continuiamo a ritenere che l'azione lesiva sia stata prodotta da un unico soggetto ben conosciuto e riscontrata in una sentenza del gup di Perugia", hanno sottolineato gli avvocati Luca Maori e Marco Brusco facendo riferimento a Guede senza mai nominarlo. L'ha nominato invece Raffaele stesso: Rudy Guede è stato condannato perché è l'unico assassino.
I. Carm. e V.Ug.

http://tinyurl.com/csdj4t

Hi Jools,
thanks for the link. Mrs Kerchers quotes :
"We will be there when the sentence is read, we want to know if justice believes those two are the murderers of my Mez"
"We didn't like the way our daughter has been treated in this trial, the manner she has been dragged into the murky stories of the defendants. Meredith was a good girl, and perhaps this is the reason why she has been murdered in such a horrific way".

The article goes on explaining what LIviero and Marchionni (gynecologist and coroner) stated that Meredith has been attacked by multiple assilants and she has been raped; Rudy's letter is also quoted where he writes "I have nothing to do with this trial, a trial where I believe the time has come for those people who have constantly been lying and still are, to admit their past and present evil actions towards Meredith and me. ."

According to the journalist, Rudy's accusation is very clear: they are lying claiming there were home the night of the murder, and lying when they say they didn't kill Meredith
Top Profile 

Offline Zopi


User avatar


Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Posts: 317

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:37 am   Post subject:    

Thank you Nicky/Jools, nice to read her comments and I'll wait for the detailed translation.

Can somebody explain why the defense wants to make that 'promenade de santé au cottage'? I mean, why do they think is in the interest of the defendants? [I understand it wasn't the prosecution in this case asking for the visit].

Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:15 am   Post subject: Re: RG keeps quiet   

Fly by Night wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Testifying in the hot media spotlight of the current courtroom environment would be viewed by Biscotti as a completely necessary risk if there were any possibility of Knox and Sollectio being found innocent. However, they made the bold decision to not take that risk and Guede/Biscotti's decision should therefore be viewed as a very strong indicator of how this trial will be resolved.


Hi FBN this is all plausible but do beware of placing too much faith in Biscotti's judgement. This is the guy who went for a shortform trial and achieved a thirty year sentence for his client when the prosecution were asking for twenty-five.


Are you saying that Biscotti did not argue the case effectively, or perhaps would have better served Guede with a full trial concurrent with Knox & Sollecito? I hardly think so. From a defense perspective Guede was a lost cause all along. Going forward with the argument that Guede was completely innocent left Biscotti with only one possible strategy: 1. isolate Guede from the others, 2. move Guede through the system first, 3. sit back and watch Knox and Sollecito get convicted, 4. argue in the appeal that the already-convicted Knox and Sollecito were the sole killers.

Will Biscotti's strategy work?
No, but that doesn't make him poor judge of the situation. He has seen all of the evidence and knows his options are severely limited. Just like Knox and Sollecito, the only chance at something approaching a plausible defense comes with having someone else convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Biscotti clearly believes that Knox and Sollecito will be convicted without having Guede take the stand in the current trial.


Hi FBN

I don't think we have enough detail on Guede's trial to make an informed judgement about Biscotti. On the bare facts of the outcome it looks like an own goal but as you rightly say Biscotti had precious few cards to play with. I'm not convinced it was wise to split Guede off that way. One, it's effectively an admission of guilt - no innocent person would not want all the evidence heard. Two, Knox and Sollecito's alibi says they weren't at the cottage; they couldn't finger him directly whether he was in the dock with them or not.

I do agree it was the right strategy not to testify last week.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

Location: Eora, de Sydenie, 34S-151E, Nuova Gallia del Sud, het nieuw-Hollandt, Terra Australis

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:18 pm   Post subject:    

GreenWyvern wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Hi Machine

I would be interested if someone with more knowledge could answer the question - if neither prosecution nor defence are claiming insanity can the judge order psychiatric reports and make that call him/herself ?


I am not an expert on the Italian justice system, but I would assume that it's similar to most other countries in this respect. If they are found guilty and the judge has to consider sentencing, then at that point he could send them for psychiatric evaluation, even if it's not requested by the prosecution or defense, and then perhaps send them to a secure psychiatric institution rather than prison.

I very much doubt that this will happen with AK or RS though. I'm sure they have some psychiatric problems, but not so serious that they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, or unable to understand the consequences of their actions, or that they are suffering from paranoia or delusions, etc.



GreenWyvern has it in a nutshell.

More wordily --

Intending the act carries the responsibility for it. (Article 85 of the Penal Code)
The US defence of insanity has its equivalent under Article 88, and is not applicable here
because beer and drugs are no excuse (Articles 92, 93).
Beer or drugs may even make things worse (Articles 92, 94)
Being angry is no excuse either (Article 90)

AK and RS would not use Article 88, because it implies they were present at the scene,
and because it would be very difficult to argue that the torture and sadism, restraint, knife-wielding, and drug-fuelling (if any),
leading to the death, were unintended or unwilled, or being done by people who did not have the capacity to intend those acts.

Logically, (and ignoring Article 92 for the moment), there is a gap to argue that mind-destroying drugs (methamphetamine, PCP, GHB, etc) might fracture the nervous system enough that the resulting short-circuiting might remove enough
of the awareness so that the intention has been sufficiently removed.
However, there is no forensics regarding drugs (so far anyway, at least).

Contrary against this reasoning, is that the intention has always remained, however primal and base it became,
it was always there, even if the moral sphere of the mind was abrogated (which, by definition, is what makes something a crime in the first place, I suppose).

The US defence of insanity runs as a legal concept to deflect the charge that was brought by the prosecution.
It overlaps, but is not quite the same as, medical insanity.
"Diminished responsibility", a related legal concept, acts to mitigate the punishment after accepting the charge.
Being zombified does not diminish responsibility (Article 95)

In language made plain for non-lawyers, the Penal Code articles are,
with skipped over passages marked in square brackets []:

Quote:


A person having the intention and/or the will at the moment of committing an act which is a crime, is culpable. (85)

Someone who puts someone else in a state where they are incapable of having intent or will, with a view to having them commit the crime, is culpable. (86)

Article 85 applies to a person who places themself in a state where they are incapable of having intent or will, and thereby commits a crime, or as preparation of an excuse (87)

A person who, at the moment of committing the act, was, through infirmity, in such a state of mind as to exclude intention or will, is not culpable (88)

Emotional or passionate states neither exclude nor diminish culpability (90)

[Acts under drunkenness caused by accident or force majeur – not culpable (91)]

Drunkenness (other than that deriving by accident or force majeur) neither excludes nor diminishes culpabaility.
If the drunkenness is undertaken for the purpose of committing the crime, or as preparation by way of an excuse, the penalty is increased. (92)

The two preceding articles (91 and 92) apply even when the act was committed under the influence of stupefying substances. (93)

When the crime was committed in a state of drunkenness, and this is habitual, the penalty is increased. …(94)

For acts committed in a chronic state of intoxication caused by alcohol or by stupefying substances, articles 88 and 98 apply (95)

[Concerning Deafmutes (96)]

People less than 14 years old when the crime was committed are not culpable (97)

People from 14 up to 18 years old, if they have the intent and will, are culpable, but the penalty is diminished… (98)


[ WikiSource ] Penal Code (Italian)



P.S. I'm not an expert either.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject:    

Quote Nicki:

"Rudy's letter is also quoted where he writes "I have nothing to do with this trial, a trial where I believe the time has come for those people who have constantly been lying and still are, to admit their past and present evil actions towards Meredith and me. ."


It's gross and unsettling how Rudy puts himself with Meredith in the same boat.


Last edited by Shirley on Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:26 pm   Post subject:    

Apologies if this has been discussed previously but is Giacomo Silenzi going to testify? Or did he and I missed it? Thanks.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:51 pm   Post subject:    

Shirley wrote:

Quote:
Apologies if this has been discussed previously but is Giacomo Silenzi going to testify? Or did he and I missed it? Thanks.


He has already testified. You can read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/dzzs2q

That's just a start. If you google his name, plus testimony Meredith Kercher murder trial, you will find numerous accounts.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:09 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Shirley wrote:

Quote:
Apologies if this has been discussed previously but is Giacomo Silenzi going to testify? Or did he and I missed it? Thanks.


He has already testified. You can read about it here: http://tinyurl.com/dzzs2q

That's just a start. If you google his name, plus testimony Meredith Kercher murder trial, you will find numerous accounts.



Thanks SB. Sometimes following this trial reminds me of reading a big old Russian novel where there are lots of names and events to keep track of. But only sometimes as certainly this is no fiction for those involved, especially the family and friends of Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:22 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:

GreenWyvern has it in a nutshell.

More wordily --

Intending the act carries the responsibility for it. (Article 85 of the Penal Code)
The US defence of insanity has its equivalent under Article 88, and is not applicable here
because beer and drugs are no excuse (Articles 92, 93).
Beer or drugs may even make things worse (Articles 92, 94)
Being angry is no excuse either (Article 90)

AK and RS would not use Article 88, because it implies they were present at the scene,
and because it would be very difficult to argue that the torture and sadism, restraint, knife-wielding, and drug-fuelling (if any),
leading to the death, were unintended or unwilled, or being done by people who did not have the capacity to intend those acts.

Logically, (and ignoring Article 92 for the moment), there is a gap to argue that mind-destroying drugs (methamphetamine, PCP, GHB, etc) might fracture the nervous system enough that the resulting short-circuiting might remove enough
of the awareness so that the intention has been sufficiently removed.
However, there is no forensics regarding drugs (so far anyway, at least).

Contrary against this reasoning, is that the intention has always remained, however primal and base it became,
it was always there, even if the moral sphere of the mind was abrogated (which, by definition, is what makes something a crime in the first place, I suppose).

The US defence of insanity runs as a legal concept to deflect the charge that was brought by the prosecution.
It overlaps, but is not quite the same as, medical insanity.
"Diminished responsibility", a related legal concept, acts to mitigate the punishment after accepting the charge.
Being zombified does not diminish responsibility (Article 95)

In language made plain for non-lawyers, the Penal Code articles are,
with skipped over passages marked in square brackets []:

Quote:


<snip>

[ WikiSource ] Penal Code (Italian)



P.S. I'm not an expert either.



A diminished capacity defense is always tricky, in common law countries or civil law countries. There has to be other circumstances, like abuse, faulty prescription, PTSD to have it to be acceptable for the court... Like in a murdering of a spouse who has a history of domestic violence or a family member who kills their tormentor from years of sexual abuse.

A detailed history of behavioral or psychiatric problems can possibly erased the motive presented by the prosecution for a diminished capacity defense. Using it as a last ditch effort by a defense team, or for a defendant without a history, makes it less believable to the Judge and jury members.

About the aspect of a mental illness.. Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy may all suffered from some forms. Amanda, my guess has a personality disorder, (I'll guess again and label it Histrionic Personality Disorder) which could stem from a mental illness. However, their behavior or hypothetical diagnosis falls way short of the threshold of "insanity" (Which is a legal term, not a medical term) Two biggest signs of cognition of the crime they committed, covering it up and for Rudy, fleeing the crime scene. Besides I don't think a "Group Psychosis" defense has ever been tried, and psychosis isn't known for its contagiousness.

For an insanity defense to work, there has to be a history of hospitalizations, detailed psychotic episodes, and a couple psychiatrists giving diagnoses using the same factors.

There is also Deanna Laney, a mother who brutally killed two of her children and left another permanently brain damaged her youngest, should be a benchmark in common law countries of an insanity ruling.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:15 pm   Post subject: The Cess Pit & the Pendulum   

Well, it would appear all hell's breaking loose on Frank's cess pit and the place is going into complete meltdown.

After having one of my little debates with a couple of other posters there, it would appear the bully boys came out of the woodwork, among them, Chris Mellas, who made one of his typically obnoxiously toned posts, though not before posting as an anon to publicly out Skeptiacl Bystander's family. Chris was also joined by a few other of his thug friends and now, they are all announcing on Perugia Shock that Frank Sfarzo is going to send the Mellas family the IP addresses of everyone who has ever posted on Frank's, so they can go after all those that they consider to have committed 'criminal offences'.

This epitomises the bully boy tactics of these putrid people. But perhaps, it would be a good thing to have the law getting involved, since they can chase up three offences that have been committed their regularly, allo by the Mellas/Knox family and their supporters:

1. Identity theft
2. The public outing of bloggers who have the legal right to blog anonymously
3. Threats of cyber crime against sites they don't like (including PMF)
4. Cyber bullying/stalking

Not to mention, various libelling of individuals connected with the case and of individual bloggers (Skep's husband about to have his house taken for not paying taxes is a good example).

Meanwhile, Frank is selectively deleting posts, but allowing those ones to stand.

In the Meantime, Frank's cess pit can be flagged with google (who in turn will flag it with the governing bodies supervising domain names) and closed down, for giving out poeples private information to third parties.

What a world.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline friend of Peltier


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:45 pm

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:05 pm   Post subject:    

Michael

Thank you for your assistance in dealing with the mess that is Frank's site. I have stopped posting there, but have maintained a daily watch of what is posted there. It is hard to read, but based on personal information that has shown up there I feel I must keep and eye on that site for protection purposes. Nice world indeed.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:27 pm   Post subject:    

a shy reader wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The Bard wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to interupt the discussion, and I am emphatically not having a go at TM, but I do feel passionately that words like 'evil' when related to mental illness should be thought about very carefully. 'Evil' is a word that indeed may apply if a verdict of sane and guilty is arrived at. But the very notion of evil is one that sets apart that individual from the rest of us. If they are sane and guilty then they are no different to the rest of us, which is a far more unsettling notion, n'est pas?


I agree with The Bard wholeheartedly. Someone in my family was diagnosed with a severe mental disorder (bipolar) when he was in his early 20's. He is not an evil person, but before he got proper treatment he did things that were scary and menacing. Obviously, the mental state of all three - Guede, Sollecito and Knox - is an important factor to consider. I don't see any of them pleading insanity.

I doubt we'll ever solve the conundrum of whether sane people commit heinous acts. Some would say that such acts attest to the insanity of those who commit them, as in "no one in his or her right mind would ever..."

If it turns out that all three of these people are guilty and that one or more suffer from some mental disorder (bipolar disorder or schizophenia, extreme NPD, etc.) this will not change the fundamentally horrendous nature of the crimes committed against Meredith Kercher. If it turns out that, having committed such atrocities, they then decided to cover them up to mislead investigators, then this shows a degree of callous disregard that is truly shocking.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that the mental state of criminals and the notion of evil are very complex issues that have never been resolved to full satisfaction despite several centuries of debate in literature, philosophy, psychology and religion.


I agree very much with The Bard and Skeptical Bystander. I'm a mental health professional as well, and both during my own childhood--which unfortunately taught me much about both violence and mental illness--and through my professional experience I've seen that mental illness is not the same as evil, and most mentally ill people are not dangerous to anyone but themselves. In fact, mental illnesses are as common as any other kind of illness, with depression and anxiety as widespread as the common cold. I agree that we're primarily talking about violence here, and any role played by mental illness is secondary.

One of the hardest things about abusive crimes such as rape and sadistic violence, for the victims, the survivors and for the community at large, is that such abusers so often are absent or even dead, emotionally and psychologically. The abuser can't be reached, can't be made to feel remorse or even a sense of loss or gravity. Or even a sense that the ones they've harmed truly exist and matter! Punishment just makes them pity themselves more. It's horrifying and infuriating to see how impenetrable an abuser's or murderer's self-absorption and self-centeredness can be. I can see this as evil, but prefer to try to understand it in human terms, bring the offenders down to human size and scale. There's a big difference between empathy and sympathy. It doesn't hurt anything to try to understand empathetically what can lead a person to do horrific violence. One can understand and still condemn the crime and hold the perpetrators accountable.


Thank you for allowing me to state in my opinion I think we went down only one of two possible paths.

We should be able to say we think someone is evil just as much as we are allowed the freedom to say someone is good. It's really just the opposite expression we would say about someone who is "good" as pure hearted, such as Meredith. "Evil" is just a simple way of saying a person could not get any lower and unacceptable on this planet; a fitting description for Guede, Sollecito, and Knox.

If a person should happen to have some form of mental illness that would be in addition or aside from their being "evil" in nature, just like we have "good" people with mental illness. I don't associate mental illness with the nature of a person and I believe all three are evil - to the bone.

Respectfully, Professor Snape

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:29 pm   Post subject: What a Mess   

friend of Peltier wrote:
Michael

Thank you for your assistance in dealing with the mess that is Frank's site. I have stopped posting there, but have maintained a daily watch of what is posted there. It is hard to read, but based on personal information that has shown up there I feel I must keep and eye on that site for protection purposes. Nice world indeed.



No Problem FOP, I'm only sorry you've had to take this kind of abuse, neither you or Skep have done anything to deserve it. Just when you think they've reached a line, they cross it. You come under particular attack, simply because you live in Seattle, they know who you are and they think their proximity can intimidate you.

From what I've been able to tell, the bully boy tactics/aggression has all been originating from the Mellas side of the family, rather then the Knox side. In contrast, Curt and Edda have been working hard to involve and charm the public. Perhaps contacting Curt about all this might be a good idea? I don't think he'd approve of this sort of show, it's not his style and he might bring some order to the situation. Personally, I suspect he's unaware of how bad things have been getting on the Web side of things.

Something needs to be done. Potentially, with appeals, we have 'years' to go of this and the way things have been escelating in so short a time...

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:33 pm   Post subject:    

FoP wrote:

Quote:
Michael

Thank you for your assistance in dealing with the mess that is Frank's site. I have stopped posting there, but have maintained a daily watch of what is posted there. It is hard to read, but based on personal information that has shown up there I feel I must keep and eye on that site for protection purposes. Nice world indeed.


Yes, thanks Michael. Can you let us know exactly how to "flag" a site with Google? I don't think Frank intends to do anything about the problem himself.

Incidentally, I don't know who is making those hideous posts about Amanda Knox's thighs etc. I hope it is no one who posts here. I was away all day and have just caught up with what's happening on Frank's blog. As I read through the posts, it occurred to me that some of the "anti Amanda" posts could conceivably have been made by Chris and/or Goofy, in an attempt to make PMF look bad. They seem quite preoccupied with our board. I am not accusing, just saying that an anonymous post could be made by anyone, including people whose sole aim is to discredit another group or individual. The sad thing is that one or two people (in addition to Frank) are entirely responsible for bringing the discussion at Frank's down to "less than zero level".

I personally don't understand why anyone would waste the time trying to have a serious discussion there. It has become impossible. In the absence of a moderator who is interested in exchanging with readers. Goofy and Harry Wilkens have stepped in to fill the void with garbage.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:11 pm   Post subject:    

I don't know why anybody bother reading Frank's comments section.

Still, I can hardly talk. :(

I just heard some useful times from Charlie Wilkes about phone calls on November 2, by the way...

Charlie Wilkes, God love him wrote:
...actually one call was made to Filomena, at 12:08. Filomena then called Amanda three times, at 12:12, 12:20, and 12:34...

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:17 pm   Post subject:    

FinnMacCool wrote:
I don't know why anybody bother reading Frank's comments section.

Still, I can hardly talk. :(

I just heard some useful times from Charlie Wilkes about phone calls on November 2, by the way...

Charlie Wilkes, God love him wrote:
...actually one call was made to Filomena, at 12:08. Filomena then called Amanda three times, at 12:12, 12:20, and 12:34...



I just read it to find out what I have allegedly posted, what I allegedly believe, where I allegedly live, and what my latest offenses against society/strokes of bad luck are. :)

Re the phone calls. It would be nice to know where Knox was when the various phone calls were made. Was she already back at Sollecito's apartment at 12:08? One wonders because she told Filomena she was going back to his place, didn't she?

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:19 pm   Post subject:    

Skep wrote:
Yes, thanks Michael. Can you let us know exactly how to "flag" a site with Google? I don't think Frank intends to do anything about the problem himself.

Incidentally, I don't know who is making those hideous posts about Amanda Knox's thighs etc. I hope it is no one who posts here. I was away all day and have just caught up with what's happening on Frank's blog. As I read through the posts, it occurred to me that some of the "anti Amanda" posts could conceivably have been made by Chris and/or Goofy, in an attempt to make PMF look bad. They seem quite preoccupied with our board. I am not accusing, just saying that an anonymous post could be made by anyone, including people whose sole aim is to discredit another group or individual. The sad thing is that one or two people (in addition to Frank) are entirely responsible for bringing the discussion at Frank's down to "less than zero level".

I personally don't understand why anyone would waste the time trying to have a serious discussion there. It has become impossible. In the absence of a moderator who is interested in exchanging with readers. Goofy and Harry Wilkens have stepped in to fill the void with garbage."



I've long suspected the same thing...that they are generating obnoxious posts supposedly from supporters of justice for Meredith, in order to serve as a pretext and exccuse for their outrageous behaviour. Those kinds of posts are just not the style of the kind of poster we have here on PMF.

I agree totally about Frank. When you own a site, you are responsible for moderating it, not to mention keeping it within the bounds of the law. He's not interested in that, caring only in deleting posts that link to the 'competition'. The man has no sense of responsibility and I'd hate to imagine him ever being in possession of a child or a pet. Frank is just as much to blame as they are. Here, we moderate the site properly because if anything is out of line, it's you and I that are legally culpable.

As for the rest, I suggest we discuss it off site. I'll contact you shortly.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline uplate


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:27 am

Posts: 2

Location: NYC

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:36 am   Post subject:    

Trying to make sense of something that makes no sense, but try this on for size:

The knife was either brought there special or it was one that either Rudy and/or Raf typically carried. The former really shows premed, the latter could be things got out of hand.

Premed: Let's assume Amanda wants to take Meredith down a peg. She enlists R&R to do the dirty work, keeping her hands clean. So how to humiliate Mez without being 'culpable'? Raph goes to the cottage in disguise, 'forces' a willing Rudy to have sex with Meredith at knife point. A sells it to Rudy as not 'rape' because it won't be 'violent', and he can't be jprosecuted bec an 'unknown assailant' forced him to do it. She sells it to Raph because he can be a voyeur or even a participant. "We're not gonna hurt her, just knock her off her high horse a bit." Amanda can also be 'forced' into participating, although that Rudy only has her 'at the door' makes me think not. The group benefit is stolen rent money for partying. Things of course get out of hand and once her kneck is cut, or Raph's identity is revealed through struggle, A freaks and the loud arguing heard by a witness is A telling R there's no hiding now, he's got to finish it.

Suspects put a lot of the truth in statements given to LE. Why is Rudy keeping A out of the murder? Was Amanda 'at the door' as Rudy says, intervening when Mez got 'free' and screamed? Is that when she got involved? It would explain why she would cover up a crime that she did not personally commit, as opposed to why Raph would do clean up if he were not involved.

One of the Halloween pics with Meredith next to someone in the "Scream" movie mask has always nagged me. Was this the prank, chase Mez around and rape her, without knowing it was Raph? Did they not know that Rudy was there? Rudy heard a door bell ring, was that Raph in disguise? Could Rudy actually be telling the truth? Is it too much to think that even if Rudy was completely innocent and truthful in his statement, that he would not at some point (or better, asap) contact LE?

Just a couple of theories I wanted to get out of my poor head. Comments?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: The Cess Pit & the Pendulum   

Michael wrote:
Well, it would appear all hell's breaking loose on Frank's cess pit and the place is going into complete meltdown.

After having one of my little debates with a couple of other posters there, it would appear the bully boys came out of the woodwork, among them, Chris Mellas, who made one of his typically obnoxiously toned posts, though not before posting as an anon to publicly out Skeptiacl Bystander's family. Chris was also joined by a few other of his thug friends and now, they are all announcing on Perugia Shock that Frank Sfarzo is going to send the Mellas family the IP addresses of everyone who has ever posted on Frank's, so they can go after all those that they consider to have committed 'criminal offences'.

This epitomises the bully boy tactics of these putrid people. But perhaps, it would be a good thing to have the law getting involved, since they can chase up three offences that have been committed their regularly, allo by the Mellas/Knox family and their supporters:

1. Identity theft
2. The public outing of bloggers who have the legal right to blog anonymously
3. Threats of cyber crime against sites they don't like (including PMF)
4. Cyber bullying/stalking

Not to mention, various libelling of individuals connected with the case and of individual bloggers (Skep's husband about to have his house taken for not paying taxes is a good example).

Meanwhile, Frank is selectively deleting posts, but allowing those ones to stand.

In the Meantime, Frank's cess pit can be flagged with google (who in turn will flag it with the governing bodies supervising domain names) and closed down, for giving out poeples private information to third parties.

What a world.


First, both sides need to take a step back... a criminal trial like this always brings out the worse in both sides, and it takes time before the vindictiveness lessens after the trial is over.

Second, The only way a defamation suit works in the US, is financial damage occurs that the plantiff has no other alternative to reclaim monetary damages but through the court systems. Defamation lawsuits make cleaning block sewage pipes, a glamourous and fame seeking profession. The only way the defamation can work on the above alleged silly statement about home foreclosure, is a bank official reads it and denies a loan, for example, hence the statement caused financial damage. Most mean and outrageous statements have legal protection, mainly insults and opinion are consider reputable defense against defamation torts in the US. They have to reach a standard of actual malice. Getting into these pissing matches/flame wars/legal battles, both sides are consider to give consent to criticism, no matter how sick and perverse from one side.

There is a better case for harassment. Especially if Chris Mellas or others are acting in a retaliatory way, for whatever a person writes, not their actions. If they are truly trying to cause financial or physical harm, or just pure bullying/intimidation, that clearly falls into harassment, in Washington State, the RCW for harassment.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx ... #9A.46.020
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.080

Defamation lawsuits are much, much easier in Commonwealth Countries, in which they don't have New York Times v. Sullivan or Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. There is a reason why defamation lawyers in the US don't work on a contingency fee basis. They demand a flat fee upfront, much like plumbers working on a messy job.

The most important thing for this type of behavior by Chris Mellas and/or others, is do not retaliate: collect and organize.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:33 am   Post subject:    

Ferret wrote:

Quote:
There is a better case for harassment. Especially if Chris Mellas or others are acting in a retaliatory way, for whatever a person writes, not their actions. If they are truly trying to cause financial or physical harm, or just pure bullying/intimidation, that clearly falls into harassment, in Washington State, the RCW for harassment.


I think this is clearly a matter of harassment. As you suggest, the lies being posted about my financial situation, foreclosures, tax liens, weight problems, etc. will not prevent me from borrowing money, making a livelihood, getting a date or whatever, unless someone denies me a loan or a job or a night on the town because of what Goofy has posted on the Internet.

The intention is quite simply to bully and intimidate -- not just me but also everyone who posts here. This aim is reflected in the comments made about the site and its posters. The fact is, we have close to 400 members now and many, many guests find their way here and read. Goofy - with Chris's tacit blessing, IMO - regularly posts comments to the effect that posting and reading here are dangerous activities because of the clandestine dissemination of their personal information. This is sheer nonsense, of course, but why not float the idea in the hope that some will take it at face value.

Most recently, I have seen posts where the writer claims to have presumably embarrassing information about The Machine. Again, the hope is that TM will cease and desist. But the fact is, most people are not dissuaded by these tactics.

Frankly, I don't understand what the fuss is about. We have no impact whatsoever on events in Perugia.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:54 am   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
I just heard some useful times from Charlie Wilkes about phone calls on November 2, by the way...

Charlie Wilkes, God love him wrote:
...actually one call was made to Filomena, at 12:08. Filomena then called Amanda three times, at 12:12, 12:20, and 12:34...


Re the phone calls. It would be nice to know where Knox was when the various phone calls were made. Was she already back at Sollecito's apartment at 12:08? One wonders because she told Filomena she was going back to his place, didn't she?


No problem, Skep - we can easily answer that one. Just think of The Email as like the Gospel, except the Gospel isn't necessarily always literally true.

So Amanda's email has it right - Amanda was at Raffaele's house at 1208.

And Amanda says, "Hey, I was at the house earlier, and I noticed some blood in the bathroom while I took a shower, and some other strange stuff. I was just telling Raffaele about it, and he suggested I call you. What the heck is going on, do you think?" (NB I'm only guessing that these are her actual words.)

Filomena hears this as, "Hey, I'm at the house and I just took a shower, but there's blood in the bathroom and some other strange stuff. I'm just going to get Raffaele." Filomena basically can't understand anything Amanda says, which makes you wonder why they bother calling each other in the first place.

Nevertheless, Filomena perseveres and calls Amanda back three times - maybe when Amanda is en route to the cottage (1212?), or maybe when she's checking out the rooms, or climbing out the back to see if she can get into Meredith's window (1220?), or maybe while she's helping Raffaele break down the door to Meredith's room (1234?). The normally reliable email can't help on this point, because unfortunately Amanda gets a little bit confused and the way she remembers it is that she's the one who called Filomena again, just after Raffaele called his sister in the carabinieri.

Luckily the phone records are on hand to bail us out where Amanda's memory falters, so with a combination of the email and the phone records, we can build a pretty accurate reconstruction of what happened, especially in the five minutes before one o'clock, when basically (here I freely paraphrase) a whole lot of stuff happened.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:58 am   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
GreenWyvern wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Hi Machine

I would be interested if someone with more knowledge could answer the question - if neither prosecution nor defence are claiming insanity can the judge order psychiatric reports and make that call him/herself ?


I am not an expert on the Italian justice system, but I would assume that it's similar to most other countries in this respect. If they are found guilty and the judge has to consider sentencing, then at that point he could send them for psychiatric evaluation, even if it's not requested by the prosecution or defense, and then perhaps send them to a secure psychiatric institution rather than prison.

I very much doubt that this will happen with AK or RS though. I'm sure they have some psychiatric problems, but not so serious that they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, or unable to understand the consequences of their actions, or that they are suffering from paranoia or delusions, etc.



GreenWyvern has it in a nutshell.

More wordily --

Intending the act carries the responsibility for it. (Article 85 of the Penal Code)
The US defence of insanity has its equivalent under Article 88, and is not applicable here
because beer and drugs are no excuse (Articles 92, 93).
Beer or drugs may even make things worse (Articles 92, 94)
Being angry is no excuse either (Article 90)

AK and RS would not use Article 88, because it implies they were present at the scene,
and because it would be very difficult to argue that the torture and sadism, restraint, knife-wielding, and drug-fuelling (if any),
leading to the death, were unintended or unwilled, or being done by people who did not have the capacity to intend those acts.

Logically, (and ignoring Article 92 for the moment), there is a gap to argue that mind-destroying drugs (methamphetamine, PCP, GHB, etc) might fracture the nervous system enough that the resulting short-circuiting might remove enough
of the awareness so that the intention has been sufficiently removed.
However, there is no forensics regarding drugs (so far anyway, at least).

Contrary against this reasoning, is that the intention has always remained, however primal and base it became,
it was always there, even if the moral sphere of the mind was abrogated (which, by definition, is what makes something a crime in the first place, I suppose).

The US defence of insanity runs as a legal concept to deflect the charge that was brought by the prosecution.
It overlaps, but is not quite the same as, medical insanity.
"Diminished responsibility", a related legal concept, acts to mitigate the punishment after accepting the charge.
Being zombified does not diminish responsibility (Article 95)

In language made plain for non-lawyers, the Penal Code articles are,
with skipped over passages marked in square brackets []:

Quote:


A person having the intention and/or the will at the moment of committing an act which is a crime, is culpable. (85)

Someone who puts someone else in a state where they are incapable of having intent or will, with a view to having them commit the crime, is culpable. (86)

Article 85 applies to a person who places themself in a state where they are incapable of having intent or will, and thereby commits a crime, or as preparation of an excuse (87)

A person who, at the moment of committing the act, was, through infirmity, in such a state of mind as to exclude intention or will, is not culpable (88)

Emotional or passionate states neither exclude nor diminish culpability (90)

[Acts under drunkenness caused by accident or force majeur – not culpable (91)]

Drunkenness (other than that deriving by accident or force majeur) neither excludes nor diminishes culpabaility.
If the drunkenness is undertaken for the purpose of committing the crime, or as preparation by way of an excuse, the penalty is increased. (92)

The two preceding articles (91 and 92) apply even when the act was committed under the influence of stupefying substances. (93)

When the crime was committed in a state of drunkenness, and this is habitual, the penalty is increased. …(94)

For acts committed in a chronic state of intoxication caused by alcohol or by stupefying substances, articles 88 and 98 apply (95)

[Concerning Deafmutes (96)]

People less than 14 years old when the crime was committed are not culpable (97)

People from 14 up to 18 years old, if they have the intent and will, are culpable, but the penalty is diminished… (98)


[ WikiSource ] Penal Code (Italian)



P.S. I'm not an expert either.


Hi Catnip

You might not be an expert but that's an impressive answer. Thanks for your trouble.
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:09 am   Post subject:    

Shirley wrote:
Quote Nicki:

"Rudy's letter is also quoted where he writes "I have nothing to do with this trial, a trial where I believe the time has come for those people who have constantly been lying and still are, to admit their past and present evil actions towards Meredith and me. ."


It's gross and unsettling how Rudy puts himself with Meredith in the same boat.


Hi Shirley

It is but the nauseating self-pity is quite typical. It's very evident in the rubbish Ian Huntley has come out with since he was incarcerated (like saying Carr's supposed instruction to burn the bodies was "really unforgivable" as if that let him off the hook).

Guede has actually been more disrespectful towards Meredith than the other two ; he's the only one whose alibi (assuming RS doesn't try to float the pricking story again) involves telling lies about her.
Top Profile 

Offline stewarthome2000


User avatar


Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:47 am

Posts: 152

Location: Perugia, Italy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:37 pm   Post subject: again...   

Yep..yet another break-in at the house on VdP at 1:30pm (yesterday afternoon).
This time the carabinieri caught someone. A 60 y.o. Romanian guy now being charged with intrusion, breaking police barrier etc.
Just FYI.
Ciao
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:17 pm   Post subject:    

"60 y.o. Romanian guy"

Most probaby Gipsy. When the mattress disappeared I thought that.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:40 pm   Post subject:    

"...actually one call was made to Filomena, at 12:08. Filomena then called Amanda three times, at 12:12, 12:20, and 12:34..."

These times were published months ago by Candace in the "Timinig is all" post.

Interesting that only in the fourth call said Amanda to Filomena that her room is ravaged and the window is broken. That call is after the time that the Postals arrived in their version.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject:    

Finn MacCool wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:

I just heard some useful times from Charlie Wilkes about phone calls on November 2, by the way...

Charlie Wilkes, God love him wrote:
...actually one call was made to Filomena, at 12:08. Filomena then called Amanda three times, at 12:12, 12:20, and 12:34...



Re the phone calls. It would be nice to know where Knox was when the various phone calls were made. Was she already back at Sollecito's apartment at 12:08? One wonders because she told Filomena she was going back to his place, didn't she?


No problem, Skep - we can easily answer that one. Just think of The Email as like the Gospel, except the Gospel isn't necessarily always literally true.

So Amanda's email has it right - Amanda was at Raffaele's house at 1208.

And Amanda says, "Hey, I was at the house earlier, and I noticed some blood in the bathroom while I took a shower, and some other strange stuff. I was just telling Raffaele about it, and he suggested I call you. What the heck is going on, do you think?" (NB I'm only guessing that these are her actual words.)

Filomena hears this as, "Hey, I'm at the house and I just took a shower, but there's blood in the bathroom and some other strange stuff. I'm just going to get Raffaele." Filomena basically can't understand anything Amanda says, which makes you wonder why they bother calling each other in the first place.

Nevertheless, Filomena perseveres and calls Amanda back three times - maybe when Amanda is en route to the cottage (1212?), or maybe when she's checking out the rooms, or climbing out the back to see if she can get into Meredith's window (1220?), or maybe while she's helping Raffaele break down the door to Meredith's room (1234?). The normally reliable email can't help on this point, because unfortunately Amanda gets a little bit confused and the way she remembers it is that she's the one who called Filomena again, just after Raffaele called his sister in the carabinieri.

Luckily the phone records are on hand to bail us out where Amanda's memory falters, so with a combination of the email and the phone records, we can build a pretty accurate reconstruction of what happened, especially in the five minutes before one o'clock, when basically (here I freely paraphrase) a whole lot of stuff happened.



Thanks, Finn. Now I am thoroughly confused. In addition to the above, we have Sollecito's written version, in which a leisurely breakfast is had by the two, water from the night before is mopped up, and our protagonists are out strolling (presumably with mop in hand) when Knox mentions the blood, the feces and the open door to Sollecito. I'm sure these pesky details will get worked out in the screenplay. Sollecito probably misremembered and then, having misremembered, wrote his misremembered version out in minute detail.

So basically, after the 12:08 phone call to Filomena, and if we accept that she was at Sollecito's flat at this time, he and Knox walked very briskly to the cottage as soon as that call is terminated and, in two subsequent phone calls from Filomena to Knox, it somehow does not get communicated that they are in fact en route to and then actually back inside the cottage to check things out.

Finally, in the fourth call (at 12:34 pm) Knox tells Filomena that her room has apparently been broken into. Presumably, Knox and Sollecito discovered this between 12:12 and 12:34 (a 24 minute window) but did not call Filomena back to inform her. They waited for Filomena to call them back. What were they doing during this 24-minute period? Not calling the police, apparently. Trying to kick the victim's door in, seeing if the room could be entered from the victim's window, surveying the fairly tiny cottage. (Maybe the Gospel has further details on the 24 minutes.)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:54 pm   Post subject:    

Wonder if OJ's highly successful "Dream Team" of legal talent has ever been solicited for any advice by FOA.

Perhaps the Dream Team would suggest sloppy police work, and then recommend the Defense experts conduct their own exhaustive DNA on the feces left in the toilet.

This could provide a great sound bite type line for the defense closing argument : "If the sh-t doesn't fit, you must acquit" ;-)))
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:13 pm   Post subject:    

"Presumably, Knox and Sollecito discovered this between 12:12 and 12:34 (a 24 minute window) but did not call Filomena back to inform her."

However, Filomena said that Amanda told her in one of those calls that she had already called the police.
If Filomena is right then Amanda clearly lied.


Last edited by bolint on Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:13 pm   Post subject: Miss Represented   

Another excellent read over at Miss Represented: A Sadist in the Room?
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 3:33 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Frankly, I don't understand what the fuss is about. We have no impact whatsoever on events in Perugia.


and neither do frank or any of his crowd. just background noise.

btw, thanks for the update Stewart. wonder if this romanian has any connection to the previous break-ins, and whether or not the carabinieri will be able to get any info from him with respect to the previous break-ins...
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject:    

I've just read Miss Represented's lastest article. It's so good it should be featured in Newsweek or any other respectable mainstream publication.

There's been a lot of speculation on PMF about Meredith walking in on Knox, Sollecito and Guede stealing her money, an argument between Meredith and Knox that escalated, a game or prank that went wrong etc. These scenarios don't account for the shocking cruelty and violence that Meredith suffered. It's blatantly obvious that Guede wasn't a lone wolf.

If I favour any scenario, it's the one Miss Represented has outlined so brilliantly in her latest piece. It explains the cruelty and violence. I wouldn't be surprised if Sollecito was inspired by his Manga comics and occult literature. I'm certain Knox and Sollecito discussed sexual fantasies and in turn they must have discussed them with Guede. Knox said Lumumba wanted Meredith and that's why they went to the cottage. I'm sure Guede wanted Meredith and this gave Knox her inspiration for the attack on Meredith.

http://missrepresented.wordpress.com/
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:28 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
I've just read Miss Represented's lastest article. It's so good it should be featured in Newsweek or any other respectable mainstream publication.

There's been a lot of speculation on PMF about Meredith walking in on Knox, Sollecito and Guede stealing her money, an argument between Meredith and Knox that escalated, a game or prank that went wrong etc. These scenarios don't account for the shocking cruelty and violence that Meredith suffered. It's blatantly obvious that Guede wasn't a lone wolf.

If I favour any scenario, it's the one Miss Represented has outlined so brilliantly in her latest piece. It explains the cruelty and violence. I wouldn't be surprised if Sollecito was inspired by his Manga comics and occult literature. I'm certain Knox and Sollecito discussed sexual fantasies and in turn they must have discussed them with Guede. Knox said Lumumba wanted Meredith and that's why they went to the cottage. I'm sure Guede wanted Meredith and this gave Knox her inspiration for the attack on Meredith.

http://missrepresented.wordpress.com/



This may be a long shot, but it also seems that if this was a "lone wolf" murder that A) Meredith might've gotten away, or at the least B) had a better chance to shout or telephone for help and C) might've inflicted more visible and numerous wounds on her attacker while trying to defend herself.

I also wonder if Rudy once expressing interest in Amanda and then developing an interest in Meredith, that this might've also added fuel to the anger fires, leading to a retaliation of sorts -oh yea, you're going to take away the interest of another man? I'll show you. I'll make him show you too- and then yes, merely exchanging the scenario with Rudy, with Patrick instead.

The theories about attempting to steal the downstairs pot plants do not resonate so much with me because I think the wounds point to a different kind of scenario. Yes, unfortunately, something rather more sadistic as Miss Represented speaks.
Top Profile 

Offline sunshine


Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:16 pm

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:46 pm   Post subject:    

I have been reading this forum for a long time however, this is my first post.
First, I would like to thank Stewart for his excellent coverage of the trial. After all, the evidence and testimony in this case is so much, it is crucial to hear every witness and their testimony to weigh the facts and come to a conclusion. I have not yet drawn my own conclusion as to what happened to Meredith and why but continue to listen intently and filter out bias reports. That is why I enjoy this site so much. It has healthy, lively debate and a place for people interested in the case to post possible scenarios for the crime (which, if I may say, are more probable than the prosecutions scenario in this case).
I have been following the case from the beginning as have many of you. I majored in criminal justice in college and have studied many, many murder cases but I very am fascinated by this case. Like The Bard I too have "they couldn't have done it" days. However, I try to remind myself that there is evil in this world that we may not ever understand.
Last year, around this same time there was a case in the US that similarly caught my attention. It was the trial of Jean Pierre Orlewicz, an 18 year old from Detroit, MI accused (and ultimately convicted of) killing a man named Daniel Sorensen just for the "thrill". At the trial, Alexander Letkemann testified for the prosecution and gave some very disturing details of the killing in his testimony. This trial was televised on TruTV for all of America to see. In this trial there was witness after witness (all under 20 years old) that were at some point willing to take place in the murder of the victim, the clean up of the crime and the dismemberment and disposal of the body. These young boys are sitting on the stand and talking so matter-of-factly about KILLING SOMEONE! Jean Pierre (JP) Orlewicz himself testified on his own behalf (of course with a defense that he was ‘scared’ of the victim) like he was talking about something far less serious. Alex Letkemann who helped JP dispose of Mr. Sorensen’s body and was present during the killing was a self proclaimed ‘hippie’ whose family claimed that he was ‘incapable’ of violence. Another kid, Ryan, testified that on the first attempt (yes, there were 2) to kill Daniel Sorensen, he was going to be the 'lookout'. But when it was called off and planned for another date he simply decided not to aid in the crime, yet never told anyone of Mr. Orlewicsz's intentions. There was another young man (can't remember his name) who was called by Mr. Orlewicz right after the murder had taken place to come and help roll the body in a tarp and move the body to the back of a truck for disposal. Not only did he help with disposal, he gave Jean Pierre Orlewicz HIS PANTS because JP's were covered in blood!!!! Again, no questions asked and he did not tell anyone of what he knew. Some basic information on this crime can be found at www.mahalo.com/alexander_letkemann.
Any thoughts guys??
Top Profile 

Offline sunshine


Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:16 pm

Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:50 pm   Post subject:    

In regard to the JP Orlewicz case, I did not even mention how brutal the crime was. Mr. Sorensen was killed by a knife wound to the neck (just like in this case). Then, his head was cut off, his fingers and toes blow torched and his body set on fire. His head and body were found in seperate locations.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:51 pm   Post subject:    

Shirley wrote:

Quote:
This may be a long shot, but it also seems that if this was a "lone wolf" murder that A) Meredith might've gotten away, or at the least B) had a better chance to shout or telephone for help and C) might've inflicted more visible and numerous wounds on her attacker while trying to defend herself.


I don't think this is a long shot at all. In addition, given the height of the window, the type of window and other parameters covered so well by Kermit in his Spiderman ppt, it would have taken the "climbing lone wolf/lizard" so long to get into the place via the window (not to mention the noise - first of all the rock flying through the window and shattering the glass) that the victim would have had ample to time to figure out what was going on, leave through the front door and run all the way back to her friend's flat.

I also wonder if Filomena's shutters were open or shut initially. If shut, they would have to have been opened by our lone wolf/lizard, which would have made noise. Imagine the sound of shutter hinges on a quiet night....

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:04 pm   Post subject:    

Here's a link to a very interesting article in The Times about two teenage friends who killed their best friend because they felt like it:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 769427.ece
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:26 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Shirley wrote:

Quote:
This may be a long shot, but it also seems that if this was a "lone wolf" murder that A) Meredith might've gotten away, or at the least B) had a better chance to shout or telephone for help and C) might've inflicted more visible and numerous wounds on her attacker while trying to defend herself.


I don't think this is a long shot at all. In addition, given the height of the window, the type of window and other parameters covered so well by Kermit in his Spiderman ppt, it would have taken the "climbing lone wolf/lizard" so long to get into the place via the window (not to mention the noise - first of all the rock flying through the window and shattering the glass) that the victim would have had ample to time to figure out what was going on, leave through the front door and run all the way back to her friend's flat.

I also wonder if Filomena's shutters were open or shut initially. If shut, they would have to have been opened by our lone wolf/lizard, which would have made noise. Imagine the sound of shutter hinges on a quiet night....



Right, especially with Meredith's room the furthest from Filomena's. Defintely some time to, at the least call the police if not run out the front door.

Considering Filomena was away for the evening and it wasn't summer it seems reasonable to speculate that her shutters would've been closed. I'm not sure what sort of insects, rodents & birds they have in Perugia but shutters can help with all kinds of home invasions.

(I'm biased. I left a window open once and a squirrel ate a hole in the screen, came into my apt and hid nuts all over the place. I found them for weeks under rugs, cushions, in my bed. Now I'm very pro close the windows.)
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:14 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Shirley wrote:
I left a window open once and a squirrel ate a hole in the screen, came into my apt and hid nuts all over the place

Completely OT:
A squirrel came to your place and hid nuts? :shock: How cool is that! Can't believe it bothered you. My cat "Harald" places dead bleeding mice onto my bed now and then, and i love it! Bats fly through my apartement in late summer evenings, and i love it (Harald loves them too!). A fruit fly sits on my screen right now and is, wait, now dead. Hate them...

"Who knows the humans, loves the animals!"
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:55 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Shirley wrote:
I left a window open once and a squirrel ate a hole in the screen, came into my apt and hid nuts all over the place

Completely OT:
A squirrel came to your place and hid nuts? :shock: How cool is that! Can't believe it bothered you. My cat "Harald" places dead bleeding mice onto my bed now and then, and i love it! Bats fly through my apartement in late summer evenings, and i love it (Harald loves them too!). A fruit fly sits on my screen right now and is, wait, now dead. Hate them...

"Who knows the humans, loves the animals!"


More OT:

Hi Petafly,
Actually when I figured it out I laughed so hard I figured if the squirrel was hiding anywhere in my apt he'd be more scared of me than I was of it. The squirrels in my 'hood are very bold and I've sometimes thought, sitting on my porch, that I needed a Squirrel Back-Up Plan in case one jumped on me. Just don't want to come home to a Squirrel Confrontation. That said, I'll take cashews in my bed any day over bloody mice :D
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject:    

On the last intrusion here is what Il Messagero says:

"Another intrusion into Meredith’s garden but this time is a homeless guy seeking refuge."

...This time it was desperation what moved a new visitor to the house of horrors, the house in via della Pergola where on November 2 nearly two years ago the English student Meredith Kercher was killed. The carabinieri police have surprised in the garden a homeless Romanian who had chosen the shed used for storage as a bed. This time nothing suspicious though. To indicate the presence of the man in the hut had been some passers by who have reported it to the carabinieri.
The carabinieri police have identified the man and took him to the police station, the charge could be home violation.

Investigators have ensure that this episode of the homeless Romanian has nothing to do with the other two previous intrusions in the house. In the first case knives were left inside, in the second the mattress was taken still stained with blood from the murdered student.
Two intrusions joined by a single investigative thread: a demander. At least according to the most accredited clue...

http://tinyurl.com/ccq3qq
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:09 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Shirley wrote:
I left a window open once and a squirrel ate a hole in the screen, came into my apt and hid nuts all over the place

Completely OT:
A squirrel came to your place and hid nuts? :shock: How cool is that! Can't believe it bothered you. My cat "Harald" places dead bleeding mice onto my bed now and then, and i love it! Bats fly through my apartement in late summer evenings, and i love it (Harald loves them too!). A fruit fly sits on my screen right now and is, wait, now dead. Hate them...

"Who knows the humans, loves the animals!"

EXTRA OT
Hi Petafly,
I 've decided to close the door to the patio after I came back from two-days business trip end of July a few years ago to find a dead pigeon on one of my Persian rugs in the living room, and my cat Alex jumping up and down proudly meowing in order to show me what a great welcome -back present he had prepared...it was a hot summer, temperature hitting 33 C, so I let you imagine how I felt when I got back from an intense two days work session at 3 am, after my plane was delayed 6 hours and found this surprise :!:

"The more I get to know the humans, the more I love the animals" :)
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:19 pm   Post subject:    

"...and who's got animals starts loving flowers!" ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:53 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't think this is a long shot at all. In addition, given the height of the window, the type of window and other parameters covered so well by Kermit in his Spiderman ppt, it would have taken the "climbing lone wolf/lizard" so long to get into the place via the window (not to mention the noise - first of all the rock flying through the window and shattering the glass) that the victim would have had ample to time to figure out what was going on, leave through the front door and run all the way back to her friend's flat.


Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:15 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't think this is a long shot at all. In addition, given the height of the window, the type of window and other parameters covered so well by Kermit in his Spiderman ppt, it would have taken the "climbing lone wolf/lizard" so long to get into the place via the window (not to mention the noise - first of all the rock flying through the window and shattering the glass) that the victim would have had ample to time to figure out what was going on, leave through the front door and run all the way back to her friend's flat.


Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.

Anything could be Lancelotti. But one needs to make two major assumptions here: one is that the murder weapon is not RS knife, and the other one that suddenly Rudy turned from a hit-and-run burglar into a savage rapist. Difficult ones to make, according to my humble opinion. Rudy could have just fled as he did during his only known-and botched- burglary attempt at Christian's, who didn't even report it to the police!

EDIT: of course one could also say that prosecutors are wrong, and that RS knife is not the murder weapon, although according to the prosecutors experts it is definitely compatible with the fatal stab...but the fact remains that Rudy's sudden turn from an amateur burglar into a savage rapist upon being caught rummaging through Filomena's property is quite difficult to buy. Why didn't he grab the gold jewelry that was laying around in Filomena's room and run? Jewels are not like a laptop. They can be quickly stuffed in the pocket, and they 're fast and easy to sell. If the burglary had been a real one and not staged, those items would be the first one missing.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:47 pm   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:

‘Rudy could have just fled as he did during his only known-and botched- burglary attempt at Christian's, who didn't even report it to the police!’


Hi nicki. Micheli in his report doesn’t put much stock in Christian’s account of Rudy’s only known burglary attempt. He didn’t think it was credible. Rudy got into flat someway other than thru the window. And I don’t think Meredith let him in either.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject: Make-up anyone?   

Nicki wrote:
Quote:
EDIT: of course one could also say that prosecutors are wrong, and that RS knife is not the murder weapon, although according to the prosecutors experts it is definitely compatible with the fatal stab...but the fact remains that Rudy's sudden turn from an amateur burglar into a savage rapist upon being caught rummaging through Filomena's property is quite difficult to buy. Why didn't he grab the gold jewelry that was laying around in Filomena's room and run? Jewels are not like a laptop. They can be quickly stuffed in the pocket, and they 're fast and easy to sell. If the burglary had been a real one and not staged, those items would be the first one missing.


Hi Nicki :)

So true - Gold jewelry is hard to resist for a burglar for sure! Let's not forget that the only thing taken from Filomena's room was "perhaps some make-up"! ;)

Everyone knows a bit of concealer does the trick for those pesky blemishes, hickies and SCRATCHES! We need to investigate if Rudy wore make- up? Unless someone else needed it more than Rudy... :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:01 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home. He didn't have a key and he certainly didn't fly in through Filomena's window. That only happens in fairy tales by the way.

I've read some nonsense on this board recently. One poster was prepared to believe there was a huge conspiracy involving all the judges, police officers, lawyers AND thought there might be an innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's multiple alibis and repeated lies. Now you're putting forward a scenario in which Guede has magical powers that allow him to fly through a window or scale a vertical wall. I hope you know that Spiderman isn't true.

The comments on here on are usually intelligent and sensible. Let's try and keep it that way.


Last edited by The Machine on Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:04 pm   Post subject:    

DLW wrote:
nicki wrote:

‘Rudy could have just fled as he did during his only known-and botched- burglary attempt at Christian's, who didn't even report it to the police!’


Hi nicki. Micheli in his report doesn’t put much stock in Christian’s account of Rudy’s only known burglary attempt. He didn’t think it was credible. Rudy got into flat someway other than thru the window. And I don’t think Meredith let him in either.


Hi DLW,
Micheli doesn't put much stock in Christian's account because there are no official police records of it, it's just a story that Christian told after Rudy had been arrested. But the way I see it -if his story is true-Christian was so concerned about it that it didn't even bother to call the cops. It aays a lot about Christian's perception of Rudy as of a dangerous attacker does it?

I agree with you, I seriously doubt Meredith would have let Rudy in. And I don't believe for a second that he got in through the window.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:22 pm   Post subject: Re: Make-up anyone?   

Tara wrote:
Nicki wrote:
Quote:
EDIT: of course one could also say that prosecutors are wrong, and that RS knife is not the murder weapon, although according to the prosecutors experts it is definitely compatible with the fatal stab...but the fact remains that Rudy's sudden turn from an amateur burglar into a savage rapist upon being caught rummaging through Filomena's property is quite difficult to buy. Why didn't he grab the gold jewelry that was laying around in Filomena's room and run? Jewels are not like a laptop. They can be quickly stuffed in the pocket, and they 're fast and easy to sell. If the burglary had been a real one and not staged, those items would be the first one missing.


Hi Nicki :)

So true - Gold jewelry is hard to resist for a burglar for sure! Let's not forget that the only thing taken from Filomena's room was "perhaps some make-up"! ;)

Everyone knows a bit of concealer does the trick for those pesky blemishes, hickies and SCRATCHES! We need to investigate if Rudy wore make- up? Unless someone else needed it more than Rudy... :lol:


Hi Tara :D
Strange indeed that the only things missing were "perhaps some make up". What kind of male burglar would leave gold behind, to grab some make instead? It doesn't make sense unless ...unless...
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:35 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home.


But that's what the defence team is going to claim, isn't it? I'll wait for their explanation for Guede's 'magical powers' then.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:50 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Lancelotti wrote:

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

I don't think this is a long shot at all. In addition, given the height of the window, the type of window and other parameters covered so well by Kermit in his Spiderman ppt, it would have taken the "climbing lone wolf/lizard" so long to get into the place via the window (not to mention the noise - first of all the rock flying through the window and shattering the glass) that the victim would have had ample to time to figure out what was going on, leave through the front door and run all the way back to her friend's flat.



Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


Of course, anything is possible. Maybe Knox let him in before she left the cottage. It's possible, isn't it? Or maybe, she had trouble working the front door and left it unlocked, thus setting in motion a chain of events that led to this terrible tragedy. It's possible, isn't it? One thing I personally think is very, very unlikely, though, is that Rudy Guede got in through Filomena's window. It has been determined that the break-in was staged, and that the rock was thrown from the inside. I see no reason for Rudy, having snuck in the open front door, to stage a burglary. I also see no reason for Rudy, acting alone, to kill the victim. No history of violence against women. No criminal convictions. We don't know if he owned a knife or knew how to use one. If Christian's story is true - and it may not be - he wasn't afraid when he realized the intruder was Rudy Guede. Guede tried to leave through the front door but could not get it unlocked.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:54 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home. He didn't have a key and he certainly didn't fly in through Filomena's window. That only happens in fairy tales by the way.

I've read some nonsense on this board recently. One poster was prepared to believe there was a huge conspiracy involving all the judges, police officers, lawyers AND thought there might be an innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's multiple alibis and repeated lies. Now you're putting forward a scenario in which Guede has magical powers that allow him to fly through a window or scale a vertical wall. I hope you know that Spiderman isn't true.

The comments on here on are usually intelligent and sensible. Let's try and keep it that way.


The only way to keep it that way (intelligent and sensible) is by example, not by means of some Thought Police, i.e., censorship, as seen on other sites, but instead by modeling as much rational, dignified, open-minded discourse as you can and avoiding sarcasm, name-calling, and impatience or suspicion of the novice. Better to simply refer people to whatever reliable information you believe is available, or just ignore them, than call someone's ideas "nonsense" and fairy tales .

I mean no offense here, I just made the mistake of reading some of Frank's commentary (which I don't anymore, but someone here referred to it and I was interested). That's the "nonsense" we most want to avoid and it's probably best done by taking the higher more "diplomatic" road, whenever possible. Too many folks just looking for a fight.

Didi
[b]
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:03 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home.


But that's what the defence team is going to claim, isn't it? I'll wait for their explanation for Guede's 'magical powers' then.


Yes Lancelotti, the defense is going to explain that Guede is an athlete so he climbed up to a 3 or 4 meters windows (do you know how high that is?) after throwing a four kilos rock (do you have an idea of how heavy that is), which shattered the window glass in many pieces landing on a bunch of clothes scattered on the floor, conveniently forgotten there by Filomena. But they will also have to explain why Rudy would risk to break his neck in order to break in a student's house where no Picasso's or precious gems or plenty of cash would be found. It doesn't make any sense.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:13 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home. He didn't have a key and he certainly didn't fly in through Filomena's window. That only happens in fairy tales by the way.

I've read some nonsense on this board recently. One poster was prepared to believe there was a huge conspiracy involving all the judges, police officers, lawyers AND thought there might be an innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's multiple alibis and repeated lies. Now you're putting forward a scenario in which Guede has magical powers that allow him to fly through a window or scale a vertical wall. I hope you know that Spiderman isn't true.

The comments on here on are usually intelligent and sensible. Let's try and keep it that way.


The only way to keep it that way (intelligent and sensible) is by example, not by means of some Thought Police, i.e., censorship, as seen on other sites, but instead by modeling as much rational, dignified, open-minded discourse as you can and avoiding sarcasm, name-calling, and impatience or suspicion of the novice. Better to simply refer people to whatever reliable information you believe is available, or just ignore them, than call someone's ideas "nonsense" and fairy tales .

I mean no offense here, I just made the mistake of reading some of Frank's commentary (which I don't anymore, but someone here referred to it and I was interested). That's the "nonsense" we most want to avoid and it's probably best done by taking the higher more "diplomatic" road, whenever possible. Too many folks just looking for a fight.

Didi
[b]


Thanks for expressing it so well, Didi. I've been away for a few hours and just caught up with the latest nonsense at Frank's. No, that is not something to aspire to.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:16 pm   Post subject: Everyone come and join me on the side of the Angels   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Thanks, Finn. Now I am thoroughly confused. In addition to the above, we have Sollecito's written version, in which a leisurely breakfast is had by the two, water from the night before is mopped up, and our protagonists are out strolling (presumably with mop in hand) when Knox mentions the blood, the feces and the open door to Sollecito. I'm sure these pesky details will get worked out in the screenplay. Sollecito probably misremembered and then, having misremembered, wrote his misremembered version out in minute detail.

So basically, after the 12:08 phone call to Filomena, and if we accept that she was at Sollecito's flat at this time, he and Knox walked very briskly to the cottage as soon as that call is terminated and, in two subsequent phone calls from Filomena to Knox, it somehow does not get communicated that they are in fact en route to and then actually back inside the cottage to check things out.

Finally, in the fourth call (at 12:34 pm) Knox tells Filomena that her room has apparently been broken into. Presumably, Knox and Sollecito discovered this between 12:12 and 12:34 (a 24 minute window) but did not call Filomena back to inform her. They waited for Filomena to call them back. What were they doing during this 24-minute period? Not calling the police, apparently. Trying to kick the victim's door in, seeing if the room could be entered from the victim's window, surveying the fairly tiny cottage. (Maybe the Gospel has further details on the 24 minutes.)


I've had a serious look at these questions today. Essentially I've been won over from the dark side, and I'm now on the side of the angels. Hooray for the angels! These people are innocent, God damn it! etc.

So what I've decided to do is to fit the timings to The Email, accepting cellphone usage as sound corroboration and being skeptical of nearly everything else. So I'm working on a kind of reverse-Micheli basis - I assume from the outset that the police are lying, unless what they can say can be backed up by an independent source. Basically I go with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on everything, and if they don't match, I'll jump with Amanda. (Raffaele can't be trusted, he's a boy.)

The results are surprisingly interesting. Seriously, the whole show just made a lot more sense to me, from doing this. I'm not quite ready to post yet, but when I do, I'd be very interested to hear what you (and others) think. I don't mean whether you think they're innocent or guilty (THAT'S A GIVEN, IN MY NEW WORLD ORDER) but on any details you can add to the revised timeline.

bolint wrote:
"Presumably, Knox and Sollecito discovered this between 12:12 and 12:34 (a 24 minute window) but did not call Filomena back to inform her."

However, Filomena said that Amanda told her in one of those calls that she had already called the police.
If Filomena is right then Amanda clearly lied.


See, Bolint, this is a case in point. The old Finn might have been really confused by that kind of thing. The new Finn finds it easy - if Filomena says something different from Amanda, then Filomena is wrong, simple as that. I won't say she lied, because everyone likes Filomena, but let's just say that something went missing in translation, between her Italian and Amanda's American.

I think it might be worth starting a new thread for what I mean. I'll need to work out the thread rules first.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:18 pm   Post subject: NO chance?   

nicki wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home.


But that's what the defence team is going to claim, isn't it? I'll wait for their explanation for Guede's 'magical powers' then.


Yes Lancelotti, the defense is going to explain that Guede is an athlete so he climbed up to a 3 or 4 meters windows (do you know how high that is?) after throwing a four kilos rock (do you have an idea of how heavy that is), which shattered the window glass in many pieces landing on a bunch of clothes scattered on the floor, conveniently forgotten there by Filomena. But they will also have to explain why Rudy would risk to break his neck in order to break in a student's house where no Picasso's or precious gems or plenty of cash would be found. It doesn't make any sense.


My earlier reaction about "sensible and intelligent" was in concern that people don't just shut down the discussion--either by deletion or patronizing, whatever. There may be timeline reasons Rudy couldn't have been let in at some point earlier by Amanda (rather than scaling the heights like Spiderman), allowing the fake break-in to still have been carried out? I'd rather hear those reasons than just be told there's "no" chance, even at risk of being an uninformed fool. We all need to keep our thinking open (but give me closure here if it's available).

And, truly, I really do get sick of conspiracy theorists: moon flight, 9/11, JFK, etc. I don't think the Italians are that well organized...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:18 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Quote:
Shirley wrote:
I left a window open once and a squirrel ate a hole in the screen, came into my apt and hid nuts all over the place

Completely OT:
A squirrel came to your place and hid nuts? :shock: How cool is that! Can't believe it bothered you. My cat "Harald" places dead bleeding mice onto my bed now and then, and i love it! Bats fly through my apartement in late summer evenings, and i love it (Harald loves them too!). A fruit fly sits on my screen right now and is, wait, now dead. Hate them...

"Who knows the humans, loves the animals!"



This reminds of a remark made by a French comedian. I think it was Pierre Desproges but am not sure. He said "Plus je connais les hommes, plus j’aime mon chien". The more I know of people (humans), the more I like my dog. :)

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:24 pm   Post subject:    

Finn wrote:

Quote:
I've had a serious look at these questions today. Essentially I've been won over from the dark side, and I'm now on the side of the angels. Hooray for the angels! These people are innocent, God damn it! etc.

So what I've decided to do is to fit the timings to The Email, accepting cellphone usage as sound corroboration and being skeptical of nearly everything else. So I'm working on a kind of reverse-Micheli basis - I assume from the outset that the police are lying, unless what they can say can be backed up by an independent source. Basically I go with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on everything, and if they don't match, I'll jump with Amanda. (Raffaele can't be trusted, he's a boy.)

The results are surprisingly interesting. Seriously, the whole show just made a lot more sense to me, from doing this. I'm not quite ready to post yet, but when I do, I'd be very interested to hear what you (and others) think. I don't mean whether you think they're innocent or guilty (THAT'S A GIVEN, IN MY NEW WORLD ORDER) but on any details you can add to the revised timeline.


This sounds like a very interesting thought experiment.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: NO chance?   

disinterested wrote:
nicki wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home.


But that's what the defence team is going to claim, isn't it? I'll wait for their explanation for Guede's 'magical powers' then.


Yes Lancelotti, the defense is going to explain that Guede is an athlete so he climbed up to a 3 or 4 meters windows (do you know how high that is?) after throwing a four kilos rock (do you have an idea of how heavy that is), which shattered the window glass in many pieces landing on a bunch of clothes scattered on the floor, conveniently forgotten there by Filomena. But they will also have to explain why Rudy would risk to break his neck in order to break in a student's house where no Picasso's or precious gems or plenty of cash would be found. It doesn't make any sense.


My earlier reaction about "sensible and intelligent" was in concern that people don't just shut down the discussion--either by deletion or patronizing, whatever. There may be timeline reasons Rudy couldn't have been let in at some point earlier by Amanda (rather than scaling the heights like Spiderman), allowing the fake break-in to still have been carried out? I'd rather hear those reasons than just be told there's "no" chance, even at risk of being an uninformed fool. We all need to keep our thinking open (but give me closure here if it's available).

And, truly, I really do get sick of conspiracy theorists: moon flight, 9/11, JFK, etc. I don't think the Italians are that well organized...


Thank you disinterested and Skep for voicing exactly what I was thinking too. There is no point in criticising the opposition and then behaving in a less than gracious manner yourself. Personally I love people having flights of fancy - like Finn deciding to wear different glasses for a bit, just to see what happens, and what questions can be seen differently. Surely we know that allowing a free flow of ideas is a much better way of moving thinking on? If people make mistakes then so be it.

I think the 'conspiracy theorist' comment was aimed at me for mentioning a rumour that had been put about by a journalist! Sigh...looks like we are all going to have to watch what we say from now on...
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:38 pm   Post subject: reverse basis thinking   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Finn wrote:

Quote:
I've had a serious look at these questions today. Essentially I've been won over from the dark side, and I'm now on the side of the angels. Hooray for the angels! These people are innocent, God damn it! etc.

So what I've decided to do is to fit the timings to The Email, accepting cellphone usage as sound corroboration and being skeptical of nearly everything else. So I'm working on a kind of reverse-Micheli basis - I assume from the outset that the police are lying, unless what they can say can be backed up by an independent source. Basically I go with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on everything, and if they don't match, I'll jump with Amanda. (Raffaele can't be trusted, he's a boy.)

The results are surprisingly interesting. Seriously, the whole show just made a lot more sense to me, from doing this. I'm not quite ready to post yet, but when I do, I'd be very interested to hear what you (and others) think. I don't mean whether you think they're innocent or guilty (THAT'S A GIVEN, IN MY NEW WORLD ORDER) but on any details you can add to the revised timeline.


This sounds like a very interesting thought experiment.



Oh please--no thought experiments. I'm having trouble following the conventional thinking. (Is this new thread going to be from the perspective of Finn or from Pierre's dog?)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:43 pm   Post subject:    

The Bard wrote:

Quote:
I think the 'conspiracy theorist' comment was aimed at me for mentioning a rumour that had been put about by a journalist! Sigh...looks like we are all going to have to watch what we say from now on...


I would just let that one go by - and no, you don't have to watch what you say in the sense of political correctness. I don't like it when people are rude, dishonest in their argumentation, show bad faith or attack people instead of grappling with ideas. All of those things are written into the rules of the board. Oh, and it isn't acceptable to post as fact something you know to be false. I personally like it when people make it very clear that they are stating an opinion, and when the opinions expressed pertain to the case or the media treatment of it. I personally prefer that people don't post stuff from tabloids as if it were the truth, and that they refrain from posting old stuff that has clearly been superseded by more recent information.

On the plus side, I personally like it when people do a little digging before they post, to make sure they have their facts right. I also like it when people graciously concede if they happen to be wrong about something.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:47 pm   Post subject: Eggshells   

The Bard wrote:
Thank you disinterested and Skep for voicing exactly what I was thinking too. There is no point in criticising the opposition and then behaving in a less than gracious manner yourself. Personally I love people having flights of fancy - like Finn deciding to wear different glasses for a bit, just to see what happens, and what questions can be seen differently. Surely we know that allowing a free flow of ideas is a much better way of moving thinking on? If people make mistakes then so be it.

I think the 'conspiracy theorist' comment was aimed at me for mentioning a rumour that had been put about by a journalist! Sigh...looks like we are all going to have to watch what we say from now on...



Hi Bard. I am firmly of the belief that people should be able to speak freely. All that's required, is that they do so in good faith. I wouldn't like you or anyone else to feel they are walking on eggshells. Having said that, as you've probably noticed, some people have developed very strong positions, so at the same time, in this case, a thick skin is required. I speak from experience :) My counsel, is that you continue right on expressing your thoughts and opinions. It may be that on occassion you'll be wrong about something, but when that happens, you'll be joining a very big club (I'm already a member of it)...I personally believe one is not a true member of PMF until they have been wrong about something at least once. It's those that are 'never' wrong you have to worry about ;)[

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:07 pm   Post subject: Re: Eggshells   

Michael wrote:
The Bard wrote:
Thank you disinterested and Skep for voicing exactly what I was thinking too. There is no point in criticising the opposition and then behaving in a less than gracious manner yourself. Personally I love people having flights of fancy - like Finn deciding to wear different glasses for a bit, just to see what happens, and what questions can be seen differently. Surely we know that allowing a free flow of ideas is a much better way of moving thinking on? If people make mistakes then so be it.

I think the 'conspiracy theorist' comment was aimed at me for mentioning a rumour that had been put about by a journalist! Sigh...looks like we are all going to have to watch what we say from now on...



Hi Bard. I am firmly of the belief that people should be able to speak freely. All that's required, is that they do so in good faith. I wouldn't like you or anyone else to feel they are walking on eggshells. Having said that, as you've probably noticed, some people have developed very strong positions, so at the same time, in this case, a thick skin is required. I speak from experience :) My counsel, is that you continue right on expressing your thoughts and opinions. It may be that on occassion you'll be wrong about something, but when that happens, you'll be joining a very big club (I'm already a member of it)...I personally believe one is not a true member of PMF until they have been wrong about something at least once. It's those that are 'never' wrong you have to worry about ;)[



Wise words Michael, thank you. I will. I have been thinking about the the words of our dear old Bertrand Russell. I read something by him today which may provide food for thought on the subject :

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

Discuss!
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home. He didn't have a key and he certainly didn't fly in through Filomena's window. That only happens in fairy tales by the way.

I've read some nonsense on this board recently. One poster was prepared to believe there was a huge conspiracy involving all the judges, police officers, lawyers AND thought there might be an innocent explanation for Knox's and Sollecito's multiple alibis and repeated lies. Now you're putting forward a scenario in which Guede has magical powers that allow him to fly through a window or scale a vertical wall. I hope you know that Spiderman isn't true.

The comments on here on are usually intelligent and sensible. Let's try and keep it that way.


Mr Machine, I agree some comments can appear very fanciful. However, I personally don't find them distracting to the process of finding out what really happened that night. It's obviously quite clear that you are 100% convinced that the suspects are 100% involved in Meredith's murder, and I don't have a problem with that. I do think though that all views should be heard and argued in order for us all to be able to discuss all of the elements in this case - some of which may move in significance as the trial continues. I think it was Arthur Conan Doyle who said "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". If someone argues a point that is not impossible then we should accept that there is another point of view - even if it doesn't fit a person's idea of what is intelligent and sensible. A failure to do this will mean we end up as a propaganda mouthpiece like the cook's blog for the shock site.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: NO chance?   

The Bard wrote:
disinterested wrote:
nicki wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Perhaps, he was inside already when the victim came home.


There was no chance Rudy Guede was already inside when the victim came home.


But that's what the defence team is going to claim, isn't it? I'll wait for their explanation for Guede's 'magical powers' then.


Yes Lancelotti, the defense is going to explain that Guede is an athlete so he climbed up to a 3 or 4 meters windows (do you know how high that is?) after throwing a four kilos rock (do you have an idea of how heavy that is), which shattered the window glass in many pieces landing on a bunch of clothes scattered on the floor, conveniently forgotten there by Filomena. But they will also have to explain why Rudy would risk to break his neck in order to break in a student's house where no Picasso's or precious gems or plenty of cash would be found. It doesn't make any sense.


My earlier reaction about "sensible and intelligent" was in concern that people don't just shut down the discussion--either by deletion or patronizing, whatever. There may be timeline reasons Rudy couldn't have been let in at some point earlier by Amanda (rather than scaling the heights like Spiderman), allowing the fake break-in to still have been carried out? I'd rather hear those reasons than just be told there's "no" chance, even at risk of being an uninformed fool. We all need to keep our thinking open (but give me closure here if it's available).

And, truly, I really do get sick of conspiracy theorists: moon flight, 9/11, JFK, etc. I don't think the Italians are that well organized...


Thank you disinterested and Skep for voicing exactly what I was thinking too. There is no point in criticising the opposition and then behaving in a less than gracious manner yourself. Personally I love people having flights of fancy - like Finn deciding to wear different glasses for a bit, just to see what happens, and what questions can be seen differently. Surely we know that allowing a free flow of ideas is a much better way of moving thinking on? If people make mistakes then so be it.

I think the 'conspiracy theorist' comment was aimed at me for mentioning a rumour that had been put about by a journalist! Sigh...looks like we are all going to have to watch what we say from now on...


I agree everyone should be free to post one's opinion without being chastised. But as well as being free to have "flights of fancy", posters must also be able to express their own "down-to earth thoughts", elaborated on the base of what they have learned so far from both sides. As far as I am concerned, it's more likely that Meredith opened the door to Rudy rather than having spider man picking up a very heavy rock in order to break a window to gain entrance to a student house where hardly anything of value could be stolen-meawhile risking some serious physical harm in the case of a fall. A four meters wall is very high. A four kilos rock is very heavy, even for an ex- athlete. I'm just expressing my personal serious doubts on the rationale supporting the alleged means of entry. The way I see it, if it wasn't Amanda Knox, and unless they showed up together, a possibility is that Meredith herself let Rudy in, after all she had met the guy before, so he was not a stranger. I don't think the above is "patronizing" in any way, it's just my opinion.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:22 pm   Post subject: Anxiously Awaiting   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Quote:
I've had a serious look at these questions today. Essentially I've been won over from the dark side, and I'm now on the side of the angels. Hooray for the angels! These people are innocent, God damn it! etc.

So what I've decided to do is to fit the timings to The Email, accepting cellphone usage as sound corroboration and being skeptical of nearly everything else. So I'm working on a kind of reverse-Micheli basis - I assume from the outset that the police are lying, unless what they can say can be backed up by an independent source. Basically I go with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on everything, and if they don't match, I'll jump with Amanda. (Raffaele can't be trusted, he's a boy.)

The results are surprisingly interesting. Seriously, the whole show just made a lot more sense to me, from doing this. I'm not quite ready to post yet, but when I do, I'd be very interested to hear what you (and others) think. I don't mean whether you think they're innocent or guilty (THAT'S A GIVEN, IN MY NEW WORLD ORDER) but on any details you can add to the revised timeline.


Hi Finn,

I've been eagerly reading your discussion over "there". Your timeline of all the activities that "needed" to happen within a short 5 minutes are astonishing! And, Charlie Wilkes' explanation is even more so!

Charlie sums things up:
Quote:
Do you mean discrepancies between her and Filo? I attribute that to language and memory issues. Why would Amanda tell Filo she was going to talk to Raffaele if in fact she already had? What difference does it make? They just didn't understand each other.


I'm anxiously awaiting your wrap-up report with your findings. I hope you'll be reposting your timelines over here for all to see. They're important.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:26 pm   Post subject: ADMINISTRATOR NOTE   

:!: Administrator Note:


Regarding Frank's blog. Although this does not directly concern PMF, I am putting this up as an Administrator Note, since many of you may be past, current or future posters on Frank's blog. As you may have read, although some of you may have missed, the Mellas Mafia have claimed on Frank's that he intends to pass on the IP address of every poster that has posted on his site to the Mellas family (in strict breech of site owner protocol). Since Frank has not posted any denial of these claims or answered any questions regarding them, one can only conclude that Frank is happy for this message to be put out. Many of you, quite rightly, may be worrying for your privacy and legal safety.

There can only be two reasons for this. 1) Frank intends to do just as has been claimed, or 2) Frank would like this to be 'believed' so that those who support Meredith will be intimidated away from posting on his blog.

Time to announce a little secret. Frank is unable to read the IP addresses of posters on his blog, his software does not provide him with that feature. Only the Admins of his provider can. Hence why he's never banned anyone, he can't. He can delete posts, but that's it ;)

Therefore, that rules out #1 and #2 is all that remains. Frank has moved over (long ago) from running a blog supporting the victim, Meredith, to one concerned only with Amanda Knox. Therefore, Knox supporters are full of praise for Frank and he would very much like his space reserved for those that offer him nothing but edification. This is a man with ambitions. At the same time, Knox Supporters love Frank's. He says what they want him to say and he gives them free reign to say whatever they wish, anonymously, no matter how obnoxious, without Moderator interference. It's a symbiotic relationship where both backs are scratched. Detractors are unwelcome. They want us off of the blog...'us' being anyone who mentions awkward things, such as evidence and facts. Many of you, may choose not to post on Frank's, simply because of the cess pit it has become. That's a good reason and probably a good choice. However, I'm just making this post so that members can choose to refrain from posting on Frank's for the right reason, rather then do so because they feel they've been intimidated off of it.

_________________
"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." ~ Winston Churchill mike


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:45 pm   Post subject:    

A useful point Michael and one I was already familiar with. It's just more senseless scare tactics, though in some ways I wish Frank did have IP access. I'd love to see the class action suits coming his way if he tried any form of legal intimidation.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 10 of 11 [ 2519 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

Judge Massei Sentencing Report     The Meredith Kercher Fund     The Murder Of Meredith Kercher Wiki     True Justice For Meredith Kercher     Judge Nencini Sentencing Report 


28,891,662 Views