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: Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:24 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:24 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

VIII. MAIN DISCUSSION, April 09 - May 22, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 8 of 10 [ 2401 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message

Offline Anastasia


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:13 pm

Posts: 47

Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:25 am   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
Time abroad is exhilirating.
Coming back - not so much.
Sometimes, coming back is even humdrum.
But help is available.

(Note the date: early November 2007 - add it to the coincidence list mentioned earlier)

Quote:
Post-Erasmus syndrome: SOS distress

Erasmus = a riotous life abroad of non-stop parties and lovemaking. But once they’ve returned, the majority of students experience a low period, a mixture of nostalgia and apathy. Is this the end of innocence?
investigation

by Prune Antoine -
Leeds Translation: Andrew Burgess


07/11/07
Quote:
'The former Erasmus student knows that when they return, their homes feel less glamorous, their towns colder, their universities seem like dumps, the television still shabby and their friends lousy.' These are the remarks of Fiorella de Nicola, an Italian student who has devoted her sociology thesis to the 'Anthropology of the Erasmus student'. Her conclusions, which she identifies as the 'post-Erasmus syndrome,' are eloquent. Once the ‘good-times’ come to an end, the majority of students return back to their parental home and to their boring daily lives either depressed or disappointed.

'The year abroad is filled with so many emotions, new friendships, constant discoveries and the feeling of being a little ‘special’,' explains Aurélie, a student from Orleans who spent her year at the University in Newcastle. 'At home, life becomes very simple again and a little empty because all the new things are one of the components of the Erasmus experience.' Juliane, who went to study modern languages in Glasgow, adds: 'you head back home afterwards and you realise that everything is exactly the same as it was when you left. Yet inside us, everything has changed.'


Cafe Babel



And

Michael wrote:
I am surrendering to the idea that everyone is just in a rather tetchy mood today.

and
Michael wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:
And just as I say that, Skep returns.


Tired and cranky!


Oh no, not you as well. It must be a full moon today.



Actually, it was a full Moon - when I saw it riding high last night,
I almost thought about sending out a Moon-warning broadcast,
but then I thought "The little darlings can look after things themselves"
- and I was almost right.

Even though youngsters in a far-off place might get a little bit more than
tetchy themselves (extrapolating from how grown-ups behave ;) )
there was no Moon to rely on back in early Nov-2007.

I checked.

P.S. The Moon is just peeping across my shoulder through the window
as I type this - but it is mellower and more serene and honey-er this evening,
more like a pizza pie, like in the old song, "That's amore".

P.P.S. When it's dry, and with low humidity, and static electricity sparks zap
out of my cat's fur, that is a living definition of "tetchy". :D :D
Poor cat!


WOW Catnip that post Erasmus syndrome, that is EXACTLY how I felt coming home from the mountains in the spring, even the bllooming flowers couldnt get me out of that gloom :cry: I wanted to stay forever. I wonder if Amanda anticipated this and it made her do something very monstrous, that would make it so she had to stay in Italy for the next 30 or more years? Just a thought, and I think this may have been talked about on haloscan or here at some point?

And I had a funny feeling about that full moon too, also we have to figure in the fact that its spring, everyones moods get funny with spring fever? :o
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:56 am   Post subject:    

Re-reading yesterday's posts -- what a day! It looks like I even missed some of the fray, what with subsequently removed posts and all, while having dinner. So many insults, mostly unintended, and so many apologies! I think the most comical bit was Brian's sudden about-face:

3:57 pm
If two different people aren't entitled to hold different opinions on a subject which isn't a fixed science, {water doesn't flow uphill}, then this board has a problem.
Leave it alone. Everyone who reads here knows that Bard and DF2k are two different characters. There isn't a right and there isn't a wrong.

6:57 pm
F... .... .... Taliban?


I think it is actually very impressive to see how high emotions were running, because the reason (unless it was the full moon...) was pretty clearly that yesterday was DNA day, and it was expected to be crucial in the trial, but as the hours rolled by, it seemed that it WASN'T. Except that we now know that Raffaele's defence is definitely going for the contamination explanation that white-suited police actually stepped on something with Raffaele's DNA and then stepped on the bra clasp without seeing it while it was lost. Bongiorno stressed that the house was a scene of ceaseless coming and going, judging by the video.

One surprise of the day for me was the quote from the press (ansa.it) I mentioned yesterday:

"Le immagine tra l'altro riguardano il reperimento nella casa di via della Pergola del frammento di gancetto di reggiseno dove sarebbero state trovate delle tracce genetiche riconducibili proprio a Sollecito. Per l'accusa i killer strapparono questo indumento alla vittima ancora in vita."

Translation: The images concern the finding in the house in via della Pergola of the piece of clasp of the bra on which are genetic traces which lead back to Sollecito. For the prosecution the killers tore off this garment from the victim while she was still alive.


No one responded to it in the heat of the flying arguments, but is that because people think the news just got it wrong, or because no one noticed it? Brian? What do you think? Isn't this strange with respect to the previous information about the imprinted bra-strap etc.?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 10:51 am   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
Except that we now know that Raffaele's defence is definitely going for the contamination explanation that white-suited police actually stepped on something with Raffaele's DNA and then stepped on the bra clasp without seeing it while it was lost.


We've known that Sollecito's lawyers were going to attribute Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp to contamination. It's not a new revelation. It doesn't matter was Bongiorno claims; she's not a forensic expert. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Alberto Intini have categorically excluded the possibility of contamination. The idea that a scientific police officer stepped onto Sollecito's DNA and then stepped onto small piece of Meredith's underwear is a comical explanation. Sollecito's DNA wasn't found anywhere else in the cottage.

I'd take what Bongiorno says with a pinch of salt. She has made a fool of herself on number of occasions with ridiculous comments. She reckons that it's possible to gain entry to Filomena's room by scaling a vertical wall and she said would prove that Sollecito was surfing the Internet on the night of the murder.

thoughtful wrote:
The images concern the finding in the house in via della Pergola of the piece of clasp of the bra on which are genetic traces which lead back to Sollecito. For the prosecution the killers tore off this garment from the victim while she was still alive.

No one responded to it in the heat of the flying arguments, but is that because people think the news just got it wrong, or because no one noticed it? Brian? What do you think? Isn't this strange with respect to the previous information about the imprinted bra-strap etc.?


I would always trust Judge Paolo Micheli's report over the comments in an ANSA report. You should have learnt by now that there has been much inaccurate reporting about the case even by mainstream news channels like ABC News and CBS News, and newspapers like the Independent. Nick Pisa from Sky News often says that Amanda Knox has always maintained that she was at Sollecito's apartment on the murder, which is not true either.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 11:28 am   Post subject:    

Hi machine,
"that there has been much inaccurate reporting about the case even by mainstream news channels like ABC News and CBS News, and newspapers like the Independent"

You are absolutely right:I had no time to follow yersterday's trial seession on pmf and what has been published in the news seems rather confusing. What happend exactly with this "new" video? Why was the dna expert not allowed to talk about the knife?

Is it true that mignini has been charged with misconduct in office and tampering with evidence?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 11:57 am   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
What happend exactly with this "new" video? Why was the dna expert not allowed to talk about the knife?

Is it true that mignini has been charged with misconduct in office and tampering with evidence?


The defence lawyers wanted more time to watch the video. It's a longer version of the original video.

Do you honestly believe that Mignini would still be allowed to prosecute in a high profile case like this one if he was suspected of serious misconduct like tampering with evidence?

The very fact that Mignini has been chosen to be the lead prosecutor in this case tells us that the charges against him aren't particularly serious and/or there is no substance to them. Please note that Mignini has already cleared by a court in Florence of these abuse of power charges. However, a city prosecutor has decided to proceed against him anyway. It seems this decision is a political one.
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 May 09, 2009 12:09 pm   Post subject:    

A (very brief) summary of main items for the next Italian news digest:

Sir Knight Raffaele and the saga of "The getting of the prosecution's video to work".

The two hour crime scene video that came to light a week ago
needs time to be examined by the defence; the prosecution
can't ask current witnesses questions about it (thus denying the
defences' request to pause the proceedings); Stefanoni's
testimony has been postponed to 20 May (as a consequence, I think).

A catalogue of various prints of varying quality and quantity.

Handprint on the pillow is Rudy's;
Shoeprint in blood in Meredith's room
"absolute and full compatibility" with Rudy's footwear
- deduced using the same brand and model as the empty shoebox
found at Rudy's home, plus shoeprints in his bathroom there.

Bare footprint on the bathmat is Sollecito's;
and so is one in the hallway; one in Amanda's room is hers;
all these in terms of "probably". All revealed via Luminol.

Sollecito's defence has asked for transcripts of phone
intercepts of his relatives (excluding his father's confidential
medical conversations).

The "war of the experts" continues. The case won't conclude before October.

And something that has been missing for a while:
One of the papers also had a fashion report - Amanda's top and Raffaele's trousers.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 12:42 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Machine,

"Do you honestly believe that Mignini would still be allowed to prosecute in a high profile case like this one if he was suspected of serious misconduct like tampering with evidence? "

I didn't say that I believe it, i read it in one of the numerous comments on miss represented's latest
blog
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 12:47 pm   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
I didn't say that I believe it, i read it in one of the numerous comments on miss represented's latest
blog


I thought you might have read it there. It is clearly not true. The comment was made by a troll who makes numerous inaccurate and ignorant comments.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 12:48 pm   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
Hi Machine,

"Do you honestly believe that Mignini would still be allowed to prosecute in a high profile case like this one if he was suspected of serious misconduct like tampering with evidence? "

I didn't say that I believe it, i read it in one of the numerous comments on miss represented's latest
blog


Yes Martin, there is a troll (or two) on Miss Represented's Blog, called Shust -- and he has planted himself there, so that you could, and others quote him, to cuase distraction I think. Maybe I am wrong -- but it seems to be the case (at least with him: unsubstantiated long tirades, typical, and coughing up old and long since refuted arguments. Like a Hungarian said: I was two cats in my dream and played with each other.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 12:51 pm   Post subject:    

Hi there,
I have another question:

One month ago, many of you were often
referring to the "cook's blog". What has he/she
to do with the case? What kind of food is he/she
specialized in?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:01 pm   Post subject:    

Machine,
you seem to be very well informed about this case.
Tell me, in case of a conviction, will they stay in a
normal prison or will they be sent to a high
security mental institution?
And what will be the sentence? 20y, 30y or
even life?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:17 pm   Post subject:    

sky news --and good ole Nick Pisa -- Meredith Trial: Blood Footprint Matches Knox
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:26 pm   Post subject:    

Ah - a full moon! And the answer appears. :D I apologize if I came off testy yesterday. I admit that sometimes I feel like it's fashionable to "American-bash" and I got a little defensive. I'm the first to admit that America has some less-than-desirable traits (I'm thinking of the Christian right, the strangely puritanical attitude toward sex that somehow coincides with blatant sexual images all over television and magazines, and the disaster that was the election and the REelection of George W. Bush *shakes head*). But in my circles, at least, I tend to see really dedicated and level-headed parents and my dander got up a bit when it seemed like people were saying we had a widespread problem here with negative parenting styles. Anyway: Peace. :o

As far as the parenting Amanda received, I just don't think we can underestimate the effect of her parents splitting when she was, I think I heard?, 3. I've read studies suggesting that that age is a CRUCIAL period for later personality development and that abandonment issues occurring around that age can really manifest themselves later. Even if Curt remained an involved dad, the mere fact of his leaving would likely have had a deep psychological impact on the young Amanda. I fully acknowledge that this is total speculation, but I can't help thinking that maybe this led to an unhealthy, almost obsessive desire to be liked by and desired by men. Maybe the combination of the downstairs guy picking Meredith over Amanda and the suggestion that Lumumba preferred Meredith to Amanda set off some weird, deep-rooted, psychological alarm bells in Amanda. I dunno.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:41 pm   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
Hi there,
I have another question:

One month ago, many of you were often
referring to the "cook's blog". What has he/she
to do with the case? What kind of food is he/she
specialized in?


I asked this question not too long ago and received an answer, so I will try to answer yours. Apparently "the cook" is Candace Dempsey, a former food/travel writer (hence the "cook" moniker) who is now running a blog about the Knox case on the Seattle PI newspaper's reader blog section. She is also planning to write a book about the case. She is extremely pro-innocence and many suspect that she has close connections with the Knox and/or Mellas families and is not an objective voice.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 1:59 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
Apparently "the cook" is Candace Dempsey, a former food/travel writer (hence the "cook" moniker) who is now running a blog about the Knox case on the Seattle PI newspaper's reader blog section. She is also planning to write a book about the case.


Hi Truthseeker, a very fair summary of the cook's blog.

The paper-version Seattle PI has subsequently folded and the readership of the website which carries her blog is down by 30-plus percent.

In strong contrats to the blog, reporting by the Seattle PI's associate in Rome, Andrea Vogt, has been among the very best in the United States. The newsroom was rumored as being unhappy about the blog.

The cook's book contract was intended to be a closely-held secret. But a booboo by the literary agent resulted in its surprise surfacing here.

We know of at least three other books in the works, and two of them are described here.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:11 pm   Post subject:    

Hi, Truth Seeker,

Thanks for your reply. I read your post about
america-bashing: Yes, you are right about the
christian pressure-groups and the puritanical
behavior of many of your fellow citizens, but
i can tell you: i have many american friends and
i met very interesting and fantastic people there.
You must consider that the contry's population
is 300 millions and you have immigrants from
all over the world, from very different civilizations
and different backgrounds. There is also a big difference if you talk to somebody from
the bible belt or, for example, miami. May i ask you where you are from?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:13 pm   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
Tell me, in case of a conviction, will they stay in a
normal prison or will they be sent to a high
security mental institution?
And what will be the sentence? 20y, 30y or
even life?


Hi Martin,

They will be sent to a normal prison at first. They will be almost certainly stay in a normal prison until all the appeals are exhausted.

Several judges who have been involved the case have remarked upon Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's mental instability and the likelihood of them reoffending.

Preliminary Judge Claudia Matteini noted:

"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 subjected 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 (Knox) have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life.
"

Judge Matteini told Amanda Knox:

"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."

From the Daily Telegraph (7 December, 2007):

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.


Incidentally, Raffaele Sollecito made a similar comment about Knox being unattached to reality:

"She had almost no contact with reality"

The Supreme Court to 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."

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"

I think it's abundantly clear that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are psychologically disturbed and there is a very strong possibility that they will be transferred to a secure mentail institution at some point in the future.

I'm assuming the length of the sentences will depend on the judge's discretion. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito face additional charges to the murder charge. Amanda Knox faces an additional sentence of 6 years if she is found guilty of the false and malicious accusation of Diya Lumumba, which seems to be a certainty. It seems they will both serve a minimum of 30 years.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:23 pm   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
Hi, Truth Seeker,

Thanks for your reply. I read your post about
america-bashing: Yes, you are right about the
christian pressure-groups and the puritanical
behavior of many of your fellow citizens, but
i can tell you: i have many american friends and
i met very interesting and fantastic people there.
You must consider that the contry's population
is 300 millions and you have immigrants from
all over the world, from very different civilizations
and different backgrounds. There is also a big difference if you talk to somebody from
the bible belt or, for example, miami. May i ask you where you are from?


That's true, the population is very very diverse and visiting only one town or area can perhaps give a very skewed impression of the country as a whole. I'm thinking of someone visiting, say, a Mormon suburb outside of Salt Lake City versus visting the Castro district in San Francisco. Currently I live in the Midwest, but I've also lived in Alaska, in western Massachusetts, and in San Francisco, so I've been exposed to a fair amount of our different "sub-cultures."

There can also be huge differences based on socioeconomic factors, which I'm sure is true in other countries as well.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:23 pm   Post subject:    

I would just like to add this to the Machine's excellent description of the possibilities if the defendants are found guilty.

Rudy Guede is locked up in the sex-crime-offenders' wing of his prison (special protection) because, among other things, he was found guilty of a sex crime.
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 May 09, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject: Record   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
From Frank's latest post:

Quote:
And then it was revealed something that surprised even the prosecutors. When they inserted the palm print in the database no match came out. Indeed not only Rudi didn't have any criminal record, as we knew, but even when he was stopped in Milan his fingerprints weren't taken.
They got to Rudy only after a while, when the Perugia police sent to Rome the record cards of possible suspected people. Among those cards there was Rudi's one but not for criminal reasons. His finger and palm prints were recorded only because of the law on immigration.


Will this put an end to all the nonsense out there about Rudy Guede's criminal record and why his finger and palm prints were on record? I don't know how many times posters have set the record straight on this point already.



Well, one would 'think', but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Indeed, as one might have known, Candace is finding it very difficult to let go of the concept of Rudy being an 'arch-crim'. Even though she now acknowledges, as per Frank, that he had no criminal record, she tempers that acknowledgement by stating "although he had been picked up for various things" which makes him sound like he was just as much a criminal as he would have been if 'did' have a criminal record. The actual fact is that he was picked up ONCE and for something that wasn't even considered serious enough to take his fingerprints. Of course, the image of Rudy has been carefully crafted over the last 18 months by Knox supporters with no little energy going into painting him as the hardcore career drug dealing burglarising thug, that pesters and robs women and was at the top of the Perugian police list of local trouble makers. Anyone who ever says different is a 'Rudy supporter' or a 'Rudy lover' or believes 'Rudy is innocent'. Indeed, their much loved image of Rudy will only ever be pried from their cold dead fingers and anyone who stands up and states this image to be false will be the recipient of various insults. In other words, the clarification from Frank (which others have been stating for well over a year in any case) will make not a single shred of difference. Buisness as usual.

_________________
"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 May 09, 2009 2:41 pm   Post subject: Full Moon   

Catnip wrote:
Actually, it was a full Moon - when I saw it riding high last night,
I almost thought about sending out a Moon-warning broadcast,
but then I thought "The little darlings can look after things themselves"
- and I was almost right.

Even though youngsters in a far-off place might get a little bit more than
tetchy themselves (extrapolating from how grown-ups behave )
there was no Moon to rely on back in early Nov-2007.

I checked.

P.S. The Moon is just peeping across my shoulder through the window
as I type this - but it is mellower and more serene and honey-er this evening,
more like a pizza pie, like in the old song, "That's amore".

P.P.S. When it's dry, and with low humidity, and static electricity sparks zap
out of my cat's fur, that is a living definition of "tetchy".
Poor cat!



I KNEW it! From now on I'm going to be monitoring the calendar and next full moon....I'm taking the day off :(

_________________
"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 martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:41 pm   Post subject:    

Hi machine,
thanks for your detailed description. One last question: Since ak is an american citizen: could
she be transfered back to the states to serve her time in an american prison?
I was discussing the case with my sister who is a judge (not doing criminal law, though). She explained me the procedure of a criminal trial in
my country: you have 8 jurors (randomly selected),
the presiding professional judge has no vote and is not allowed to influence the jurors. In case of a tie,
(4:4), the defendant is considered "not guilty" and
is free to go home. Most convicted murderes serve
between 10 - 15 years and are then released on parole. How is it in the UK? Does the presiding judge have a vote?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:46 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Meredith Trial: Footprints Linked To Suspects
2:59pm UK, Saturday May 09, 2009

Nick Pisa, in Perugia

Bloodstained footprints found at the house where British student Meredith Kercher was stabbed to death fit her alleged killers, a court has heard.

Forensic scientists found one imprint on a bath mat and three more in the corridor leading from Meredith's bedroom to that of suspect Amanda Knox.

The court heard how imprints were taken of Knox, 21, and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 25.

Both stand jointly accused of murdering Meredith, 21, while she was studying abroad in Perugia, Italy.

Police scientist Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi told the Italian court his forensic evidence was discovered by using Luminol - a substance that turns blue in the presence of blood.

"From our investigations we were able to conclude that the footprint found on the bath mat was compatible with that of Sollecito as was one found in the corridor using Luminol," Dr Rinaldi said.

"We also found that a naked footprint found in Knox's bedroom and in the corridor outside, again using Luminol, was compatible with the one taken from her in prison."

Dr Rinaldi explained to the court how microscopic point to point measurements such as ''heel to toe'' or ''toe and arch width'' were used to identify the imprints
.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Martin,

I think it's extremely unlikely that Amanda Knox will serve her sentence in America.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:57 pm   Post subject: Mignini and Tapes   

martin wrote:
Hi machine,
"that there has been much inaccurate reporting about the case even by mainstream news channels like ABC News and CBS News, and newspapers like the Independent"

You are absolutely right:I had no time to follow yersterday's trial seession on pmf and what has been published in the news seems rather confusing. What happend exactly with this "new" video? Why was the dna expert not allowed to talk about the knife?

Is it true that mignini has been charged with misconduct in office and tampering with evidence?



Martin, 'tamporing with evidence' is not something that Mignini has been charged with. The charge relates to an 'illegal' wire tap. From looking at the case, reading between the lines, it's very clear that it is 'political'. To sum it up, Mignini whilst persuing an investigating a very serious crime (the Narduci case) followed the investigation where it led him and ended up taking the investigation into another prosecutors turf (Florence). This prosecutor didn't like that very much. In fact, as I understand it, Mignini wasn't even responsible for the 'illegal' wiretaps himself, but has been accused of covering up for a senior police officer in the Perugian force who supposedly did (that officer is also charged). This has been translated into a general charge of 'abuse of office'. They both deny the charges in any case and as TM has said, the charges were already dismissed by a Florentine court, but the Florentine prosecutor is determined to persue it and is doing so even though the charges were rejected (in other words, appealed the court decision, as a prosecutor can). In short, it's a prosecutor 'turf war' and is purely political.

The video was delayed because it was corrupted and had been sent off to be restored. The prosecution only got the video back themselves a week ago. Therefore, the defence has requested that the DNA expert's testimony be delayed and they be given extra time to review the tape before it's shown in court. Obviously, they want to be able to see if there is anything useful in the the tape so they can put it to the DNA expert in cross-examination, as well as check that there's nothing damaging on it to their case, just so that there are no nasty surprises and they're fully prepared.

_________________
"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 May 09, 2009 3:01 pm   Post subject: Footprints   

bolint wrote:
Quote:
Meredith Trial: Footprints Linked To Suspects
2:59pm UK, Saturday May 09, 2009

Nick Pisa, in Perugia

Bloodstained footprints found at the house where British student Meredith Kercher was stabbed to death fit her alleged killers, a court has heard.

Forensic scientists found one imprint on a bath mat and three more in the corridor leading from Meredith's bedroom to that of suspect Amanda Knox.

The court heard how imprints were taken of Knox, 21, and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 25.

Both stand jointly accused of murdering Meredith, 21, while she was studying abroad in Perugia, Italy.

Police scientist Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi told the Italian court his forensic evidence was discovered by using Luminol - a substance that turns blue in the presence of blood.

"From our investigations we were able to conclude that the footprint found on the bath mat was compatible with that of Sollecito as was one found in the corridor using Luminol," Dr Rinaldi said.

"We also found that a naked footprint found in Knox's bedroom and in the corridor outside, again using Luminol, was compatible with the one taken from her in prison."

Dr Rinaldi explained to the court how microscopic point to point measurements such as ''heel to toe'' or ''toe and arch width'' were used to identify the imprints
.



Hi Bolint. Hopefully that will put a stop to the recent nonsense from Knox supporters that the print on the bath mat was Rudy Guede's.

_________________
"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 martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:10 pm   Post subject:    

Thanks, michael,

i got this "info" from a comment on miss represented's latest blog. I have already been
told me that there is a leprechaun trying to take over her blog with the purpose of causing confusion
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:18 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:

Hi Bolint. Hopefully that will put a stop to the recent nonsense from Knox supporters that the print on the bath mat was Rudy Guede's.


Hi Michael,

A certain Candace Dempsey was claiming that it was Rudy Guede's bloody footprint on the bathmat. We shouldn't be surprised. She also claimed the following:

You couldn't see the gate of the cottage from Piazza Grimana.

She wasn't at Salty's for the FOA fundraising event.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito haven't lied.

Amanda Knox definitely wasn't doing cartwheels at the police station.

She is a journalist.

She received a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Oregon in 1996-1997.

The photographs of her on TJMK were doctored.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat May 09, 2009 3:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:21 pm   Post subject:    

Martin wrote:

Quote:
Hi machine,
"that there has been much inaccurate reporting about the case even by mainstream news channels like ABC News and CBS News, and newspapers like the Independent"

You are absolutely right:I had no time to follow yersterday's trial seession on pmf and what has been published in the news seems rather confusing. What happend exactly with this "new" video? Why was the dna expert not allowed to talk about the knife?

Is it true that mignini has been charged with misconduct in office and tampering with evidence?



Hi Martin,
A suggestion about Mignini: I would be very wary of what anonymous bloggers at Frank's or trolls who invade "pro-victim" blogs (like Miss Represented) say about Mignini. Don't forget that discrediting him was the centerpiece of the FOA strategy. They also said he was "mentally unstable" according to legal experts in the US and Italy (that was Paul Ciolino) and, in the same article (published in the West Seattle Herald Tribune) stated that Mignini had several cases of misconduct under his belt, which is simply not true. As has been explained here more than once, he was charged in connection with the Monster of Florence case with illegal wiretapping. In fact, the charge was initially dropped but was then picked up by the prosecutor in Florence, the home town of Mario Spezi, who spent a couple of weeks in jail because Mignini suspected him of impeding an investigation. Spezi, along with several other people, has recently been charged by Mignini in connection with the Narducci case. Spezi was also caught illegally recording an audience with Mignini.

In other words, Martin, there is a real story to tell about Mignini, Spezi and Doug Preston, but it is far more complicated and nuanced than what you get in garbled comments on the Internet posted by friends of the family and other partisans.

I wanted to ask where you got the idea that Mignini was a "religious fanatic", as you posted the other day. Like you, I am not currently a religious practitioner, but I believe in the freedom of religious worship (one of the founding ideas of my country, in fact) and the strict separation of chuch and state. Calling someone a religious fanatic is always pejorative and, if you're going to say it you need to source it so we can evaluate the source. I have heard (from neutral sources) that Mignini takes his faith seriously, but that is quite different from being a religious fanatic. In fact, I wish more so-called believers would take their faith seriously. The world would be a better place if more religious people of all stripes actually practiced what they preach.

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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:27 pm   Post subject:    

"From our investigations we were able to conclude that the footprint found on the bath mat was compatible with that of Sollecito as was one found in the corridor using Luminol," Dr Rinaldi said. ….bolint

"But I (Raffaele) wanted to be clear - he added - that the imprints of bare feet can not be mine. Absolutely not mine. Will my advisers to give evidence and explain why.“ Raffaele in a spontaneous remark to the court.

Raff goes on to say that they got the bloody shoeprint wrong and they are wrong about these bare footprints. Yesterday Raffaele was helpful in getting the video to play . Today he is helpful in sorting out footprints.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 3:39 pm   Post subject: Mignini   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Martin wrote:

Quote:
Hi machine,
"that there has been much inaccurate reporting about the case even by mainstream news channels like ABC News and CBS News, and newspapers like the Independent"

You are absolutely right:I had no time to follow yersterday's trial seession on pmf and what has been published in the news seems rather confusing. What happend exactly with this "new" video? Why was the dna expert not allowed to talk about the knife?

Is it true that mignini has been charged with misconduct in office and tampering with evidence?



Hi Martin,
A suggestion about Mignini: I would be very wary of what anonymous bloggers at Frank's or trolls who invade "pro-victim" blogs (like Miss Represented) say about Mignini. Don't forget that discrediting him was the centerpiece of the FOA strategy. They also said he was "mentally unstable" according to legal experts in the US and Italy (that was Paul Ciolino) and, in the same article (published in the West Seattle Herald Tribune) stated that Mignini had several cases of misconduct under his belt, which is simply not true. As has been explained here more than once, he was charged in connection with the Monster of Florence case with illegal wiretapping. In fact, the charge was initially dropped but was then picked up by the prosecutor in Florence, the home town of Mario Spezi, who spent a couple of weeks in jail because Mignini suspected him of impeding an investigation. Spezi, along with several other people, has recently been charged by Mignini in connection with the Narducci case. Spezi was also caught illegally recording an audience with Mignini.

In other words, Martin, there is a real story to tell about Mignini, Spezi and Doug Preston, but it is far more complicated and nuanced than what you get in garbled comments on the Internet posted by friends of the family and other partisans.

I wanted to ask where you got the idea that Mignini was a "religious fanatic", as you posted the other day. Like you, I am not currently a religious practitioner, but I believe in the freedom of religious worship (one of the founding ideas of my country, in fact) and the strict separation of chuch and state. Calling someone a religious fanatic is always pejorative and, if you're going to say it you need to source it so we can evaluate the source. I have heard (from neutral sources) that Mignini takes his faith seriously, but that is quite different from being a religious fanatic. In fact, I wish more so-called believers would take their faith seriously. The world would be a better place if more religious people of all stripes actually practiced what they preach.



Indeed. The term that would be more apt would be to say 'devout', but devout is all that's need for some to twist it into terms like 'religious fanatic'. I'm sure if that's what the term 'devout' means, then one can easily refer to to the Pope, or any of his cardinals or bishops as 'religious fanatics'. However, I'm pretty much certain that whilst Mignini may be a good practicing Catholic who takes his religion very seriously, he can hardly be termed as devout as the Pope or his cardinals.

Anyway, Martin, it's not often these days you will hear me recommending an article of Frank's, but I strongly advise you and anyone else who is unfamiliar with the man to read Frank's in depth article on him here: PERUGIA SHOCK If only Frank would write more articles like those, in depth studies on key individuals ins Italy involved in the case. In fact, I would very much like to see Frank write an article on Mario Spezi, although I don't think that will ever happen.

_________________
"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 May 09, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: Salty's   

TM wrote:
She wasn't at Salty's for the FOA fundraising event.



Actually TM, to be fair, Candace never stated outright that she was 'not at Salty's'. What she instead did, was play a hand of misdirection. She emphasised how ridiculous it was that people claimed to see her 'exiting a police car and entering Salty's'. Of course, NOBODY had said they actually saw Candace arriving at Salty's in a police car and getting out of it, what they did say, was that they saw her arriving at Salty's and attending the fundraiser in the company of a man and a woman (who was probably her sister). By loudly denying and ridiculing something that nobody had claimed in the first place, the clear intent by Candace was to make people think she didn't actually go. 'But', she never actually denied she went. That she couldn't do anyway, since there were 'more' than four of us there who saw her (I wasn't one of those there).

_________________
"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: Sat May 09, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject:    

DLW wrote:

Quote:
Raff goes on to say that they got the bloody shoeprint wrong and they are wrong about these bare footprints. Yesterday Raffaele was helpful in getting the video to play . Today he is helpful in sorting out footprints.



Perhaps tomorrow he will turn his attention to enlightening us about alibis.

_________________
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: Sat May 09, 2009 3:53 pm   Post subject: She loves me, she loves me not...   

DLW wrote:
Raff goes on to say that they got the bloody shoeprint wrong and they are wrong about these bare footprints. Yesterday Raffaele was helpful in getting the video to play . Today he is helpful in sorting out footprints.


It would be even more helpful if Raffaele offered a suggestion to the court as to who might have left those footprints - footprints that are compatible with Raffaele's bare foot and not the bare foot of Rudy Guede. And what about poor Amanda Knox: Raffaele has left her to explain away her own footprints for herself. He could just as easily have said, "It is impossible that those prints are ours - she was with me all night."
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:03 pm   Post subject:    

dependding upon the state of these footprints, i am wondering how conclusive they would be.

a bare foot print surely must be more specific than one in shoes, no?
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:06 pm   Post subject:    

mojo wrote:
dependding upon the state of these footprints, i am wondering how conclusive they would be.

a bare foot print surely must be more specific than one in shoes, no?


Hi Mojo:

It was reported that, with the use of images, a number of points of comparison were made with sample prints taken from the defendants.

Fly by Night wrote:
And what about poor Amanda Knox: Raffaele has left her to explain away her own footprints for herself. He could just as easily have said, "It is impossible that those prints are ours - she was with me all night."


Hi FBN

I am trying to think back to when he last did her defense any favors. Noe of his court statements tied the two together at all.


Last edited by Fast Pete on Sat May 09, 2009 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:09 pm   Post subject:    

thanks, Pete, i did get that, but i'm wondering how this will hold up....just musing out loud. surely a footprint is not as unique as a fingerprint, BUT is it going to be unique enough??

it is what hospitals use with babies...
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:
bolint wrote:
"From our investigations we were able to conclude that the footprint found on the bath mat was compatible with that of Sollecito as was one found in the corridor using Luminol," Dr Rinaldi said.




Hi Bolint. Hopefully that will put a stop to the recent nonsense from Knox supporters that the print on the bath mat was Rudy Guede's.


only if it is incompatible with Rudy Guede's.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Sceptical B,

I think , i got the information of him being a religious fanatic from a you tube video some time
ago - i know, not a reliable source.
About religious freedom: a) i think there is a very thin line between "taking the faith seriously" and religious fanatism b) the concept of "chacun à sa
facon" only works in case of reciprocity - we tolerate their faith and the religious pressure groups
have to tolerate our agnosticism - they don't, they do not accept the constitutional guaranteed separation of religion and government

It's hard for me to credit any moral/spiritual authority to an istitution, that
* has implemented the "holy inquisition"
* has burned giordano bruno alive
* has supported brutal dictatorships
* has helped in the oppression of the people during medieval feudalism
* has terrorized galilei (the first modern experimental physicist!)
* has among their employees many convicted
abusers of children
* disdains women in general
* has organized witchhunts, torturing thousands
of women to death
* discredited darwin (maybe the most important
man of history)
* the ceo claims to be infallible
* still quotes the childish scholastic "proofs of god's
existence" (tomaso d'aquino, anselmo d' aosta)
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 May 09, 2009 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
bolint wrote:
"From our investigations we were able to conclude that the footprint found on the bath mat was compatible with that of Sollecito as was one found in the corridor using Luminol," Dr Rinaldi said.




Hi Bolint. Hopefully that will put a stop to the recent nonsense from Knox supporters that the print on the bath mat was Rudy Guede's.


only if it is incompatible with Rudy Guede's.



Well of course it is, if it matches the foot of Raffaele Sollecito. Raffaele and Guede have hugely different shoe sizes...Guede's feet are much bigger, he has 'basketball player' size feet. It isn't possible to be compatible with both, only one or the other.

_________________
"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 May 09, 2009 4:44 pm   Post subject: Bruno   

(( OT OT ))

Martin wrote:
* has burned giordano bruno alive



In actual fact they 'boiled' Bruno alive...slowly. All because he wrote to the Pope emploring him to canonise the Hermetica. In retrospect, that wasn't a very wise thing to do, write outright heresy, sign it and then mail it to the Pope. The word 'heresy' is rooted in the Greek word hektos and means 'choice'. But, having said that, Bruno is one of my heroes.

_________________
"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 Sat May 09, 2009 4:53 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: Sat May 09, 2009 4:51 pm   Post subject:    

Martin wrote:

Quote:
I think , i got the information of him being a religious fanatic from a you tube video some time
ago - i know, not a reliable source.
About religious freedom: a) i think there is a very thin line between "taking the faith seriously" and religious fanatism b) the concept of "chacun à sa
facon" only works in case of reciprocity - we tolerate their faith and the religious pressure groups
have to tolerate our agnosticism - they don't, they do not accept the constitutional guaranteed separation of religion and government.


Martin, I sent you a reply by email since I doubt my take on religion is of interest to most people here. In a nutshell, religious fanatacism describes a very small but perhaps very vocal group in any society. Most believers accept and respect the freedom of others to worship as they please, even when it takes the form of non-belief.

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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:00 pm   Post subject:    

'Raffaele has left her to explain away her own footprints for herself. He could just as easily have said, "It is impossible that those prints are ours - she was with me all night." …FBN

He could have, but Amanda’s defense will say that those two footprints that are attributed to Amanda was when she took a shower in the morning, and somewhere along when she was doing the bathmat shuffle she left the luminol enhance prints on the tiled floor..

‘it is what hospitals use with babies‘...mojo

Yes it is, and I’m just wondering how well the contours on the foot translated to a more positive ID. With Amanda claiming to using the bathmat extensively, you would think that the print would be unrecognizable.

‘only if it is incompatible with Rudy Guede's‘…. Lancelotti

The defense will most likely try like hell to tie Rudy to that. As Michael said the biggest problem will be the differences in foot sizes between the three. The defense needs a way to get Rudy in that small bathroom. Odd that Rudy being as sloppy as he was, did not leave any evidence in there.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:
Well of course it is, if it matches the foot of Raffaele Sollecito. Raffaele and Guede have hugely different shoe sizes...Guede's feet are much bigger, he has 'basketball player' size feet. It isn't possible to be compatible with both, only one or the other.


like the shoe print which used to be compatible with RS and later turned out to be compatible with RG as well, I know ;)

if the prosecution is sure that it is RS footprint, they should have asked Rinaldi if he can exclude RG. if Rinaldi said the footprint is incompatible with RG's than Raffaele could be in trouble indeed..unless his defence team comes up with something better of course.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:11 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Well of course it is, if it matches the foot of Raffaele Sollecito. Raffaele and Guede have hugely different shoe sizes...Guede's feet are much bigger, he has 'basketball player' size feet. It isn't possible to be compatible with both, only one or the other.


like the shoe print which used to be compatible with RS and later turned out to be compatible with RG as well, I know ;)

if the prosecution is sure that it is RS footprint, they should have asked Rinaldi if he can exclude RG. if Rinaldi said the footprint is incompatible with RG's than Raffaele could be in trouble indeed..unless his defence team comes up with something better of course.



Lancelotti, this because Guede and Raffaele had the same make of trainer, therefore the tread was the same. And for the record, one of the experts 'still' assigns that trainer print to Sollecito. The problem with that print, is it's not very clear in a way to allow the measuring of 'size', only part of the pattern of the tread can be seen and in fact as a result, can be assigned to either of them. The luminol prints and that on the pillow 'can' be measured for size however. Therefore, if the print on the mat is compatible with Sollecito, it's incompatible with Guede.

_________________
"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: Sat May 09, 2009 5:13 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
if the prosecution is sure that it is RS footprint, they should have asked Rinaldi if he can exclude RG. if Rinaldi said the footprint is incompatible with RG's than Raffaele could be in trouble indeed..unless his defence team comes up with something better of course.


This question may have been asked for all we know. Rinaldi said this footprint and one other, in the hallway, matched Raffaele Sollecito's. In a spontaneous declaration, Sollecito said his expert will explain why these are not his prints. That's what the defense has come up with: a counter-expertise. Not very surprising. The difference in size between Guede's feet and Sollecito's is substantial, however. I am guessing Guede has been ruled out on this basis already. His footprints were taken at the same time as the other two suspects. Shoes are different. I guess we'll have to wait and see which expert is more persuasive.

_________________
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 May 09, 2009 5:16 pm   Post subject: ABC   

Bloody Footprint May Belong to Knox' s Former Boyfriend
In Court Friday: Police Also Say Latent Footprints Match Knox's Foot
By ANN WISE
PERUGIA, Italy May 9, 2009



During testimony in court Friday Lorenzo Rinaldi, director of the print identity department of the Italian Police, said that a bloody footprint found on the rug in the bathroom across from the room where murdered British exchange student Meredith Kercher's body was found was compatible with that of Raffaele Sollecito.

Rinaldi also testified that two latent bare footprints highlighted by luminol, a chemical used to detect blood, are compatible with Amanda Knox's foot. Another bare footprint highlighted by luminol, found in the hallway, was positively identified as belonging to Sollecito...




When cross-examined by Sollecito's lawyer, Rinaldi said he was not an expert but that from what he knew, "luminol reacts not only to blood but also to other substances that contain iron, such as fruit juices, chlorophyll, or rust."


Bloody Palm Print Matches Guede's Hand
In a convincing presentation Rinaldi used a series of comparative photos with precise measurements projected on a screen in the courtroom to show how the bare footprints found in the house matched prints taken from the defendants' bare feet in prison.

Rinaldi also identified a series of bloody shoeprints found in the victim's room and other places in the house, as belonging to Guede.

Guede's bloody shoeprint was also positively identified on a pillow found under the victim's body. Witnesses in the trial on Friday testified that a bloody palm print of Guede was found on that same pillow.


Police also found the trace of a smaller shoe print on the pillow compatible with shoe sizes 6–8. The print did not, however, match any of the shoes belonging to Knox or Kercher that were found in the house. Knox wears a size 7, Rinaldi said.


When the hearing resumed after a break, Sollecito made a statement to the court, as defendants are allowed to do in Italy. Sollecito told the judges and jurors that the "the footprints are absolutely not mine."

Amanda Knox's father, Curt, who was present in court on Saturday, told reporters after the hearing that he thought "it could have been more favorable." He also said that the court was still listening to prosecution witnesses so they are only hearing one side of the story.

"I think when Sollecito's experts come in and our experts come in we will get a different story," he said...




The hearing continues with the cross-examination of Rinaldi, whose testimony will be followed by another expert on print identification.

Reporter Enzo Beretta contributed to this story.



ABC

_________________
"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 disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
But in my circles, at least, I tend to see really dedicated and level-headed parents and my dander got up a bit when it seemed like people were saying we had a widespread problem here with negative parenting styles.



Hi Truth Seeker, I think when this thread of discussion initially started Nicki was responding to what I'd said about an American epidemic of college kids wanting special treatment in regards to grades/admissions and parents pulling strings. It was then said that if this did exist it was only in a certain socio-economic group, which is true. When I said "epidemic" I should have clarified that I'd been aware of an epidemic of articles on the subject--interviewing professors, University administrators, admissions depts., etc. I also had some first hand experience as I used to work with parents in a child development clinic and there were many cases of parents seeking, for example, Ritalin for their kids--who really weren't appropriate candidates for it-- because it would give them an edge in studying and test taking. (Then there's a whole other subject about how kids sell their Ritalin to other kids...) Other parents wanted to have their kids labeled learning disabled so they could get untimed SAT testing.

Anyhoo, the main problem is using a word like "epidemic" in the first place. We can't even say that about swine flu. So I apologize. I have no overriding criticism of American parents, but I do hate to see examples of American's attitude of "exceptionalism" in general. It embarrasses me.

Also Michael if you're reading this, thanks so much for the link to Frank's piece on Mignini. Really enlightening! (Has the mood or method changed over there lately? Seems like an effort to civilize the place is taking effect...)

dd
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:
Therefore, if the print on the mat is compatible with Sollecito, it's incompatible with Guede.


They are trying to convince the jury, aren't they?

If the print is incompatible with Guede, I'd expect the prosecution to make that perfectly clear. It's a trial after all and something being "compatible with somebody" is just one of those tricks often used in court and the jurors will know that.
But maybe Skeptical Bystander is right and they have excluded Guede and we just haven't heard about it yet.
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:43 pm   Post subject:    

Amanda has at least one tattoo now! :D She's now official a bad girl!



And she'll be a heavy girl soon... ;)


Last edited by petafly on Sat May 09, 2009 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:48 pm   Post subject: Amanda's Body Art   

petafly wrote:
Amanda has at least one tattoo now! :D She's now official a bad girl!

Pics coming soon...


This was in yesterday's offering of pictures:

Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Therefore, if the print on the mat is compatible with Sollecito, it's incompatible with Guede.


They are trying to convince the jury, aren't they?

If the print is incompatible with Guede, I'd expect the prosecution to make that perfectly clear. It's a trial after all and something being "compatible with somebody" is just one of those tricks often used in court and the jurors will know that.
But maybe Skeptical Bystander is right and they have excluded Guede and we just haven't heard about it yet.



When stating a print to be compatible with one person, one is by natural extension ruling it as incompatible with another. But if you like, we could turn your argument around and state that since Guede's prints on the floor and pillow in Meredith's room and running down the hallway have not specifically been stated to be incompatible with Sollecito's, they have not been ruled out as being his and therefore may well indeed be his. Would that suit you?

_________________
"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 mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:56 pm   Post subject:    

this little comment on the ABC story is pure fabrication i assume??

On cross examnation the police expert testified that the foot print in the bathroom was also compatible with that of Rudy Guede. Frankly, it's copatible with the shoes of many people.Asfor Knox, what's the big deal? She showered in a bathroom with traces of blood here and there. She walked through that in her wet bare feet and walked back to her room to dress. The prints are found between her bathroom and her room, not in Meredith Kercher's room. This evidence is completely compatible with her innocent explanation of events.
Posted by:
Harry Rags 1:35 PM
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:58 pm   Post subject: Frank's   

disinterested wrote:
Also Michael if you're reading this, thanks so much for the link to Frank's piece on Mignini. Really enlightening! (Has the mood or method changed over there lately? Seems like an effort to civilize the place is taking effect...)



Well, I haven't seen evidence specifically to what can be described as an 'effort' as of yet, but at least Frank has posted a note making the right noises:


Frank wrote:
This board is for commenting, discussing, not for personal attacks, libeling, swearing, posting personal data, private correspondence, etc.
Thank you.

May 8, 2009 8:12 PM



PERUGIA SHOCK



However, it is not enough alone to simply state it, one also has to enforce it. Whether Frank does or not, only time will tell.

_________________
"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 Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:08 pm   Post subject:    

Hi everyone.

A couple of points here.

Firstly, a few weeks ago I stated that Mr Solllecito would eventually "hang Ms Knox out to dry".
That process seems to have now begun.
However, it would also mean that he would be scoring a major own goal, once this aforesaid process started.
Will he attempt to link Ms Knox with Mr Guede for the murder? Do not be surprised.

Secondly, in light of further remarks about Ms Dempsey, I do hope that the Kercher family will have the opportunity to file a lawsuit against this greedy woman - should she included any libellous guff in her future book.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:14 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
TM wrote:
She wasn't at Salty's for the FOA fundraising event.



Actually TM, to be fair, Candace never stated outright that she was 'not at Salty's'. What she instead did, was play a hand of misdirection. She emphasised how ridiculous it was that people claimed to see her 'exiting a police car and entering Salty's'. Of course, NOBODY had said they actually saw Candace arriving at Salty's in a police car and getting out of it, what they did say, was that they saw her arriving at Salty's and attending the fundraiser in the company of a man and a woman (who was probably her sister). By loudly denying and ridiculing something that nobody had claimed in the first place, the clear intent by Candace was to make people think she didn't actually go. 'But', she never actually denied she went. That she couldn't do anyway, since there were 'more' than four of us there who saw her (I wasn't one of those there).



What amazes me is that the fundraiser took place in January and yet it still has legs over on Frank's blog - but nowhere else. With regard to Candace Dempsey's presence at the fundraiser, I see the issue as follows:

As a private citizen, Candace Dempsey can pretty much do what she wants, as long as she doesn't break any laws. It may be that she was attending the fundraiser as a private citizen and supporter of Amanda Knox. This is no one's business except for the fact that Candace Dempsey is running a high profile reader blog devoted - or so it seems - exclusively to her blogger coverage of the case. And she is, as she reminds us once in awhile, a professional journalist/reporter who is covering this case. Her blog figures prominently on google searches about the case. Therefore, as a courtesy to her readership and in the interest of disclosure, I think it is fair to expect Candace Dempsey to state that she is an "innocentisti" who is promoting/supporting the cause of innocence (hence her legitimate presence at the fundraiser as a private citizen) whose goal is to help FOA and others refute the charges against Knox. If this had been made clear, then her presence at the fundraiser would be unremarkable and probably unremarked upon.

It is possible that Candace Dempsey was attending the fundraiser in her professional capacity as a journalist, as part of her research effort for the book. In this case, reporting here on her presence should not have caused a ruckus of any kind. After all, this was a media event. A press release went out to all local media and it was advertised in the media prior to its occurence. Tonya Mosely, a television journalist, was also there and was recognized. This was reported here. Tonya Mosely did not raise a ruckus about being identified. Not a peep.

So where's the beef exactly? There isn't one, really, and yet Candace Dempsey was quite irritated that her presence was noted and reported. My guess is that this points to her being there as a private supporter who, in a quite public capacity, is covering this case and should have made her position clear.

In order to divert attention from this lapse of judgement, Candace resorted to an old high school debating trick: she created a straw man to attack. That's what some people do in such situations. Nobody here said they saw Candace Dempsey emerging from a squad car with police protection. But that's what Candace decided to contest. And she's right: she was not seen emerging from a squad car and it would be false to say she was. She also threw in another old high school debating trick: attacking the messenger.

_________________
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: Sat May 09, 2009 6:19 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:
When stating a print to be compatible with one person, one is by natural extension ruling it as incompatible with another.


i really don't think so.

we are not talking about fingerprints in which case you would be right.
Top Profile 

Offline 2catsintheyard


User avatar


Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:52 am

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:20 pm   Post subject:    

It seems that it would be fairly straightforward to test the validity of Ms. Knox's "wet feet in a blood-spattered bathroom" explanation of her bloody footprints by recreating the scenario under experimental circumstances--spatter a small amount of a volunteer subject's blood in a bathroom, let it dry for the appropriate period of time, then have the volunteer step on the spattered areas, shuffle their feet on a bathmat, step on the floor, etc., then treat with Luminol and compare to the footprints in evidence. My guess is that dried, clotted blood does not resuspend in water very easily and would not produce a smooth, uniform sort of footprint.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
When stating a print to be compatible with one person, one is by natural extension ruling it as incompatible with another.


i really don't think so.

we are not talking about fingerprints in which case you would be right.



But all the same, you ignore the rest of my post which emphasises your agument as being meaningless in terms of trying to argue the innocence of one particular person, since I clearly showed your argument is a double edged sword that can be used just as easily to argue for the innocence of the one you are arguing guilt for (Guede...which is indeed what you are doing by arguing Sollecito's prints may just as easily be Guede's) and the guilt of the one you argue innocence for (Raffaele...by your arguing his prints may not be his and may be Guede's). Because in actual fact, your exact same argument can be used to argue that the prints assigned to Guede may in actual fact be Raffaele's, since they have not been 'specifically ruled out as not being his'. An argument that is a double edged sword cannot be used to argue one particular view point, since by it's nature, it can also be used to argue the exact oppisite. In short, your argument is redundent.

_________________
"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: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Lancelotti wrote:
i really don't think so.

we are not talking about fingerprints in which case you would be right.


It's not very difficult to understand. There were two bare bloody footprints at the crime scene that matched Sollecito's foot size (42), which is quite a lot smaller than Rudy Guede's foot size (46).


Last edited by The Machine on Sat May 09, 2009 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:39 pm   Post subject: Linkedin for the IW   

Candace Dempsey simply told a lie when she said we, who were present at Salty's to report on the media attention aspect, said she emerged from a Mercer Island police car.

Yes, there was a very "out of place" Mercer Island police car in the parking lot, and a very "out of place" Mercer Island policeman attending the fundraiser.

THAT is what we reported here. In my opinion, Candace is creating drama involving herself to insert into her book of fiction to make it more interesting.

Incidentally, Candace has updated her LinkedIn profile to elevate herself to an AUTHOR.

CANDACE DEMPSEY LINKEDIN


Last edited by Tara on Sat May 09, 2009 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:42 pm   Post subject:    

TM wrote:

Quote:
Lancelotti wrote:
i really don't think so.

we are not talking about fingerprints in which case you would be right.


It's not very difficult to understand. There were two bare bloody footprints at the crime scene that matched Sollecito's foot size, which is quite a lot smaller than Rudy Guede's.


In fact, Rinaldi said the footprints were a "match" with Sollecito, which is stronger than compatibility. If it were a question of compatibility, then I suppose one could argue that compatibility with one does not rule out compatibility with every other. However, in this case the difference in foot size is too great for Sollecito's and Guede's to be compatible with the same bare footprint.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:46 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Skeptical,

did you recieve my return mail?
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 May 09, 2009 6:50 pm   Post subject: Salty's   

Skep wrote:
It is possible that Candace Dempsey was attending the fundraiser in her professional capacity as a journalist, as part of her research effort for the book. In this case, reporting here on her presence should not have caused a ruckus of any kind. After all, this was a media event. A press release went out to all local media and it was advertised in the media prior to its occurence. Tonya Mosely, a television journalist, was also there and was recognized. This was reported here. Tonya Mosely did not raise a ruckus about being identified. Not a peep.

So where's the beef exactly? There isn't one, really, and yet Candace Dempsey was quite irritated that her presence was noted and reported. My guess is that this points to her being there as a private supporter who, in a quite public capacity, is covering this case and should have made her position clear.



Well, the answer to the connundrum is perfectly clear to all. Since Candace made no announcement that she was going to Salty's to 'report' on the case beforehand, or made no announcement that she was there to 'report' on the event after the fact, indeed, not admitting she was there at all and actually tried her best to con the public that she was never there at all, nor did she ever file any 'report' actually written by her on the event, and the fact that she turned up with a man and woman (most likely her sister), where bringing an entourage that is 'not' a technical' team to a story is not a done thing by an actual reporter, we can state she was NOT there as a 'reporter'. Since she was attending the event as a guest and one who was not a reporter, we can therefore state as fact, she was there as a member/supporter of the FOA and 'inocentesti'. This is a logical no brainer that doesn't require the input of Sherlock Holmes.

That is also the answer as to why she and her supporters were so pissed off about it...simply because, she was caught in the fact. Busted.

_________________
"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 Sat May 09, 2009 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:51 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Michael,

"In actual fact they 'boiled' Bruno alive...slowly."

How they did it? They put him into a bucket full
of boiling water? I thougt he was burned like
the other "heretics"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:52 pm   Post subject: Logic   

Basic logic tells me that my foot size of 8 would definitely NOT have any compatibility with a woman with a size 11 foot - 3 sizes larger. Sollecito is a 42 and Guede is a 46*.


*EDIT: CORRECTED GUEDE'S SHOE SIZE FROM 45 to 46 per The Machine.


Last edited by Tara on Sat May 09, 2009 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
When stating a print to be compatible with one person, one is by natural extension ruling it as incompatible with another.


i really don't think so.

we are not talking about fingerprints in which case you would be right.



But all the same, you ignore the rest of my post which emphasises your agument as being meaningless in terms of trying to argue the innocence of one particular person, since I clearly showed your argument is a double edged sword that can be used just as easily to argue for the innocence of the one you are arguing guilt for (Guede...which is indeed what you are doing by arguing Sollecito's prints may just as easily be Guede's)


Well, Guede is guilty. So for him leaving bloody footprints actually makes sense. And for me to be convinced that RS left any bloody footprints I would like to see Guede ruled out first of all. And in that case I might agree with you. Unlike Amanda, Raffaele had no reason walking around barefoot with blood underneath and he therefore couldn't be completely innocent.

You on the other hand believe that RS is somehow involved in the murder just as RG, so I can see why it wouldn't make any difference to you whose footprints those are.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: Logic   

Tara wrote:
Basic logic tells me that my foot size of 8 would definitely NOT have any compatibility with a woman with a size 11 foot - 3 sizes larger. Sollecito is a 42 and Guede is a 45.


Hi Tara,

Rudy Guede's foot size is 46.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:01 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
Skep wrote:
It is possible that Candace Dempsey was attending the fundraiser in her professional capacity as a journalist, as part of her research effort for the book. In this case, reporting here on her presence should not have caused a ruckus of any kind. After all, this was a media event. A press release went out to all local media and it was advertised in the media prior to its occurence. Tonya Mosely, a television journalist, was also there and was recognized. This was reported here. Tonya Mosely did not raise a ruckus about being identified. Not a peep.

So where's the beef exactly? There isn't one, really, and yet Candace Dempsey was quite irritated that her presence was noted and reported. My guess is that this points to her being there as a private supporter who, in a quite public capacity, is covering this case and should have made her position clear.



Well, the answer to the connundrum is perfectly clear to all. Since Candace made no announcement that she was going to Salty's to 'report' on the case beforehand, or made no announcement that she was there to 'report' on the event after the fact, indeed, not admitting she was there at all and actually tried her best to con the public that she was never there at all, nor did she ever file any 'report' actually written by her on the event, and the fact that she turned up with a man and woman (most likely her sister), where bringing an entourage that is 'not' a technical' team to a story is not a done thing by an actual reporter, we can state she was NOT there as a 'reporter'. Since she was attending the event as a guest and one who was not a reporter, we can therefore state as fact, she was there as a member/supporter of the FOA and 'inocentesti'. This is a logical no brainer that doesn't require the input of Sherlock Holmes.

That is also the answer as to why she and her supporters were so pissed off about it...simply because, she was caught in the fact. Busted.


I don't mean to imply that Candace Dempsey needs to "announce" where is going in advance, even if she is going in connection with her work on this case. And that she did not is not a problem in and of itself. I don't even want to deduce from the evidence you provide above whether or not Candace Dempsey was attending as a journalist or as a supporter. I think her reaction points to the motive for her presence and suggests the underlying issue that she should have cleared up a long time ago.

It is true that she has been very forthcoming on her blog with stories about her case-related doings (trips to Perugia, etc.), so not mentioning this case-related work is a bit odd. But I would draw the line at stating as fact that she is a member of the FOA. I don't think the fundraiser was an "FOA" only event.

_________________
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: Sat May 09, 2009 7:03 pm   Post subject: Apples & Oranges   

mojo wrote:
thanks, Pete, i did get that, but i'm wondering how this will hold up....just musing out loud. surely a footprint is not as unique as a fingerprint, BUT is it going to be unique enough??


Making an ID on a shoe print is one thing, but the identification of bare footprints is a highly accurate forensic science: "Dr Rinaldi explained to the court how microscopic point to point measurements such as ''heel to toe'' or ''toe and arch width'' were used to identify the imprints."

In his spontaneous statement Raffaele was trying to equate the bare footprint analysis with the sneaker print in blood analysis. Nice try, Raffaele - but the court won't be swayed by your apples vs. oranges argument.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:05 pm   Post subject: Re: Logic   

The Machine wrote:
Tara wrote:
Basic logic tells me that my foot size of 8 would definitely NOT have any compatibility with a woman with a size 11 foot - 3 sizes larger. Sollecito is a 42 and Guede is a 45.


Hi Tara,

Rudy Guede's foot size is 46.


Thanks Machine!

So let's compare my size 8 with a size 12 woman - even LESS compatibility! Rudy is 4 sizes larger than Sollecito!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:09 pm   Post subject: Bruno   

(( OT OT ))


martin wrote:
Hi Michael,

"In actual fact they 'boiled' Bruno alive...slowly."

How they did it? They put him into a bucket full
of boiling water? I thougt he was burned like
the other "heretics"



On the top of the steps in the center of the city, they stood him bound in a large cauldron filled with water and lit a fire beneath it, slowly heating the water through and thereby slowly boiling him to death. A far slower, more horrific and agonising death then burning alive, which by anyones standards, is horrific enough. Of course, the intent was not simply to execute the man in a manner that served as a detterent, but also to make a 'statement' that would never be forgotten in memory for multiple generations.

Quite inventive were the Church, it must be said. They even had specific modes of executions for specific crimes. For example, homosexuals were suspended naked by their ankles with legs splayed wide apart. Two burly men would then place a 7 foot long two handed tree saw, with 3-4 inch teeth, between the man's legs and proceed to saw him in two from his groin to his neck. Indeed, it was quite common for the victim to still be alive when the saw reached his rib cage. I've actually seen one these saws they used to use specifically for that purpose.

_________________
"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 May 09, 2009 7:16 pm   Post subject: Salty's   

Skep wrote:
I don't mean to imply that Candace Dempsey needs to "announce" where is going in advance, even if she is going in connection with her work on this case.



She announced it neither before, during or after. Indeed, she didn't even 'admit' it and instead attempted it imply she 'didn't' go. What 'reporter' would do that or indeed need to? Moreover, reporters 'report', by definition, that's what they 'do'. Candace wrote no report. So clearly, she was not there as a reporter, but rather as an Amanda Knox/FOA supporter.

_________________
"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 May 09, 2009 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
When stating a print to be compatible with one person, one is by natural extension ruling it as incompatible with another.


i really don't think so.

we are not talking about fingerprints in which case you would be right.



But all the same, you ignore the rest of my post which emphasises your agument as being meaningless in terms of trying to argue the innocence of one particular person, since I clearly showed your argument is a double edged sword that can be used just as easily to argue for the innocence of the one you are arguing guilt for (Guede...which is indeed what you are doing by arguing Sollecito's prints may just as easily be Guede's)


Well, Guede is guilty. So for him leaving bloody footprints actually makes sense. And for me to be convinced that RS left any bloody footprints I would like to see Guede ruled out first of all. And in that case I might agree with you. Unlike Amanda, Raffaele had no reason walking around barefoot with blood underneath and he therefore couldn't be completely innocent.

You on the other hand believe that RS is somehow involved in the murder just as RG, so I can see why it wouldn't make any difference to you whose footprints those are.



Really, you state so as fact even before his second degree trial?

It makes a lot of difference to me exactly 'whose' footprints they are and indeed, we here have spent no little time and effort attempting to work out just that and we have done so without making any circular double edged arguments.

_________________
"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: Sat May 09, 2009 7:28 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Well, Guede is guilty. So for him leaving bloody footprints actually makes sense. And for me to be convinced that RS left any bloody footprints I would like to see Guede ruled out first of all. And in that case I might agree with you. Unlike Amanda, Raffaele had no reason walking around barefoot with blood underneath and he therefore couldn't be completely innocent.

You on the other hand believe that RS is somehow involved in the murder just as RG, so I can see why it wouldn't make any difference to you whose footprints those are.


The evidence against Guede was presented at his fast-track trial back in September. This item was not included because it is not a match and hence not evidence against him. Otherwise it would have been presented as such. Rudy Guede is not on trial right now.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:32 pm   Post subject:    

Michael,

Let's not forget the witchhunts: women accused
of being inspired by the devil were tied up, thrown
into a river. If they drowned and died, then they
were "clean" and innocent and were going to enjoy
eternity in heaven. If they survived and reached the
riverbank, then the devil's powers must have saved them and they were killed anyway. Justice
done by the catholic and protestant church.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:33 pm   Post subject:    

thanks for that, FBN. it seemed logical to me, but i'm no expert. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:33 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Michael,

Candace Dempsey wrote the following:

"Did you really spy on Amanda's little sisters in the ladies' room at Salty's? I hope you made up that part as well. Honestly, even after all this time I thought better of you."

By adding "as well" she's making it clear that the claim she was at Salty's was made up/not true.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:37 pm   Post subject: Re: Bruno   

Michael wrote:
On the top of the steps in the center of the city, they stood him bound in a large cauldron filled with water and lit a fire beneath it, slowly heating the water through and thereby slowly boiling him to death. A far slower, more horrific and agonising death then burning alive, which by anyones standards, is horrific enough. Of course, the intent was not simply to execute the man in a manner that served as a detterent, but also to make a 'statement' that would never be forgotten in memory for multiple generations.

Quite inventive were the Church, it must be said. They even had specific modes of executions for specific crimes. For example, homosexuals were suspended naked by their ankles with legs splayed wide apart. Two burly men would then place a 7 foot long two handed tree saw, with 3-4 inch teeth, between the man's legs and proceed to saw him in two from his groin to his neck. Indeed, it was quite common for the victim to still be alive when the saw reached his rib cage. I've actually seen one these saws they used to use specifically for that purpose.


Every source I can find says simply that he was burned at the stake. I'd be interested in any reference that says otherwise.

As for the other story... sounds like something a tour guide might tell credulous tourists while displaying a large wood saw. The more bloodthirsty the tale, the bigger the tip, or something. Italian tour guides are notorious for this kind of thing. (No offense meant - I love Italy!) :D

Of course, if you can find any reasonable source to support this... (and not as I saw in Dilbert the other day, "Just give me 10 minutes and then look it up in Wikipedia")
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject: Bruno   

(( OT OT ))


martin wrote:
Michael,

Let's not forget the witchhunts: women accused
of being inspired by the devil were tied up, thrown
into a river. If they drowned and died, then they
were "clean" and innocent and were going to enjoy
eternity in heaven. If they survived and reached the
riverbank, then the devil's powers must have saved them and they were killed anyway. Justice
done by the catholic and protestant church.



No necessarily at the behest of the Church. Here:


http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/histo ... ndex.shtml

_________________
"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: Sat May 09, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject:    

TM wrote:

Quote:
Hi Michael,

Candace Dempsey wrote the following:

"Did you really spy on Amanda's little sisters in the ladies' room at Salty's? I hope you made up that part as well. Honestly, even after all this time I thought better of you."

By adding "as well" she's making it clear that the claim she was at Salty's was made up/not true.


Who is she addressing here? Who is "you"? Not me, I hope, since I did not report on the restroom nor did I visit it at any time. For the record, Salty's has an upstairs restroom for bar and restaurant patrons, and a downstairs one for guests attending the events and parties it hosts. Two of the people in my party used the upstairs restroom for bar and restaurant patrons, since we were sitting in the bar/restaurant.

I find it funny that members of my party have been described as stalking the FOA group, since during the time I was with the group only two people left the table. One time it was to visit the upstairs restroom and the other time it was to speak with Tonya Mosely. Also, had various people in this group not reported here on their presence at the fundraiser, their presence would not have been known. I did not see any people in my party harass or stalk anyone.

_________________
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 May 09, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Salty's   

The Machine wrote:
Hi Michael,

Candace Dempsey wrote the following:

"Did you really spy on Amanda's little sisters in the ladies' room at Salty's? I hope you made up that part as well. Honestly, even after all this time I thought better of you."

By adding "as well" she's making it clear that the claim she was at Salty's was made up/not true.



The part that she is referring to as being 'made-up' is her being seen 'emerging from a police car' (which was never stated in the firt place).

_________________
"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: Sat May 09, 2009 7:44 pm   Post subject:    

From Button (The Eclectic Chapbook blog):

"If we were to accept the veracity of the supposed scene in the lingerie shop described previously, this homicide was committed to add some pizazz to the defendants' sex life.

The hypothetical combination of youth and decadence may seem like an oxymoron at first, but what then were Raffaele Sollecito's fingers doing on Meredith Kercher's bedroom door?

Friday's court proceedings
seem to raise this intriguing question.

Newly brought to light: two fingerprints belonging to Raffaele Sollecito were found on the outside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door, according to ABC TV reporter Ann Wise."

_________________
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 May 09, 2009 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: Bruno   

GreenWyvern wrote:
Michael wrote:
On the top of the steps in the center of the city, they stood him bound in a large cauldron filled with water and lit a fire beneath it, slowly heating the water through and thereby slowly boiling him to death. A far slower, more horrific and agonising death then burning alive, which by anyones standards, is horrific enough. Of course, the intent was not simply to execute the man in a manner that served as a detterent, but also to make a 'statement' that would never be forgotten in memory for multiple generations.

Quite inventive were the Church, it must be said. They even had specific modes of executions for specific crimes. For example, homosexuals were suspended naked by their ankles with legs splayed wide apart. Two burly men would then place a 7 foot long two handed tree saw, with 3-4 inch teeth, between the man's legs and proceed to saw him in two from his groin to his neck. Indeed, it was quite common for the victim to still be alive when the saw reached his rib cage. I've actually seen one these saws they used to use specifically for that purpose.


Every source I can find says simply that he was burned at the stake. I'd be interested in any reference that says otherwise.

As for the other story... sounds like something a tour guide might tell credulous tourists while displaying a large wood saw. The more bloodthirsty the tale, the bigger the tip, or something. Italian tour guides are notorious for this kind of thing. (No offense meant - I love Italy!) :D

Of course, if you can find any reasonable source to support this... (and not as I saw in Dilbert the other day, "Just give me 10 minutes and then look it up in Wikipedia")



It's in one of my books on him. I'll look it up at some point and transcribe it (I don't have a scanner)

_________________
"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 Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:50 pm   Post subject: Re: Footprints   

Michael wrote:
Really, you state so as fact even before his second degree trial?

It makes a lot of difference to me exactly 'whose' footprints they are and indeed, we here have spent no little time and effort attempting to work out just that and we have done so without making any circular double edged arguments.


Guede has been convicted of murder. Bloody footprints belonging to him wouldn't come as a surprise to me.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:51 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Michael,
Where did you hear that Giordano Bruno was boiled? All sources seem to say he was burned at the stake.
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 7:52 pm   Post subject:    

Michael,

"....was paid 20 shillings for each wich he found and convicted." Any idea how much 20 s is
in today's money?

I think i'm going to change my username
to "witchfinder general" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:02 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Michael wrote:

Really, you state so as fact even before his second degree trial?

It makes a lot of difference to me exactly 'whose' footprints they are and indeed, we here have spent no little time and effort attempting to work out just that and we have done so without making any circular double edged arguments.


Guede has been convicted of murder. Bloody footprints belonging to him wouldn't come as a surprise to me.



These footprints were not presented as being a match to Rudy at his trial.

The judge and jurors are considering these footprints in connection with Raffaele. It's a little too easy for the defense to attribute everything inconvenient to Rudy, don't you think? Especially foot - as opposed to shoe -prints.

_________________
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: Sat May 09, 2009 8:15 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The judge and jurors are considering these footprints in connection with Raffaele. It's a little too easy for the defense to attribute everything inconvenient to Rudy, don't you think? Especially foot - as opposed to shoe -prints.


I am saying that Rudy has to be ruled out first of all and when that is done they can start attributing whatever they want to Raffaele and/or Amanda. Otherwise there will always be doubts, but perhaps that's intended?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:22 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
I am saying that Rudy has to be ruled out first of all and when that is done they can start attributing whatever they want to Raffaele and/or Amanda. Otherwise there will always be doubts, but perhaps that's intended?


Dr Lorenzo Rinaldi saying the bloody footprints matches Raffaele Sollecito's foot is ruling out Rudy Guede, who has a much larger foot size.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:22 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

The judge and jurors are considering these footprints in connection with Raffaele. It's a little too easy for the defense to attribute everything inconvenient to Rudy, don't you think? Especially foot - as opposed to shoe -prints.


I am saying that Rudy has to be ruled out first of all and when that is done they can start attributing whatever they want to Raffaele and/or Amanda. Otherwise there will always be doubts, but perhaps that's intended?


And I am saying this has already happened since the prints were not presented as evidence against him last September. That's because they aren't a match. Otherwise, they would have been presented. Or do you think the investigators "forgot" to see if they were compatible with the other male suspect, even though they took his footprints at the same time they took AK and RS's?

In other words, this piece of evidence was looked at in connection with all three suspects. That would be standard procedure. If you want to doubt that this was done, you can, but I'm not sure what the purpose would be.

_________________
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: Sat May 09, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject: Who was stalking who?   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I find it funny that members of my party have been described as stalking the FOA group, since during the time I was with the group only two people left the table. One time it was to visit the upstairs restroom and the other time it was to speak with Tonya Mosely. Also, had various people in this group not reported here on their presence at the fundraiser, their presence would not have been known. I did not see any people in my party harass or stalk anyone.


I've got news for you Skep. Much to the contrary, it was YOU AND YOUR PARTY who were STALKED by the FOA group that night. PLAINCLOTHES SECURITY/POLICE from the event downstairs was assigned to sit near you in the upstairs dining area of Salty’s.

Can you recall anyone acting suspiciously, sitting all by themselves at a big table, acting like they were texting or making phone calls? That was no tourist. You were being spied on and if you or your party had been doing anything illegal, or even out of the ordinary, you would have been escorted off the premises immediately.


Last edited by Fly by Night on Sat May 09, 2009 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Dr Rinaldi explained to the court how microscopic point to point measurements such as ''heel to toe'' or ''toe and arch width'' were used to identify the imprints.


See, that's the thing I find hard to figure, is how Dr Rinaldi talks about these microscopic point to point measurements and we're supposed to think, "Ah, she's probably got that wrong, I'll bet it's the footprint of some feller with feet four sizes bigger, that'll be it, she's overlooked the obvious..."

You know, there comes a point when we have to just look at the evidence for what it is, and deal with it in those terms.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:33 pm   Post subject:    

FBN wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I find it funny that members of my party have been described as stalking the FOA group, since during the time I was with the group only two people left the table. One time it was to visit the upstairs restroom and the other time it was to speak with Tonya Mosely. Also, had various people in this group not reported here on their presence at the fundraiser, their presence would not have been known. I did not see any people in my party harass or stalk anyone.


I've got news for you Skep. Much to the contrary, it was YOU AND YOUR PARTY who were STALKED by the FOA group that night. PLAINCLOTHES SECURITY/POLICE from the event downstairs was assigned to sit near you in the upstairs dining area of Salty’s.

Can you recall anyone acting suspiciously, sitting all by themselves at big table, acting like they were texting or making phone calls? That was no tourist. You were being spied on and if you or your party had been doing anything illegal, or even out of the ordinary, you would have been escorted off the premises immediately.


Actually, I read on another blog (which as of today asks commenters to refrain from posting private emails and personal information and making libelous statements, which is kind of refreshing) that I was escorted out of Salty's. In fact, this is not true. But there was a very suspicious looking, very large man who sat at the empty table next to mine and fiddled with a cellphone for a few minutes while straining to hear every word of our conversation. As I recall, we were discussing horses at the time. He left after a few minutes, apparently satisfied that this discussion was not illegal, that our presence was not illegal, and that we were paying customers like everyone else in the bar.

_________________
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 May 09, 2009 8:41 pm   Post subject:    

Finn wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Dr Rinaldi explained to the court how microscopic point to point measurements such as ''heel to toe'' or ''toe and arch width'' were used to identify the imprints.


See, that's the thing I find hard to figure, is how Dr Rinaldi talks about these microscopic point to point measurements and we're supposed to think, "Ah, she's probably got that wrong, I'll bet it's the footprint of some feller with feet four sizes bigger, that'll be it, she's overlooked the obvious..."

You know, there comes a point when we have to just look at the evidence for what it is, and deal with it in those terms.


I was thnking of this when I wrote above that attributing everything inconvenient to Rudy at this stage in the process - ie the trial being held now - is a way of refusing to deal with the evidence for what it is.

_________________
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: Sat May 09, 2009 8:42 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
And I am saying this has already happened since the prints were not presented as evidence against him last September. That's because they aren't a match. Otherwise, they would have been presented. Or do you think the investigators "forgot" to see if they were compatible with the other male suspect, even though they took his footprints at the same time they took AK and RS's?

In other words, this piece of evidence was looked at in connection with all three suspects.


In that case the defence won't find an expert to claim the footprint belonged to RG or anybody else but RS, right?
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:45 pm   Post subject:    

Excellent article with a few more details about the prints by Andrea Vogt in the Seattle PI


Last edited by GreenWyvern on Sat May 09, 2009 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline 2catsintheyard


User avatar


Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:52 am

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:45 pm   Post subject:    

SkepticalBystander wrote:


PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
From Button (The Eclectic Chapbook blog):

"If we were to accept the veracity of the supposed scene in the lingerie shop described previously, this homicide was committed to add some pizazz to the defendants' sex life.

The hypothetical combination of youth and decadence may seem like an oxymoron at first, but what then were Raffaele Sollecito's fingers doing on Meredith Kercher's bedroom door?

Friday's court proceedings
seem to raise this intriguing question.

Newly brought to light: two fingerprints belonging to Raffaele Sollecito were found on the outside of Meredith Kercher's bedroom door, according to ABC TV reporter Ann Wise."


Raffaele Sollecito has stated that he tried to break down Meredith Kercher's bedroom door prior to the arrival of the police. This would provide an explanation for his prints on the door (unless of course they were bloody).
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:50 pm   Post subject:    

oh look...

in the article it says: "He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bathmat could possibly by Guede or Knox's."
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:51 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
In that case the defence won't find an expert to claim the footprint belonged to RG or anybody else but RS, right?


The defence lawyers claim that it is possible to gain entry to Filomena's room by scaling a vertical wall and that they could prove Sollecito was surfing the Internet from 11.pm to 1am. You learn to take their claims with a pinch of salt.

Incidentally, Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the bathmat could be Rudy Guede's:

"All the elements are compatible with Mr. Sollecito's foot," Rinaldi said, pointing with a red laser to a millimeter-by-millimeter analysis of Sollecito's footprint projected onto a big-screen in the courtroom. He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bathmat could possibly by Guede or Knox's." (Andrea Vogt, Seattle Post-Intelligencer).
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:55 pm   Post subject:    

From Andrea Vogt's report (Lancelotti, this confirms the point I was trying to make):

Quote:
Over the opposition of both defense teams, Lorenzo Rinaldi told jurors using a precise PowerPoint presentation why the visible bloody footprint left on the cotton bath mat in the bathroom is attributable to Sollecito, who is on trial along with Knox for murder of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, in November 2007. Guede was convicted and sentenced to 30 years prison for his role in the crime in a separate fast-track trial last October.

"All the elements are compatible with Mr. Sollecito's foot," Rinaldi said, pointing with a red laser to a millimeter-by-millimeter analysis of Sollecito's footprint projected onto a big-screen in the courtroom. He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bathmat could possibly by Guede or Knox's.

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

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 8:55 pm   Post subject:    

Hi,

will the trial be continued next friday?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:04 pm   Post subject:    

Andrea Vogt's piece provides confirmation that a woman' s shoeprint was found on a pillow under Meredith'd body.

"All the bloody shoeprints in the room where Kercher was found were compatible with the size 11 Nike Outbreak 2 shoes believed to be Guede's, Rinaldi said, except for one smaller, unattributed shoeprint found on the pillow that was under Kercher's body.

Presiding judge Giancarlo Massei asked Rinaldi what size that shoe print was, he responded "37 or 38." He then asked what size Knox wears, and Rinaldi said according to the shoes sequestered from the crime scene, she wears a 37. A second print expert later testified that he believed the shoeprint to be that of a woman's size 37.5 Asics tennis shoe.
"
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:12 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
In that case the defence won't find an expert to claim the footprint belonged to RG or anybody else but RS, right?


The defence lawyers claim that it is possible to gain entry to Filomena's room by scaling a vertical wall and that they could prove Sollecito was surfing the Internet from 11.pm to 1am. You learn to take their claims with a pinch of salt.


Well, they'll need experts to support their claims. Will they find any who claim the opposite, that'll be interesting. Or maybe they'll just ignore the bloody footprint? but that won't look too good either.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:13 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
And I am saying this has already happened since the prints were not presented as evidence against him last September. That's because they aren't a match. Otherwise, they would have been presented. Or do you think the investigators "forgot" to see if they were compatible with the other male suspect, even though they took his footprints at the same time they took AK and RS's?

In other words, this piece of evidence was looked at in connection with all three suspects.


In that case the defence won't find an expert to claim the footprint belonged to RG or anybody else but RS, right?


Actually, I bet they will have a serious go along those lines.

I think, being realistic about the case, that the defense strategy is about raising reasonable doubt in the minds of the judges. And I think today's testimony about the footprint is one of the biggest problems for anyone hoping to stir up those reasonable doubts. So my guess is, they'll attack it vigorously.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 10:34 pm   Post subject:    

MSNBC has a video update of the case today. Keith Miller the foreign correspondent says that Amanda’s bloody footprints are probable matches but not conclusive. But from the Andea Vogt article it sounds like Raffaele’s footprint is even more probable. Keith seems to enjoy his little interviews with Curt, who always seems available..

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ ... 7#30657267
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 10:35 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
oh look...

in the article it says: "He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bathmat could possibly by Guede or Knox's."



Andrea probably saw your posts on PMF Lancelotti and included that just for you ;)

_________________
"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 FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 11:04 pm   Post subject:    

DLW wrote:
MSNBC has a video update of the case today. Keith Miller the foreign correspondent says that Amanda’s bloody footprints are probable matches but not conclusive. But from the Andea Vogt article it sounds like Raffaele’s footprint is even more probable. Keith seems to enjoy his little interviews with Curt, who always seems available..

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ ... 7#30657267


Curt's again pushing that idea that Amanda will definitely testify. That's interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Sat May 09, 2009 11:48 pm   Post subject:    

Sorry to jump in here. I've been lurking for months and coming multiple times daily to see updates on this sad and fascinating case. Anyway, I saw the MSNBC video linked above and noted also that Curt again says that Amanda is anxious to have her say and tell what happened. What I thought was so funny, though, was how he said when asked how Amanda is doing, "Well, you know, it's always difficult when you're dealing with prison", as if he's had to deal with prison a lot of times in his life. That just struck me as really funny.

Carry on, everyone. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 12:46 am   Post subject: Salty's   

This is what Candace Dempsey posted the day after the 'Saltygate' affair, emphasis mine:



Candace Dempsey wrote:
Dear readers,

OK, I promised not to comment on the things said about me elsewhere but ...

To the stalkers on PMF who supposedly saw me, my husband and one of my sisters emerge from a police car and--it gets even more ridiculous--hang out together at the Amanda Knox fundraiser at Salty's last night:

Sorry to wreck your evening, but in what alternate universe could that possibly have occurred? Great detective work!

Have you had your eyeglasses checked recently? Your sanity? Did you swallow too much wine at the bar?

Did you really spy on Amanda's little sisters in the ladies' room at Salty's? I hope you made up that part as well. Honestly, even after all this time I thought better of you.

One can only hope Meredith Kercher's gracious family, whom you pretend to represent, never reads your mean-spirited message board.



Well, I have to say, after reviewing her post once again, especially the highlighted parts, I must defer to TM and say I was wrong and he was right. This cannot be said to be anything else but a complete denial. We had 'more' then FOUR people there who each saw Candace clearly entering Salty's. Therefore, it can only be stated that on Candace's part she told a DELIBERATE BARE FACED LIE!! And that by definition makes Candace Dempsey a LIAR. And the kind of person who tells a deliberate bare faced lie to the world and in the process calls OTHERS liars, does not do so as a one off. I hate liars!!!

_________________
"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 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 May 10, 2009 3:01 am   Post subject:    

martin wrote:
Hi,

will the trial be continued next friday?


Hi Martin,

The newspapers are saying the next hearings are set for 22 and 23 May.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 4:49 am   Post subject:    

Teacher wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to jump in here. I've been lurking for months and coming multiple times daily to see updates on this sad and fascinating case. Anyway, I saw the MSNBC video linked above and noted also that Curt again says that Amanda is anxious to have her say and tell what happened. What I thought was so funny, though, was how he said when asked how Amanda is doing, "Well, you know, it's always difficult when you're dealing with prison", as if he's had to deal with prison a lot of times in his life. That just struck me as really funny.


No need to apologize and welcome, teacher! That is a funny formulation. You've inspired me to actually watch the video.

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

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 6:19 am   Post subject:    

Here's a link to some pics of Asics tennis shoes:
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/ShoesAsics.html
They come in various styles and colours, but all Asics stuff seems to have a distinctive 'double X' motif....
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:18 am   Post subject:    

You can chose to believe me or you can chose to believe otherwise.

The easiest way to disappear on the internet is just that. You stop.

Stewart has stopped, Frank changed his mind.

Everyone has a price.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:06 am   Post subject:    

That's a fascinating post Brian. But what does it mean? Do you really think that Stewart has stopped, as opposed to being too busy to post for a couple of weeks? You don't think he will come back? Why is that? And what exactly are we supposed to choose to believe or not?

Sorry for being obtuse about this! It sounds like you are maybe answering another post, but I don't see which one it could be.
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:07 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
Stewart has stopped, Frank changed his mind.

Everyone has a price.

:shock: Wait a minute. What do you mean with that?
Top Profile 

Offline mylady007


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:21 am

Posts: 50

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:09 am   Post subject:    

The Lamp.

Were any fingerprints found on Amanda's lamp which was in Meredith's room?
Top Profile 

Offline martin


Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:28 pm

Posts: 362

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 11:42 am   Post subject:    

Hi machine,

You were right, the leprechauns and dwarfs have
seized miss r's blog!! Read the latest comments!!!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 12:03 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S. wrote:
You can chose to believe me or you can chose to believe otherwise.

The easiest way to disappear on the internet is just that. You stop.

Stewart has stopped, Frank changed his mind.

Everyone has a price.


Some people seem to think that the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is like Big Brother with the public getting the opportunity to vote Knox and Sollecito out of Capanne prison. Amanda Knox's family have been acting like it's a presidential election and have given countless interviews to news channels, magazines and newspapers in attempt to drum support for Amanda Knox.

They hired David Marriott's PR company and tried exert a stranglehold over the media. Some journalists and reporters were recruited and were responsible for articles and documentaries that were full of inaccuracies; most of them contained the 10 myths I outlined on TJMK. The likes of Marriott, Bremner and Chris Mellas attempted to intimidate journalists and reporters who didn't toe the official FOA party line. Charles Mudede took offence at Marriott trying to bully him. Chris Mellas has frequently lashed out at journalists, like Nick Pisa, covering the case.

Knox's family and the FOA didn't want to just control the mainstream media, but also the blogs. In the early days Candace Dempsey and Frank Sfarzo had the two main blogs about the case. Amanda Knox's family contacted both of them and built a relationship with them in order to influence them and the content of their blogs. Candace Dempsey was asked to cover the case by her sister funnycat on her reader's blog, which was primarily about cooking, for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

I know it's hard to believe now, but Frank was objective for a long time. He changed from being objective to being partisan at about the same time he published an extract from Amanda Knox's diary. I'm assuming there is a connection between him gaining acces to the diary and his sudden change of direction.

Skep was offered access to Amanda Knox's diary but she turned down the opportunity. Not everyone has a price and can be bought. I know there are untold number of people who are prepared to stand up for Meredith and her faimly. They don't want to make money out of Meredith's tragic murder. They want the truth to be told and justice to be served.

Amanda Knox's family may have an influence over Candace Dempsey and Frank Sfarzo, but it doesn't actually matter. The landscape has changed dramatically. Candace and Frank have become marginal figures of fun. Their blogs have been eclipsed by TJMK, PMF and Lies Our Mothers Told Us.

Amanda Knox's family must have spent thousands of dollars on hiring Marriott's PR company and it's made no difference. Amanda Knox is still Capanne prison. The PR campaign has failed. The silence from the American embassassy in Rome is deafening. The FOA for all their sound and fury, signified nothing. They disbanded without ever achieving their stated purpose.

It doesn't matter if Frank changed his opinion or Stewart has stopped posting. Justice will be served.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 12:33 pm   Post subject:    

geez louise, i'm beginning to think we should get Michael to change the name of this forum to PMT or PMS....let's leave the egos at the door. 'kay, tia.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 12:59 pm   Post subject: Yesterday Hearing   

According to quotidiano.net, Sollecito rendered his spontaneous declaration with a "trembling voice" and "heart beating fast".

As to DR Rinaldi deposition,here's what it is being reported: "Rinaldi è un fisico. Illustra la sua consulenza e poi resta impassibile sul banco dei testimoni a rispondere al controesame delle difese, Giulia Bongiorno, Luca Maori, Carlo Dalla Vedova e Luciano Ghirga. Cinque ore senza una contraddizione, senza nemmeno cambiare intonazione della voce. I suoi risultati sono quelli"-Rinaldi is a physicist. He explains his expert's opinion and then he stands emotionless on the stand during defense cross-examination. Five hours without a single contradiction, without even changing his tone of voice. These are his results".

Maresca's comments:
"LE CONSULENZE sono state molto precise e pesanti per le posizioni degli imputati. Spero non si parli ancora di contaminazione. Sono state date solo certezze» attacca l’avvocato Francesco Maresca, legale della famiglia Kercher." The experts' opinions are very accurate and heavy for the defendants. I hope that contamination will not be claimed again. We only heard certainties"

Buongiorno & Ghirga comments:
«La stanza di Meredith dovrebbe grondare di impronte di Raffaele Sollecito e invece viene fuori ancora una volta che non se ne trovano. Le uniche presenti sono quelle di Rudy Guede». "Meredith's room should be full of Sollecito's prints but on the contrary, once again, there's none. The only prints found belong to Rudy Guede". Ghirga mette invece in discussione la rilevazione con il luminol: «perché reagisce anche a candeggina, solventi e altro». " Ghirga argues the luminol detection results: "because it reacts also to bleach, chemical solvents and others".

Buongiorno seems to forget that Guede's prints were only two (pillow and shoe), it doesn't look like the room is "full" of Guede's print neither. I would think that prosecution scientists have run tests to exclude detergents cross-reaction with Luminol, so Ghirga 's remark is quite unclear to me.
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: Sun May 10, 2009 1:28 pm   Post subject:    

Some news, anyway - I missed Nicki's Quotidiano excerpt above.
Stewart's people have probably taken copious notes while he's busy.



Perugia Italian News Digest 08 and 09 May 2009


Dirndl day in Court for Amanda, Raffaele declares footprints not his,
lawyers (mostly) spin on court steps after hearings as usual,
phone intercept guys not allowed to write down catty remarks (probably),
and reporters still getting somewhat confused about multi-part technical evidence spread across hours or days.


Item
ORDER OF WITNESSES
– 8 prosecution expert witnesses expected over the two days (11, 14, 18, 22, 25, 29)
– for 08 May 2009: 5 scientific police expert witnesses (3, 5, 7, 9), (or: another 5, in addition to Arnone (8))
– in the morning: the crime scene video from 18 December 2007 was shown (14)
– in the afternoon, the print experts were heard (14, 25), 3 print experts for the entire afternoon (15, 29)
– evidence to be examined: the bra-clasp, the alleged murder weapon, the parking lot video (9)
– for 09 May 2009: Rinaldi and Boema on the footprints (17)

Item
MAURIZIO ARNONE
– also referred to as Annone (22)
– deputy inspector (2, 15, 29)
– head of the Video Documentation Service Laboratory of the Scientific Police in Rome (3, 5, 7, 8)
– dealt with the parking lot security camera video (1, 11, 15, 29)


Item
SECOND CRIME SCENE VIDEO, OF THE 18 DECEMBER 2007

– requested to be shown by prosecutor Manuela Comodi for the first witness (1, 2, 11, 29) Maurizio Arnone (10, 14) in the morning (14)
– the witness needed to refer to it for his testimony (22)
– however, she encountered some difficulty in getting it to play (1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 29), in getting the computer file to open (22)
– the computer was not cooperating (“non voleva funzionare bene”) (4) because of some technical problem (6, 10)
– Raffaele Sollecito, IT graduate, on seeing these difficulties, placed himself at the disposition of the authorities (9, 14) – his “help” was requested and accepted (22)
– Raffaele Sollecito (from alleged murderer to impromptu IT consultant (9)) and his defence team resolved the inconvenience by placing a laptop at the prosecutor’s disposal (1, 2, 8, 11, 22, 29), by means of which, after various steps were followed, the film began to play under his control (10, 14, 29)
– and thanks to technical support provided by IT graduate Raffaele Sollecito (1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 22), – he graduated in prison (22) – he fixed the error (25) and he was able to show the parts of the film as indicated by the prosecution (4)
– the video showed, amongst other things:
= the recovery of the victim’s bra fragment (1, 2, 11, 29), the bra-clasp (6, 8, 9, 14, 25)
= the scientific police at work in their white coveralls (6, 10)
= in Meredith’s room, the blood still on the floor and the walls (10)
– according to the prosecution’s scenario, the bra clasp (or: bra (9)) was stripped from the victim while she was still alive (8, 9) [Note: this is a new piece of information: no-one else has reported it so far]
– film of the murder weapon will also be shown, as well as parking lot footage (8)


Item
DEFENCE REQUEST ABOUT THE VIDEO
– technical witness testimony paused at the request of Sollecito and Knox defence teams (12, 21, 29)
– the request was made for the reason that the almost-2-hour long (12, 13) (or: 1 hr 34 min (22, 29)) crime scene video needs to be examined by the defence (12, 13, 14, 21, 25) before they can cross-examine the witnesses about it (29)
– the video only became available a week ago (12, 13, 14, 21, 29)
– hence the need to stop questioning witnesses about items which may emerge from the video (12)
– the judges in the Advisory Chamber (“Camera di Consiglio”) considered the defence request (12)
– the request was refused by the Court (13, 14, 21, 25, 29): the witnesses will not be rescheduled to another day (13, 25, 29)
– the Court has asked the prosecution not to question the 5 witnesses today about the video (13, 14, 25, 29)
– (instead (14)) biologist Patrizia Stefanoni’s bra-clasp testimony has been rescheduled from 09 May to 20 May (13, 14, 21, 22), actually the 22 May (34); Patrizia Stefanoni is from the Forensic Genetics Investigation Section of the Central Anticrime Directorate in Rome (22); her testimony will cover:
= all the tests undertaken (13, 21)
= the operational methods followed (13, 21)
= evidence collection (13, 21)
= technical testing and results obtained (13, 21)
= the possibility of evidence contamination during any and all stages of the investigations (13, 21)


Item
THE PRINTS: FINGERS AND PALMS
– Chief Superintendent Giuseppe Privitera, Judicial Identity Section, spoke (14, 15, 18, 24, 25)
– Identified prints consist of: 48 prints, consisting of 35 fingerprints and 13 palm prints (14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29, 42)
– the prints are: 5 (Sollecito), 1 (Knox), 17 (victim), 1 (Guede), the rest from the two Italian flatmates and the victim’s then boyfriend (14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 25, 29)
– Rudy’s bloody palm print was on the pillow under/next to the victim (14, 15, 21, 23)
– 108 “papillary partials” were found in the cottage (14, 15, 18, 24, 29):
= 61 were “usable” for identification(14, 15, 18, 24, 29), having 16-17 reference points (14, 15, 29); 48 were identified (24)
= 13 were unidentifiable (14, 15, 18, 21, 25, 29), or: not attributed to anyone (24)
== 4 of the 13 unidentified prints were in the murder room: two on a calendar, and the other two on the lock side door jamb (14, 15, 18, 24, 25, 29)
– Superintendent Cesare Iacuitto and Assistant Marco Perla, both from the Judicial Identity Section, also spoke (18, 24)


Item
THE SHOE- AND FOOTPRINTS
–Lorenzo (or: Luciano (17)) Rinaldi, Scientifica agent (17), Director of the Judicial Identity Section of the Scientifica (19, 20, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32) testified
– Piero Boema, Inspector (17) or:Chief Inspector (28), Judicial-Fingerprint Identity Section (20), also testified (17, 20, 28, 30)
– they testified for hours (34, 37)
– Boemia was the last witness (35)
– the shoeprint on the floor in Meredith’s room was initially attributed by another expert to Raffaele (17, 19, 23, 28, 32) but then, thanks to a study on a particular brand of shoe, definitively attributed (“definitivamente attribuita”) to Rudy Guede (17, 19, 23, 37)
– it is impossible that the evidence was in any way “contaminated” (17)
– the work was, in fact, done following all the required rules and procedures (17)
– prints of bare feet, were attributed to Amanda and Raffaele (19, 28)
– specifically, per Rinaldi:
= the shoe print in Meredith’s room did have some compatibilities with Sollecito’s shoes (28)
= on the basis of further examinations undertaken by him, the print found next to the body (and near the jeans (33)) had characteristics incompatible with the soles of Sollecito’s shoes (19), including dimensions (32): the print was Guede’s (28, 30, 33, 43)
= the shoeprint was compared to a (new (33, 40, 43)) pair of shoes of the same brand and size as those indicated by the label on an empty shoebox found in Guede’s house (19, 28, 32, 33, 40, 43), as well as prints taken from Guede’s bathroom (19, 32) and shoes from Raffaele’s (23)
= there was “absolute and complete compatibility” (19, 28)
= another print of Guede’s shoe was also identified on (the pillow-slip of) a pillow underneath/near the victim’s body (19, 28, 30, 32, 40)
= Nike size 11 (33)
= size 36-38 and unidentified (37)
= prints of bare feet were also found in the cottage (23, 28, 32, 37) : 2 compatible with Amanda’s, 2 with Raffaele’s (42)
== a bloodied (traces of haematic substance) bare footprint left on a small mat in one of the bathrooms of the murder house (and visible to the naked eye (42)) was attributed to Sollecito (19, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37), compatible with his right foot (33): the defence rebuts this but it seems more certain (assodato) that amongst the three prints found in the hall, at least one is compatible with Raffaele’s right foot (33), although the defence complained that Luminol reacts with bleach and other solvents, as well as blood (34, 37)
== another RS footprint was identified in the hallway (19, 28, 30, 33, 34, 37), along with one of Knox’s (19, 28, 32, 33, 37) in front of Meredith’s door (34, 37)
== another AK footprint was in her room (19, 28 uses the plural “prints”, 32, 33, 34)
== all these last were revealed by Luminol (19, 28, 32)
= Rinaldi, by means of a special filter, was able to discern prints of (bare) feet and hands in the cottage, in the hallway, and on the door of one of the rooms leased to the Italian girls (40, 43), and also Amanda’s footprints (40, 43)
= Using a photo showing prints of three bare feet (Guede, Sollecito and Amanda, obviously all different), Rinaldi pointed out the measurements of the parts of the foot, explaining the differences in size (centimetri). (33)
= palm prints attributable to Raffaele and Amanda were recovered using Luminol (27)
– regarding all the prints, the Scientifica experts expressed themselves in terms of “probable identity” (probabile identità) (19, 28)

per Boemia:
=practically at the end of the hearing, responding to a question from Court President Massei, Inspector Boemia maintained that the foot and shoe prints found in the murder house, “stained with blood”, were “from three different people” (34, 37) [? meaning Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda]
– Earlier Rinaldi had instead emphasised that studies undertaken up until the present in forensics showed how footprints “are identifiable fundamentally by morphological characteristics” (34, 37). From the consultation of the two experts, it emerged that the bloody shoe print found next to the victim is Guede’s and not Sollecito’s as first hypothesised, while on the pillowcase under the body another one was detected, size 36-38, and unidentified. (34)


Item
SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION
RS:
– “The bare footprints in the house in via della Pergola can not possibly be mine” (40, 42, 43)
– “It’s only my idea, but attributing prints based on the length of the foot does not exclude all possibilities and all those who could have ever visited that house. My expert witnesses will show that they are not prints attributable to me” (40, 42, 43)
– “I wanted to make it known, that for months these prints were attributed to me. I was arrested and carried off to prison on that evidence. Above all, the judge confirmed my arrest based on this connection – even though I’ve always said, from the start, that those shoe prints were not mine. No-one listened to me.” (34, 37, 40, 42, 43)
– “Those feet are not mine” (34, 37, 39)


Item
PHONE INTERCEPTS TRANSCRIPTS REQUEST
– The Sollecito defence team (lead by the President of the Justice Commission in the Chamber of Deputies [in Parliament], Giulia Bongiorno (42)) made a request for the complete transcript of all phone intercepts made during the course of investigation of Raffaele’s relatives, except for those between his father, a doctor, and his patients or colleagues (19, 26, 31), to demonstrate that there was obvious and evident interference by the investigators (27, 31, 32, 33, 41)
per Luca Maori:
= “We consider it rightful and legitimate in this process to put everything into the open. The Sollecito family, from the moment he was arrested, are seeking to help him in any way possible”. The complete and unedited transcripts of phone intercepts is necessary because “it is not possible to infer from only parts of the conversations; a general overview of familial conversations is needed”. Therefore the defence requests the daybooks of the judicial police linked to those same intercepts. In them, according to Maori, there appears a “clear and evident interference on the part of the investigators” (32)
=“The investigators have illegally interfered in [the affairs of] the Sollecito family by means of various targeted intercepts” (26); these interferences were “illicit and illegitimate” (31, 32, 41)
= the transcripts are required because "it is necessary to have an overview of familial conversations" (31, 41)
= In court, Raffaele’s lawyer read out several annotations (comprising comments by the judicial police (37)) present in the police daybooks. Pointing out one conversation between Raffaele’s father’s current wife and another relative, “there are comments like ‘they’re being a****holes like usual’ and ‘they’re two vipers, they want to communicate by print’”. In connection with a phone conversation intercepted on Sollecito’s uncle’s handset, on the daybook, according to Maori, appears the comment: ‘he who laughs last, laughs best’ ( ridano, ridano, ride bene chi ride ultimo) (32)
– the daybooks contain comments and phrases by the investigating operatives, comments which are not relevant and therefore considered by the defence to be illegitimate (33)
– the request was granted (31, 33, 34, 41)
– there are 800-plus intercepts (34, 37)


Item
LEGAL TEAM COMMENTARY

– Maresca (for the Kerchers):
= “It was a favourable day for the prosecution” (29)
= “Certainties” (37)
= “What emerged [today] has witnessed how, in contrast to what has been repeated during all these months, the Scientifica followed a protocol with a strict division of roles. In so doing, each group would uncover their own results (accertamenti) in an absolutely genuine and crystalline manner. Even today, even with the repetitiveness of the results, it has emerged that the work was done in an absolutely outstanding manner. The contamination hypothesis is up for proof. Up to now, there is no evidence that there was [contamination].” (29)
=The prints found in the murder house are witness to the fact “that there was movement especially in the hallway between Meredith’s room and the small bathroom” (29)

– Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori (for Sollecito), at the end of the day (29):
= Evidence of “accidental” contamination was shown by the day’s evidence (29)
= from the video, [it was obvious that] “in the murder room there was a cavalcade of people” (29): the prints are a sign that every man and their dog (in tanti) went inside in any which way ( in maniera anche confusa) (40, 43) – Detectives’ prints that contaminated the scene and the evidence (40, 43)
= re the bra-clasp: “the lynch-pin evidence, identified for the first time on 2 November, was collected 46 days later from under a blood-stained mat” (29)
= "We are not saying there was plotting or malice, but the certainty that Raffaele was sent to prison because of a shoe print that was subsequently stated to belong to Rudy Guede. Then, while in custody, this clasp turned up which among other things has a mixed trace and very little DNA” (29)
= re Sollecito’s intervention in helping to play the prosecution’s video, “Raffaele wants to cooperate in any way possible to allow the elements in his favour to come out, and if watching the DVD allows a solid reconstruction of the murder scene, it is clear that it is only in our interest to speed up the process” (29)
= “The investigations were extremely sloppy ( lacunose)” (34, 37)

– Manuela Comodi (for the state)
= Today’s testimony has provided the final certainties of the game ending in tragedy amongst a small group of people (40, 43)

Item
THE PUBLIC GALLERY
– Amanda’s father was present in Court (27)


Item
OUTSIDE COURT
– Curt Knox: “I admire Raffaele that he stood up and said those things” (34, 37)

Item
FASHION WEEK
– Amanda wore a white top with black embroidery and Raffaele wore a pair of brown trousers (7)


Item
IN ANTICIPATION
– the last of the prosecution witnesses will be heard by the end of May (34, 39) or the beginning of June (34)
– it seems that it might be possible (42) that Amanda might depose testimony (or: be questioned (34, 37)) in early June (27), followed by Meredith’s relatives (27, 34) (or: Meredith’s parents (42))
– or the other way round (35, 37)
– the number of days allocated to the case may be increased due to a defence request for an “expert opinion to beat all expert opinions” ( superperizia) (27, 37): per Ghirga (for Knox) at the conclusion of the hearings, on the matter of the reconstruction and the identity of the prints, “that consolidates the diversity of opinions” (36, 38)
– Ghirga spoke of “suggestive lines of argument” by the prosecution’s experts. The first, on the print lifted from the pillowcase underneath Meredith’s body, was that “beyond its typically feminine import, it was excluded by the experts today from being attributable to Amanda”. Regarding the Luminol bare footprints in the hallway, Ghirga mentioned “presumed haematic substance”, then “Luminol reacts, as was noted, with bleach, solvents, detergents and other stuff”. “We have serious problems about the reconstruction of the print and its identity. We are taking [judicial] notice of what the prosecution’s experts are saying, but I believe this will be one of the points where it will be necessary to get an expert opinion” (38)
– the next hearing date is set for 22 and 23 May (33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43), when there will be 6 witnesses, for the prosecution and for the defence (40, 43)



[hr]
Notes
1 – “Prosecution snarled by computer, Raffaele to the rescue” [Leggo] 08 May 2009
2 –“Hearing continues” [ANSA] 08 May 2009
3 – “Hearing resumes with forensics testimonies” [AGI] 08 May 2009
4 – “Technical witnesses” [Julie News] 08 May 2009
5 –“The five experts who examined the evidence” [Notiziario] 08 May 2009
6 – “Thanks to his IT degree”, by Amalia Coletta [Notiziario] 08 May 2009
7 – “Hearing resumes with forensics evidence” [ADN Kronos] 08 May 2009
8 – “Meredith Kercher murder case resumes”, by Maria Quarato [Bari Mia] 08 May 2009
9 – “Hearing resumed: “computer-guru” Sollecito aids Prosecution – Video doesn’t start, Pugliese lad to the rescue” [Wall Street Italia] 08 May 2009
10 – “Sollecito helps prosecution play a video in court” [Informatics Today] 08 May 2009
11 – “Hearing resumes; technical testimony expected” [Nazione] 08 May 2009
12 – “Testimony paused at defence request” [Wall Street Italia] 08 May 2009
13 – “New police video, but no recall of witnesses” [Nazione] 08 May 2009
14 – “Crime scene video and prints in the house” [Messaggero] 08 May 2009
15 – “Experts depose testimony” by Anna Rita Chietera [Voce d’Italia] 08 May 2009
16 – “Scientifica’s depositions; 48 prints in house” [Nazione] 08 May 2009
17 – “Hearing on shoeprints; 2 experts – Rinaldi and Beemia [sic]” [Wall Street Italia] 09 May 2009
18 – “48 identified prints” [AGI] 08 May 2009
19 – “Prints in house: Rudy’s shoes, and Amanda and Raffaele’s feet” [Messaggero] 09 May 2009
20 – “Hearing resumes in court” [AGI] 09 May 2009
21 – “The Scientifica’s day in court” [Quotidiano] 08 May 2009
22 – “Hearing resumes, Sollecito helps prosecution with video” [ASCA] 08 May 2009
23 – “Expert: bloody shoe print is Rudy’s” [Wall Street Italia] 09 May 2009
24 – “Hearing concludes with experts’ testimony” [Riformista] 08 May 2009
25 – “Experts in court” by Maria Quarato [Bari Mia] no date
26 – “Phone intercepts illegal”
[Wall Street Italia] 09 May 2009
27 – “Palm prints attributed to Raffaele and Amanda” by Emanuela Garulli [LA7] 09 May 2009
28 – “Prosecution: prints are Raffaele’s and Amanda’s” [RAI] 09 May 2009
29 – “48 prints identified” [Unione Sarda] 08 May 2009
30 – “Experts refer to prints in murder house” [Libero] 09 May 2009
31 – “Court grants defence intercepts request” [Libero] 09 May 2009
32 – “Sollecito legal team: ‘Transcribe the intercepts’; Scientifica: ‘Accuseds’ prints in the house’” [Quotidiano] 09 May 2009
33 – “Shoe prints and Sollecito footprint” [ASCA] 09 May 2009
34 – “Shoe prints; Amanda and Raffaele in crisis” [Leggo] no date
35 – “Hearing concludes, resumes 22 May” [AGI] 09 May 2009
36 – “Knox defence: New expert opinion required for prints” [Espresso] 09 May 2009
37 – “Shoe and foot prints accuse Raffaele/Amanda” [ANSA] 09 May 2009
38 – “Knox defence: New expert opinion required for prints” [AGI] 09 May 2009
39 – “Hearings resume 22 May; Sollecito: ‘Feet not mine’” [ANSA] 09 May 2009
40 – “Hearing focuses on prints” [Wall Street Italia] 09 May 2009
41 – “Court grants defence intercept request” [Tempo] 09 May 2009
42 – “Prints discovered in house under scrutiny”
[Dazebao] 09 May 2009
43 – “Hearing focuses on prints in murder house” [Cittadino di Monza e Brianza] 10 May 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 1:47 pm   Post subject: Sources   

Catnip -


Wow Catnip, thanks a lot for that great list of sources. An immense amount of work, as you've frequently done before, has gone into that and it's very much appreciated :)

I'm just wondering, as you compiled your sources list, did you come accross any statements by Maresca regarding Saturday's hearing? I've seen no few quotes so far from the defence lawyers and from Curt Knox, but nothing from Maresca so far. I'd be quite interested to hear what he thought of yesterdays testimony.

_________________
"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: Sun May 10, 2009 1:51 pm   Post subject: Frank   

New article by Frank, just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet: PERUGIA SHOCK

_________________
"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 nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 1:54 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip, thanks for the review, superb work, as usual
Michael, I have posted what I've found about Maresca comments, but I think there's more quotes to be found elsewhere basically on the same line
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: Sun May 10, 2009 1:55 pm   Post subject: Re: Sources   

Michael wrote:
Catnip -


Wow Catnip, thanks a lot for that great list of sources. An immense amount of work, as you've frequently done before, has gone into that and it's very much appreciated :)

I'm just wondering, as you compiled your sources list, did you come accross any statements by Maresca regarding Saturday's hearing? I've seen no few quotes so far from the defence lawyers and from Curt Knox, but nothing from Maresca so far. I'd be quite interested to hear what he thought of yesterdays testimony.


Michael,

just the brief mention from Maresca above:
Maresca thinks the picture is becoming clearer
and that the contamination claim remains a claim so far.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

nicki wrote:
I would think that prosecution scientists have run tests to exclude detergents cross-reaction with Luminol, so Ghirga 's remark is quite unclear to me.


The report from the Seattle PI maybe sheds some light on that remark:

Andrea Vogt wrote:
Under cross, Rinaldi also confirmed that luminol, a substance used by forensic police to reveal invisible traces of blood, also could react to other substances that contain iron, such as fruit juices, Chlorophil or rust, as well as bleach. When asked what substance the print was made in, Rinaldi said he does image analysis but such a determination would have to be made by a forensic biologist. That witness is scheduled to testify at the next hearing.


So maybe it suggests how Ghirga is planning to approach the luminol-revealed footprints. It's interesting that Carlo Dalla Vedova took a different approach in the courtroom itself:

Andrea Vogt again wrote:
Knox's attorney, Carlo Dalla Vedova, questioned the certainty with which the prints could be considered compatible with Knox's foot. He noted that a match with Sollecito and Guede's footprints was excluded, but said that the luminol print was not compared with the other two female roommates in the house.


So what that sounds like is that these footprints might belong to Filomena or Laura, not Amanda. And even if they are of Amanda, they're not necessarily a sign that she stepped in blood, but in some other product, such as a cleaning fluid.

Trouble with that is, if both counts fail (for example, if the luminol expert does, as you suggest she might, rule out cleaning fluids) then that makes it harder for the defense to revert to another line that's been bandied about on the blogs, that Amanda might have inadvertently trodden in diluted blood after her shower, without realizing it, and then created those footprints. The defense teams need one of these objections to work, or they'll be in serious trouble.

It's also possible to guess what Maresca's line is likely to be when he opens up his own account next month.

If I were the defense teams, the things I'd be most worried about at this stage would be: the assault by multiple attackers; Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp; Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat; my client's conflicting stories. And the way I'd argue those points would be like this: Rudy went crazy and did it alone; the bra clasp got contaminated; somehow that footprint has just got to be Rudy's; my client was stressed and confused.

And I must admit, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about winning any of those points.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:25 pm   Post subject: Maresca   

Catnip, Nicki -

Thanks guys. But just looking at what little Maresca 'has' said:



Catnip wrote:
– Maresca (for the Kerchers):
= “It was a favourable day for the prosecution” (29)
= “Certainties” (37)
= “What emerged [today] has witnessed how, in contrast to what has been repeated during all these months, the Scientifica followed a protocol with a strict division of roles. In so doing, each group would uncover their own results (accertamenti) in an absolutely genuine and crystalline manner. Even today, even with the repetitiveness of the results, it has emerged that the work was done in an absolutely outstanding manner. The contamination hypothesis is up for proof. Up to now, there is no evidence that there was [contamination].” (29)
=The prints found in the murder house are witness to the fact “that there was movement especially in the hallway between Meredith’s room and the small bathroom” (29)



Whilst he is not assigning guilt, he is making it very clear that he is not convinced by any of the defence counter arguments. And this is important...he does not have any clear concerns with the evidence offered by the prosecution. This is of most import, since Maresca can be defined as (asside from the judges (who won't talk about what 'they' think) the only truly neutral party within the process. His interest is solely that only those who are actually guilty are convicted. He has NO stake in the prosecution and none in the defence.

For a complete contrast, we have Frank. In his latest article (which is actually very confusing to read I might add, even by Frank's standards), he has gone about doing his best dismiss out of hand the prosecution footprint evidence. He attempts to at the same time claim his neutrality in the article by referring back to previous evidence that was offered by the prosecution that he was impressed by. Only, that's very convenient, since that particular evidnce, aside from the phne records, was decidedly neutral in terms of indicating the guilt or innocence of any of the suspects.

It should however, be pointed out that Frank's lambasting of the footprints evidence is at complete odds with the reports of all the other journalists reporting from the trial, none of whom seemed to feel that the presented evidence was unscientific or inaccurate. And a very important person who also certrainly did so, is our Mr neutral, Maresca.

Perhaps it's simply that Frank is intellectually superior then all the other journalists, perhaps he is just much brighter then Mr Maresca...after all, as we all know, Frank is 'all that' and he 'has the case' and really should be the one presiding the bench. Or maybe, it is a little more simple still and Frank has an agenda...maybe our Frank is just caught in the current of that particularly strange shark infested river that unlike all others, flows uphill.

_________________
"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: Sun May 10, 2009 2:30 pm   Post subject: Footprints   

Finn wrote:
So what that sounds like is that these footprints might belong to Filomena or Laura, not Amanda. And even if they are of Amanda, they're not necessarily a sign that she stepped in blood, but in some other product, such as a cleaning fluid.



Hi Finn. The other problem is those prints are also rendering DNA, either of Meredith, of Amanda, or of the both of them, depending which print is looked at. Strange bleach loaded cleaning fluid that, I must say.

Of course, that's despite the fact that both Filomena and Laura both testified under oath that they never used cleaning products that ontained bleach, prefering milder types of products.

_________________
"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 FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

FinnMacCool wrote:
And I must admit, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about winning any of those points.


Mind you, I'd feel differently if I had Frank Sfarzo on the case.

According to Frank's latest post, the scientists are basically incompetents whose role is to support the prosecution's case. So the bloody footprint could be anyone's and there are no contradictions in (at least) Amanda's story.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:44 pm   Post subject: Footprints   

Since the footprints are currently the primary focus of the trial, if any members/visitors haven't seen them yet, be sure to download and view the two excellent footprint analysis Powerpoints by 'Kermit', which take a very close look at some of the footprints from the cottage:


Foot Measurement Analyses


Barefoot Footprints Hallway


Unable to view Powerpoints on your machine? You can find some solutions and workarounds in this post HERE

_________________
"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: Sun May 10, 2009 2:50 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

FinnMacCool wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
And I must admit, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about winning any of those points.


Mind you, I'd feel differently if I had Frank Sfarzo on the case.

According to Frank's latest post, the scientists are basically incompetents whose role is to support the prosecution's case. So the bloody footprint could be anyone's and there are no contradictions in (at least) Amanda's story.



Yup, which completely contradicts Frank's last article (or perhaps the one before) where he emphasised the fact that the print expert (in that case fingerprints) doesn't care who the prints match or who they don't and is completely neutral. So, per Frank:

Fingerprint experts = neutral techies that work in the labs

Footprint experts = prosecution biased techies that work in the labs

Go figure.

_________________
"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: 2310

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

FinnMacCool wrote:
If I were the defense teams, the things I'd be most worried about at this stage would be: the assault by multiple attackers; Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp; Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat; my client's conflicting stories. And the way I'd argue those points would be like this: Rudy went crazy and did it alone; the bra clasp got contaminated; somehow that footprint has just got to be Rudy's; my client was stressed and confused.

And I must admit, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about winning any of those points.


I can't see how Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers can prove Meredith's bra clasp was contaminated. There was an abundant amount of his DNA on it. What was the source of Sollecito's DNA? None of his DNA was found anywhere else in the cottage. It was impossible for his DNA to get transferred onto a small piece of Meredith's underwear via the scientific police because they hadn't touched Sollecito or anything belonged to him.

The other big problem for Sollecito is that Meredith's bra was removed quite some time after she had been killed. The tampering with the crime scene implicates Sollecito and Knox.

There is a considerable difference between Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size (42) and Rudy Guede’s foot size (46). Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi was painstakingly precise with millimetre by millimetre analysis of Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.

Raffaele Sollecito lied to the police before he was suspect, so I don't know how he claim he was confused and stressed. The lies themselves were very telling; they were huge, whopping lies. He also lied repeatedly over a signifcant period of time. His cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith whilst cooking came weeks after his first lie about having called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

The Machine wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
If I were the defense teams, the things I'd be most worried about at this stage would be: the assault by multiple attackers; Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp; Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat; my client's conflicting stories. And the way I'd argue those points would be like this: Rudy went crazy and did it alone; the bra clasp got contaminated; somehow that footprint has just got to be Rudy's; my client was stressed and confused.

And I must admit, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about winning any of those points.


I can't see how Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers can prove Meredith's bra clasp was contaminated. There was an abundant amount of his DNA on it. What was the source of Sollecito's DNA? None of his DNA was found anywhere else in the cottage. It was impossible for his DNA to get transferred onto a small piece of Meredith's underwear via the scientific police because they hadn't touched Sollecito or anything belonged to him.

The other big problem for Sollecito is that Meredith's bra was removed quite some time after she had been killed. The tampering with the crime scene implicates Sollecito and Knox.

There is a considerable difference between Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size (42) and Rudy Guede’s foot size (46). Dr. Lorenzo Rinaldi was painstakingly precise with millimetre by millimetre analysis of Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.

Raffaele Sollecito lied to the police before he was suspect, so I don't know how he claim he was confused and stressed. The lies themselves were very telling; they were huge, whopping lies. He also lied repeatedly over a signifcant period of time. His cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith whilst cooking came weeks after his first lie about having called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage.


Indeed,it's difficult to argue contamination in the bra case,given the information we 're aware of.In this respect, it's easier to contend the knife DNA,to my opinion.

About foot size,there's an enormous difference between a 42 and a 46 size.One would hardly need a microscope to figure out the difference.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:15 pm   Post subject: AK glass print.   

Thanks Catnip & Nicki for providing the press reports for this weekend.

Hey look at this article from Il Messaggero, it says that the glass of water with AK's print was found in Meredith's desk in her bedroom.
http://tinyurl.com/r8ezp4
-Amanda in the house of crime? A "ghost" that leaves no traces. In short, the house too clean: the only impression that Amanda has left in the home where she lived for at least a couple of months, is on a glass of water, found in Meredith’s desk in her bedroom. “Instead (explains pm Manuela Comodi) there are traces of everyone in that house, even Raffaele Sollecito”. There are few unidentified fingerprints, very few in the room where Meredith was killed: there, forensics have found only two, on a Chinese calendar (probably is the print of the trader who sold it) and one on the Outside part of the door (and is probably one of the youngsters who tried to break through the door when they realized that it was locked). In Meredith’s bedroom, there are traces of Rudy Guede, there is the print of Amanda, there is the hook with Sollecito’s DNA, the prosecution maintains.
http://tinyurl.com/qyruqz

Here is more from IL Messaggero today:

http://tinyurl.com/ocw9jw
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:20 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

nicki wrote:
Indeed,it's difficult to argue contamination in the bra case,given the information we 're aware of.In this respect, it's easier to contend the knife DNA,to my opinion.

About foot size,there's an enormous difference between a 42 and a 46 size.One would hardly need a microscope to figure out the difference.


Raffaele Sollecito unwittingly confirmed that Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the double DNA knife by claiming he had pricked Meredith's hand with it.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:34 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

The Machine wrote:
nicki wrote:
Indeed,it's difficult to argue contamination in the bra case,given the information we 're aware of.In this respect, it's easier to contend the knife DNA,to my opinion.

About foot size,there's an enormous difference between a 42 and a 46 size.One would hardly need a microscope to figure out the difference.


Raffaele Sollecito unwittingly confirmed that Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the double DNA knife by claiming he had pricked Meredith's hand with it.


Hi TM,
Indeed Sollecito's attempt to explain it was almost a give away. But from the strictly scientific point of view,Meredith's DNA is arguable, given what we've heard until today.I am not saying that it's not hers , I'm just saying that defense will have better arguments here than when they try to show that the bra DNA has been contaminated.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:37 pm   Post subject: Re: AK glass print.   

Jools wrote:
Thanks Catnip & Nicki for providing the press reports for this weekend.

Hey look at this article from Il Messaggero, it says that the glass of water with AK's print was found in Meredith's desk in her bedroom.
http://tinyurl.com/r8ezp4
-Amanda in the house of crime? A "ghost" that leaves no traces. In short, the house too clean: the only impression that Amanda has left in the home where she lived for at least a couple of months, is on a glass of water, found in Meredith’s desk in her bedroom. “Instead (explains pm Manuela Comodi) there are traces of everyone in that house, even Raffaele Sollecito”. There are few unidentified fingerprints, very few in the room where Meredith was killed: there, forensics have found only two, on a Chinese calendar (probably is the print of the trader who sold it) and one on the Outside part of the door (and is probably one of the youngsters who tried to break through the door when they realized that it was locked). In Meredith’s bedroom, there are traces of Rudy Guede, there is the print of Amanda, there is the hook with Sollecito’s DNA, the prosecution maintains.
http://tinyurl.com/qyruqz

Here is more from IL Messaggero today:

http://tinyurl.com/ocw9jw


Hi Jools,
Thanks for another interesting report. I wasn't aware that the glass was found in Meredith's room. So if the report is correct, it's not true that no prints of Knox were found in Meredith's room then.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:47 pm   Post subject:    

Nicki wrote:

Quote:
Hi Jools,
Thanks for another interesting report. I wasn't aware that the glass was found in Meredith's room. So if the report is correct, it's not true that no prints of Knox were found in Meredith's room then.



I read just recently that the glass was found in the kitchen sink. It was definitely found somewhere and hopefully this will be nailed down. It is either/or: can't be both.

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:

And I must admit, I wouldn't be feeling too confident about winning any of those points.


Mind you, I'd feel differently if I had Frank Sfarzo on the case.

According to Frank's latest post, the scientists are basically incompetents whose role is to support the prosecution's case. So the bloody footprint could be anyone's and there are no contradictions in (at least) Amanda's story.



Yup, which completely contradicts Frank's last article (or perhaps the one before) where he emphasised the fact that the print expert (in that case fingerprints) doesn't care who the prints match or who they don't and is completely neutral. So, per Frank:

Fingerprint experts = neutral techies that work in the labs

Footprint experts = prosecution biased techies that work in the labs

Go figure.


Let's hope that when the paid defense experts take the stand with their theories and arguments Frank is as skeptical and critical, ever the devil's advocate. ;)

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

nicki wrote:

Indeed,it's difficult to argue contamination in the bra case,given the information we 're aware of.In this respect, it's easier to contend the knife DNA,to my opinion.



That's my opinion, too, in fact - that's why I mentioned those points as the ones that would REALLY worry me, the top of the list ones, based on what's happened in the current trial to date. The knife - even with Raffaele's bizarre claim - is easier to contest, because the amount of DNA was so tiny. (Although put Raffaele's claim in there and that's also a bit of a nightmare for the defense.)

About the stress and confusion - Raffaele's never really claimed police brutality as such. And it's pretty clear that Ghirga wishes Amanda had never mentioned it either. What I'd be thinking about - if I were a defense lawyer - is claiming the whole stress and confusion of having one of my friends murdered was the problem, rather than bringing the issue of police brutality into it. ("There was pressure, yes, but she wasn't hit..." seems like a sensible line to me.) "So the whole event was such a shock, people react in different ways, that's what was misinterpreted as guiltiness, it's such a pity that he/she came out with such stories also, but who knows how a person will react in such circumstances?"

I'd be really hoping I didn't have to put my client on the stand, too.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 3:59 pm   Post subject: Prints   

Skep wrote:
Let's hope that when the paid defense experts take the stand with their theories and arguments Frank is as skeptical and critical, ever the devil's advocate. :)



Well, that will be the 'real' test won't 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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 4:08 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
It should however, be pointed out that Frank's lambasting of the footprints evidence is at complete odds with the reports of all the other journalists reporting from the trial, none of whom seemed to feel that the presented evidence was unscientific or inaccurate. And a very important person who also certrainly did so, is our Mr neutral, Maresca.

Perhaps it's simply that Frank is intellectually superior then all the other journalists, perhaps he is just much brighter then Mr Maresca...after all, as we all know, Frank is 'all that' and he 'has the case' and really should be the one presiding the bench. Or maybe, it is a little more simple still and Frank has an agenda...maybe our Frank is just caught in the current of that particularly strange shark infested river that unlike all others, flows uphill.


It is important to keep in mind that Frank is not a professional journalist and that his self-appointed role is not to summarize what happens in the courtroom dispassionately, but rather to judge the process as it unfolds according to his own worldview. This worldview has to be "décortiqué" (which means peeled or shelled and then analyzed closely, or something like that) in order to assess his posts.

Frank does not answer to anyone and is not bound by any duty to be objective, neutral, non-partisan. Naturally, these ideals are impossible for anyone to meet, but professional journalists constantly question their own sources of bias and seek to correct them.

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 4:11 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip!
Once again, thanks for your very thorough cataloguing of what's been said, done, reported. You are providing an invaluable reference tool.

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 4:18 pm   Post subject:    

Mojo wrote:

Quote:
geez louise, i'm beginning to think we should get Michael to change the name of this forum to PMT or PMS....let's leave the egos at the door. 'kay, tia.


Your proposal gets my vote, Mojo. :)

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 4:23 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
That's a fascinating post Brian. But what does it mean? Do you really think that Stewart has stopped, as opposed to being too busy to post for a couple of weeks? You don't think he will come back? Why is that? And what exactly are we supposed to choose to believe or not?


As a reminder, SH2000 said he would be away for a couple of weeks and not in the courtroom. He said his scribe would be taking copious notes. SH's participation here is valued - as is everyone else's - but not obligatory. Many have expressed their gratitude for SH's posts from the courtroom and indeed they offer information that helps to complete the picture offered by credible media sources. But we have the credible media sources as well. And thanks to Catnip and others, we also have a sense of what is being reported in the Italian press.

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 4:27 pm   Post subject:    

OT THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

Today is Mother's Day in the United States. As you all know by now - if you have ventured over to Frank's and read the thousands of vituperative posts - I am a woman but not a mother (which in some twisted world means being a "barren shrew"!). It is of no importance whatsoever. :)
However, I would like to wish a Happy Mother's Day to mothers everywhere, even outside America, where it is not necessarily Mother's Day. My heart goes out to Arline Kercher in particular, though it is not Mother's Day in the UK. (Mothering Day was on 22 March this year - it is always 4 weeks after Lent.)

_________________
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: Sun May 10, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
OT THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

Today is Mother's Day in the United States. As you all know by now - if you have ventured over to Frank's and read the thousands of vituperative posts - I am a woman but not a mother (which in some twisted world means being a "barren shrew"!). It is of no importance whatsoever. :)
However, I would like to wish a Happy Mother's Day to mothers everywhere, even outside America, where it is not necessarily Mother's Day. My heart goes out to Arline Kercher in particular, though it is not Mother's Day in the UK. (Mothering Day was on 22 March this year - it is always 4 weeks after Lent.)



What a lovely sentiment Skep. Thank you. And you may not be a mother, but they way you sort out the arguments on here sometimes suggests to me you'd be a brilliant one! Sooooo diplomatic, and yet firm too. Perfect for toddlers!!!

Happy Mother's Day to everyone else in the US!!

Bard
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:28 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Michael wrote:

Quote:
It should however, be pointed out that Frank's lambasting of the footprints evidence is at complete odds with the reports of all the other journalists reporting from the trial, none of whom seemed to feel that the presented evidence was unscientific or inaccurate. And a very important person who also certrainly did so, is our Mr neutral, Maresca.

Perhaps it's simply that Frank is intellectually superior then all the other journalists, perhaps he is just much brighter then Mr Maresca...after all, as we all know, Frank is 'all that' and he 'has the case' and really should be the one presiding the bench. Or maybe, it is a little more simple still and Frank has an agenda...maybe our Frank is just caught in the current of that particularly strange shark infested river that unlike all others, flows uphill.


It is important to keep in mind that Frank is not a professional journalist and that his self-appointed role is not to summarize what happens in the courtroom dispassionately, but rather to judge the process as it unfolds according to his own worldview. This worldview has to be "décortiqué" (which means peeled or shelled and then analyzed closely, or something like that) in order to assess his posts.

Frank does not answer to anyone and is not bound by any duty to be objective, neutral, non-partisan. Naturally, these ideals are impossible for anyone to meet, but professional journalists constantly question their own sources of bias and seek to correct them.



I think there is something to be said, however, about the fact that the footprints just can't be analyzed as thoroughly or accurately as fingerprints--because they are incomplete and because of the surface they're on. It's been mentioned here, and I've thought it, that it would be difficult to see clearly define areas and outline of a print on the "hairy rug" (the blue bath mat). Frank is suggesting that what they didn't know they just "filled in." I can understand some of this as being true (although it is their expertise that allows them to fill in the missing information accurately). Problem with Frank is he's so sarcastic you never want to consider what he says.


Last edited by disinterested on Sun May 10, 2009 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:48 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:

= palm prints attributable to Raffaele and Amanda were recovered using Luminol (27)



Hmmm, "palm prints," interesting. Wonder where they found these? But I'm thinking "palms of the hand" and maybe this is referring to "palms" of the feet?

Edit: Sorry, that was under the footprint heading. It's palms of the feet.

Thanks again for your Italian News Map Catnip! "Dirndl" made me laugh.


Last edited by Shirley on Sun May 10, 2009 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
OT THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

Today is Mother's Day in the United States. As you all know by now - if you have ventured over to Frank's and read the thousands of vituperative posts - I am a woman but not a mother (which in some twisted world means being a "barren shrew"!). It is of no importance whatsoever. :)
However, I would like to wish a Happy Mother's Day to mothers everywhere, even outside America, where it is not necessarily Mother's Day. My heart goes out to Arline Kercher in particular, though it is not Mother's Day in the UK. (Mothering Day was on 22 March this year - it is always 4 weeks after Lent.)


Charming, Skep! You nudged me to recall a most fitting spell on this special Day:
My "Orchideous Charm" makes a bouquet of flowers appear for each of you today as we all "mother" our earth and its inhabitants. This island bouquet is for Arline.



Makuahine pa’ipunahele aloha
Mother's special love.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Didi,

As Nicki pointed out, you don't need microscope to see there is a difference between a size 42 and size 46 footprint. The fact is there were two size 42 bloody footprints at the crime scene. I was actually surprised at the quality of the photographs of Sollecito's bloody footprint on the blue bathmat. It's quite clear from Kermit's powerpoint presentation about the bloody footprints that there were three people at the crime scene who had stepped into Meredith's blood.

Since I found out that Frank had lied to a journalist last year. I don't trust anything he says. He tried desperately hard to argue that Sollecito had called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage. He speculated that the postal police might have got lost or sneaked off somewhere else. I don't know why he bothered; Sollecito admitted in his witness statement that he hadn't called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage.

Whichever prosecution witness testifies at the trial, Frank invariably puts a negative construction on their testimony. He even complained that Meredith's friends' testimony was too perfect. If there had been slight inconsistencies in their accounts he would have held it up as proof that they were lying. You can't reason with someone like that or take them seriously.

His relationship with Amanda Knox's family has clearly compromised his "journalistic" integrity. I don't even think Frank is a journalist, which is why he hides behind his stage name. He knows that if he reveals his real name, we can check to see what media organisations he has worked for and what articles he has had published.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:



His relationship with Amanda Knox's family has clearly compromised his "journalistic" integrity. I don't even think Frank is a journalist, which is why he hides behind his stage name. He knows that if he reveals his real name, we can check to see what media organisations he has worked for and what articles he has had published.


Hi Machine,

I'm a late arrival here, only becoming interested in the trial last December (to be honest, I think I was filling a void left by the conclusion of the US election). It's very compelling, as you certainly know, for many reasons, including the Kerchers--and opposingly the FOA's, etc.--but mostly the sheer mystery and puzzle involved. So I've had to attempt to gain a lot of background about the participants in all this too. Frank is an interesting writer, an odd man, sometimes has information no one else seems to have (true or false, one has to determine) and seems to be supporting the wrong perspective (to me) (and you). What I'm saying is, I still have the urge to read him--but I do try to take everything he says as possibly suspect.

I did check out Kermit (never was able to access the Powerpoints until today, for some reason. Hurray!) and that did clarify the footprints a bit, they are more visibly measurable than I thought.

Thanks,

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 8:13 pm   Post subject:    

Thanks for the Mother's Day wishes. I wish all a peaceful, loving day.


Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 8:34 pm   Post subject:    

New Barbie Nadeau article:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... were-they/
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 8:59 pm   Post subject:    

Barbie Nadeau's article was excellent. The bloody footprint evidence was clearly very significant:

Projecting images onto a giant screen on the brick wall of the courtroom, Rinaldi showed the court various comparisons of footprints taken from Knox, Sollecito, and Guede to those left in blood at the crime scene. He superimposed images of Guede’s and Sollecito’s footprints over the bloody print on the rug. “You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede,” he said. “But you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

Worse for Knox, when the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

Curt Knox, Amanda's father, who is now returning to Seattle, spoke briefly with reporters outside the courtroom: "I think it could have been more favorable," he said. "I think when our experts come in and Sollecito's experts come in, you are going to get a different position." Either because he doesn’t understand Italian, or simply because he’s in denial, he didn’t seem to grasp the full impact of the day’s testimony. (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:41 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti,

"You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede,” he said. “But you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.” Daily Beast http://tinyurl.com/qhdgh7

This should answer your question

_________________
"A pensare male si fa peccato, ma molto spesso ci si azzecca" mike
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:18 pm   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:
Lancelotti,

"You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede,” he said. “But you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.” Daily Beast http://tinyurl.com/qhdgh7

This should answer your question


Yes, it does. Andrea Vogt mentioned it too. Well done to both for including this very important detail in their articles.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:36 am   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
nicki wrote:
Lancelotti,

"You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede,” he said. “But you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.” Daily Beast http://tinyurl.com/qhdgh7

This should answer your question


Yes, it does. Andrea Vogt mentioned it too. Well done to both for including this very important detail in their articles.


Both articles are worth checking out. Nadeau includes a video interview with Curt Knox.

_________________
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: Mon May 11, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject:    

From Nadeau's Daily Beast article:

Quote:
On Saturday, the jury also heard that a bloody footprint found on a bathroom rug near Kercher’s bedroom did not belong to Rudy Guede, the man who has already been convicted for his part in Kercher’s sexual assault and murder. Projecting images onto a giant screen on the brick wall of the courtroom, Rinaldi showed the court various comparisons of footprints taken from Knox, Sollecito, and Guede to those left in blood at the crime scene. He superimposed images of Guede’s and Sollecito’s footprints over the bloody print on the rug. “You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede,” he said. “But you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

Finding Sollecito’s naked footprint in the bathroom of his girlfriend’s house is hardly damning. But the footprint on the rug is clearly in blood that has been identified as Kercher’s. Sollecito does not deny being in the house after the murder, and in fact shoe footprints compatible with his size 9 Airforce 1 Nike trainers have also been identified throughout the house. But he has never admitted to being barefoot that morning. Likewise, finding Knox’s footprints in her own house prove nothing—except that these prints were only discovered using Luminol, which suggests, according to the prosecution, that the original prints might have been cleaned up.

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

Offline Natalie


Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 1:57 am

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:14 am   Post subject: Sighting in the park   

This is my first time posting although I've been following this trial for quite some time. I have a question that I hope some of the more skilled "sleuthers" will be able to offer some sort of explanation:

The homeless man in the park, Antonio Curatolo, has testified as to seeing Knox and Sollecito in the park sometime after 10:30. This testimony combined with the evidence and testimony involving the broken down car/people in the car as well as the neighbors hearing the horrible scream and sounds of people (or person) running off (or up/down stairs) has lent credence to a theory involving Knox and Sollecito (Guede, too) running off after the scream and fatal stabbing in the throat. Many theorize that they might have become scared that the scream would alert people to the cottage. This makes sense to me since the vagrant claims he saw them watching the cottage for some time before returning.

BUT, if they had run off at that moment, wouldn't they have still been covered in some sort of blood?? Wouldn't he have noticed blood on them? If they did scatter off because of the scream, they wouldn't have had time to wash up, would they?Or, was it too dark for the homeless man to notice? Even if he didn't, wouldn't they have worried someone in the park MIGHT notice them?

Also, I tend to believe they spent the rest of the night and early morning cleaning up their evidence... but, how did they do such a good job at differentiating between their evidence and Guede's? They obviously cleaned up (almost) every bit of evidence that could link they to the trial. I realize they're both quite intelligent, but, there's no way during the climax of the murder that they could have noted exactly where they left evidence. How were they so careful to only frame him?
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:24 am   Post subject: Re: Yesterday Hearing   

The Machine wrote:
Raffaele Sollecito lied to the police before he was suspect, so I don't know how he claim he was confused and stressed.


Being confused and stressed is easily explained away, along with everything else, TM. If you are guilty of something and are trying to get out of it undetected....OF COURSE you are going to be confused and stressed when you are asked to explain things.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:44 am   Post subject: Re: Sighting in the park   

Natalie wrote:
This is my first time posting although I've been following this trial for quite some time. I have a question that I hope some of the more skilled "sleuthers" will be able to offer some sort of explanation:

The homeless man in the park, Antonio Curatolo, has testified as to seeing Knox and Sollecito in the park sometime after 10:30. This testimony combined with the evidence and testimony involving the broken down car/people in the car as well as the neighbors hearing the horrible scream and sounds of people (or person) running off (or up/down stairs) has lent credence to a theory involving Knox and Sollecito (Guede, too) running off after the scream and fatal stabbing in the throat. Many theorize that they might have become scared that the scream would alert people to the cottage. This makes sense to me since the vagrant claims he saw them watching the cottage for some time before returning.

BUT, if they had run off at that moment, wouldn't they have still been covered in some sort of blood?? Wouldn't he have noticed blood on them? If they did scatter off because of the scream, they wouldn't have had time to wash up, would they?Or, was it too dark for the homeless man to notice? Even if he didn't, wouldn't they have worried someone in the park MIGHT notice them?

Also, I tend to believe they spent the rest of the night and early morning cleaning up their evidence... but, how did they do such a good job at differentiating between their evidence and Guede's? They obviously cleaned up (almost) every bit of evidence that could link they to the trial. I realize they're both quite intelligent, but, there's no way during the climax of the murder that they could have noted exactly where they left evidence. How were they so careful to only frame him?



Hi Natalie and welcome to PMF. Antonio Curatolo. The thing is with blood, is it isn't bright red when it's on clothing, unless the clothing is very light in colour. How the eye works, is that as you become distant to an object, the first thing that one loses in vision is 'colour'...instead being able to only see dark and light. For this reason, soldiers put cam cream on their faces, not to change colour (so they look green like their background), but to break up 'shape', as that's what can always made out a long distance away. Curatolo wasn't quite that far away perhaps, but he's an older gentleman whose eyes may not have been quite what they once were and it was dark with the only light being false street light. It's also quite likely they may have had their jackets on (it wasn't too warm at that time in Perugia). He was also only just glancing up occasionally, as he was reading his newspaper. So all in all, Curatolo was able to make out their demeanor, that they were young and what they looked like, but not details such as marks on their clothing. In fact, I don't think he gave a description in court of what they were actually wearing. But actually, I don't think in any case they ran straight out the moment after the stabbing, but took a minute wash their hands and wipe themselves down quickly before running out. Perhaps that wouldn't have been good enough for a close inspection, but would get by a glance or being seen in the shadows, or from distance. I also think they were a little more careful then Guede, not getting so much blood on themselves in the first place. Guede didn't seem to care about getting blood on himself or trailing it around, but I think they did.

How were they so effective in cleaning? I think, as I said above, they had less to clean in their case, as they were more careful in the first place to keep away from the blood. But also, remember the 'plan' according to the 'plan', as evidenced by the staging. The idea was simple...make the cottage appear like it had been broken into by a lone male intruder. They therefore knew they had to leave 'one' trail of footprints, so anything else around that trail could go. In the bedroom, I think it was a little more complicated. I think first off they attempted to leave Guede's traces on the floor, but that area was more chatoic. They employed the lamps to try and better make out what traces were theirs and what were not, but in the end gave up die to the confusion on the ground and simply cleaned the whole area between the body and the door...hence the huge gap in the trail of Guede's prints from his print in the middle of the room and the corridor side of the doorway, The odd smear was left, as that couldn't be assigned to anyone, but anything that looked like a recognisable shape (foot or hand print etc,) in the first half of the room went. As for the rest, they simply knew they hadn't touched anything with bloody hands (like the pillow for example) so they didn't need worrying about. As it was, they were not so effective as they thought. There was a footprint on the pillow that wasn't Guede's (although he left one there too), DNA on the bra clasp and what looks like what may have been a glass with Amanda's fingerprint on it (this needs verifying further, as whilst it came from a good media source, it's only come from one so far...but, it would make sense as we know Meredith had a glass of water on her bedside table). The lamps were left and the very obvious staging in itself, amounts to a major trace.

_________________
"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 Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:36 am   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Since I found out that Frank had lied to a journalist last year. I don't trust anything he says. He tried desperately hard to argue that Sollecito had called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage. He speculated that the postal police might have got lost or sneaked off somewhere else. I don't know why he bothered; Sollecito admitted in his witness statement that he hadn't called 112 before the postal police arrived at the cottage.

Whichever prosecution witness testifies at the trial, Frank invariably puts a negative construction on their testimony. He even complained that Meredith's friends' testimony was too perfect. If there had been slight inconsistencies in their accounts he would have held it up as proof that they were lying. You can't reason with someone like that or take them seriously.

His relationship with Amanda Knox's family has clearly compromised his "journalistic" integrity. I don't even think Frank is a journalist, which is why he hides behind his stage name. He knows that if he reveals his real name, we can check to see what media organisations he has worked for and what articles he has had published.


And speaking of lies, does this sound like anyone else we know??

Lord Chesterfield’s Advice to His Son1843, from the chapter "Knowledge of the World":

Lying.

Nothing is more criminal, mean, or ridiculous than lying. It is the production either of malice, cowardice, or vanity; but it generally misses of its aim in every one of these views: for lies are always detected sooner or later. :shock:

If we advance a malicious lie in order to affect any man’s fortune or character, we may, indeed, injure him for some time, but we shall certainly be the greatest sufferers in the end for as soon as we are detected, we are blasted for the infamous attempt: and whatever is said afterwards to the disadvantage of that person, however true, pauses for calumny. :shock:

To lie, or to equivocate (which is the same thing) –to excuse ourselves for what we have said or done, and to avoid the danger or the shame that we apprehend from it, -we discover our fear as well as our falsehood, and only shame: we show ourselves to be the lowest and meanest of mankind, and are sure to be always treated as such. :shock:

If we have the misfortune to be in the wrong, there is something noble in frankly owning it; it is the only way of atoning for it, and the only way to be forgiven. To remove a present danger by equivocating, evading, or shuffling, is something so despicable, and betrays so much fear, that whoever, practices them deserves to be chastised. :shock:

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:00 am   Post subject:    

I just watched the video of Curt Knox on the Daily Beast, and I must say that I felt really sorry for him. Barbie Nadeau was being a bit hard on him when she said, "Either because he doesn’t understand Italian, or simply because he’s in denial, he didn’t seem to grasp the full impact of the day’s testimony."

It looked to me like he understood only too well the full impact of the testimony, and he was trying hard not to burst into tears.

But what is he supposed to say? What would any of us say in his position? Is he supposed to say, 'Yes, it was very incriminating evidence and it certainly looks like she's guilty'? How can he say that? She's his daughter, and he's trying to do what he can for her.

It didn't look to me like he's in denial. It looked to me like he knows very well that he's fighting a losing battle, but he doesn't know what else to do. All he can do is try to find something to say in her favour, that the evidence is not that certain, that the defence experts will take a different view, etc.

So I would go easy on the guy. He hasn't committed a crime, he's entitled to do everything he can to defend his daughter, and to assume that she's innocent until proved guilty.

If he just shrugged his shoulders and washed his hands of her, would he be a better parent?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:33 am   Post subject:    

Curt Knox kept to the party line as long as he was asked about today's evidence, but looked totally devastated when he was asked about having seen Amanda after the session. Does anyone know if he is allowed to talk to Amanda in private? It looked to me as though there was a bad scene there. If Amanda was as cheerfully convinced of acquittal as her court behaviour makes her look (my interpretation of the smiles -- I can't agree with those who think that she is happy at the prospect of 30 years of free food and no work, nor those who really think she has no clue what is going on in the trial and what the risks are), then why would that have been? Maybe her mask is beginning to crack.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:47 am   Post subject:    

Looks like the spinners are running out of yarn. This from the Cook's:

Posted by DelD at 5/9/09 7:14 p.m.
Does the footprint on the bathroom mat mean the lone killer theory is out the window?

Posted by Candace Dempsey at 5/9/09 9:05 p.m.
No

Charlie Wilkes is still peddling his particular brand of authoritative bullshit, and that's about it.
So who are the mystery couple who were walking around barefoot in the victim's blood? Who could it be? Certainly not the defendants, the couple with no alibi who can't stop lying (etcetera etcetera). Impossible! Another good day for the defense!
And so it goes on......
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 May 11, 2009 12:53 pm   Post subject:    

Shirley wrote:
Catnip wrote:
= palm prints attributable to Raffaele and Amanda were recovered using Luminol (27)


Hmmm, "palm prints," interesting. Wonder where they found these? But I'm thinking "palms of the hand" and maybe this is referring to "palms" of the feet?

Edit: Sorry, that was under the footprint heading. It's palms of the feet.


Hi Shirley,
Good pickup! And I wondered about them too.
You'd make a good editor! :D

I started off keeping hands and feet separate (for some reason that escapes me now)
and ended up putting all the items specifically attributed to Rinaldi in one spot (under foot, so to speak)
without picking up that palmprints were incongruously out of place (should I be allowed to plead moonshine? :))

Anyhoo -
One sentence in a caption attached to a 52-second video segment from a TV show, and that one sentence not connected with the ones preceding it or following it, and summarising five hours of testimony in two dozen words - perhaps with hindsight, it may be that piece of information should have been flagged as, following the example of the experts, ":? not all that useful (perhaps even misleading)".


Here is the sentence (with Rinaldi's name misspelled, as well):

Quote:
Nell'udienza di questa mattina Lorenzo Rinaldista ha illustrato alcune prove sul ritrovamento di impronte palmari attribuibili a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox evidenziate con il Luminol.
LA7


During this morning's hearing, LR pointed out various pieces of evidence on (or: relating to) the discovery (or: recovery) of palm prints (or: evident prints, if speaking figuratively), attribuitable to Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, revealed with Luminol.



I think the meaning you were trying to get to ("palms of feet", akin to like how gloves are Handschuhe "hand-shoes" in German), sounds like it might have been the idea of "ball of foot", which is polpastrello del piede in (dictionary) Italian.

Confounding things further is the figurative usage of palmare "evident, palpable", and TV presenters
are fond of figurative usages in their reports, because it makes their on-camera work much more memorable.
And in any case, their main purpose is not in the legal-evidentiary field, so they are allowed latitude and metaphors, I suppose.

I would much rather have a court transcript and/or perhaps even the expert's own report.
Next best is an on-site report from someone actually there,
which is where StewartHome2000's posts come in,
and why they are such a valuable contribution.

Moral for me is: Cum grano salis, "with a grain of salt", when it comes to TV.

Your feedback is valuable:
Übung macht den Meister, as they say in German, or "practice makes perfect".
And that can happen only with feedback. Thanks.

I'll institute an information reliability index (somehow): on a scale like,
aw))- corroborated - solid - reliable - persuasive - neutral, even-handed - misreported - single source - hidden agenda - waffle - troll dm-) - bending the truth - stretching the truth - yoga-ing the truth - cartwheeling the truth - pure moonshine, sort of thing.
Top Profile 

Offline kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:13 pm   Post subject: clarify   

Just for my infor, but is Amanda Knox claining that she took a shower while seeing blood in the bathroom, and at the same time Meredith was dead in the bedroom and she did not know it? Maybe I misunderstood something I read, but if she is saying this it is ridiculous that anyone could believe that story. It gets back to what reasonable people believe. Could someone tell me if this is in fact what she is claiming? Anyone who believes that story loses all credibility.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:15 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Catnip, what a handsome troll!
Would 'piffle' come before or after 'waffle'?
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 May 11, 2009 1:28 pm   Post subject:    

There's also "puffery", which is what lawyers use when referring to ads,
including self-agrandising ones.
Top Profile 

Offline GreenWyvern


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:41 pm

Posts: 252

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:39 pm   Post subject: Re: clarify   

kredsox wrote:
Just for my infor, but is Amanda Knox claining that she took a shower while seeing blood in the bathroom, and at the same time Meredith was dead in the bedroom and she did not know it? Maybe I misunderstood something I read, but if she is saying this it is ridiculous that anyone could believe that story. It gets back to what reasonable people believe. Could someone tell me if this is in fact what she is claiming? Anyone who believes that story loses all credibility.


Yup, that's what she claims. The door of the cottage was open, there was evidence of a break-in, there was blood on the floor, but she happily went ahead and took a shower and only later decided that there might be some cause for concern. :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 1:55 pm   Post subject:    

nowo wrote:
Looks like the spinners are running out of yarn. This from the Cook's:

Posted by DelD at 5/9/09 7:14 p.m.
Does the footprint on the bathroom mat mean the lone killer theory is out the window?

Posted by Candace Dempsey at 5/9/09 9:05 p.m.
No

Charlie Wilkes is still peddling his particular brand of authoritative bullshit, and that's about it.
So who are the mystery couple who were walking around barefoot in the victim's blood? Who could it be? Certainly not the defendants, the couple with no alibi who can't stop lying (etcetera etcetera). Impossible! Another good day for the defense!
And so it goes on......


The Cook’s blog seems to be under the impression that even if all scientific testimonies appear to be not favorable to the suspects, it does not really matter as the defense still haven’t presented their case.
My understanding is that all these scientific witness are available to be challenged NOW by the defense lawyers, and whatever challenging, doubts, they have for police evidence it has to be questioned/challenged now while they are presenting the evidence. The cook telling her readers to wait, the time will come with better news when defense gets to present their case is just the usual false hope from the food blogger.
I doubt that the scientific police will be returning to court again to repeat same presentation and be challenge then by defense lawyers because supposedly is their time to present their case. Hoping for what? That all footprints, shoe prints, fingerprints, DNA, against the suspects gets thrown out as a result of some 'real' defense challenge?
Top Profile 

Offline BoneDawg


Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:07 pm   Post subject:    

mojo wrote:
sky news --and good ole Nick Pisa -- Meredith Trial: Blood Footprint Matches Knox




"We also found that a naked footprint found in Knox's bedroom and in the corridor outside, again using Luminol, was compatible with the one taken from her in prison."

Dr Rinaldi explained to the court how [b]microscopic point to point measurements such as ''heel to toe'' or ''toe and arch width''[/b] were used to identify the imprints.



Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that AK and RS at least were in (while having bare feet) the room where Meredith was killed. If they were in there, and they didn't do this unthinkable act - why not say they went into the room and found her? Perhaps they thought their cleanup job was good enough.

And we haven't even heard about the knife yet .......

This trial may go to October or beyond .... but if it keeps progressing this way, the guilty result will be inevitable.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:14 pm   Post subject:    

From Il Messaggero:

Is possible that by the end of May the prosecutors will be finishing presenting their witnesses. Between 5 and 6 June, in principle according to a timetable, the Kercher family could be heard and immediately after Amanda Knox mother Edda Mellas.
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:20 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
Curt Knox kept to the party line as long as he was asked about today's evidence, but looked totally devastated when he was asked about having seen Amanda after the session. Does anyone know if he is allowed to talk to Amanda in private? It looked to me as though there was a bad scene there. If Amanda was as cheerfully convinced of acquittal as her court behaviour makes her look (my interpretation of the smiles -- I can't agree with those who think that she is happy at the prospect of 30 years of free food and no work, nor those who really think she has no clue what is going on in the trial and what the risks are), then why would that have been? Maybe her mask is beginning to crack.


Hi thoughtful. I believe Curt cannot see Amanda privately around court but he can visit her at Capanne pretty soon after.

There is a tunnel under the walled city which passes right under the court and there is an elevator up to the levels of the courts - the court they are using is at the back of the complex facing east away from Perugia, though the windows are frosted so no views.

On at least some occasions that tunnel and route up is the way that the defendants have arrived at court and departed from it. Curt would be using the front door of the complex which fronts onto the piazza.

I think your various impressions may be spot-on, by the way. There have been shots throughout the trial showing AK with a very grave face.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:25 pm   Post subject: It's a Cryin' Shame: Bad reviews from the "critic's corner"   

GreenWyvern wrote:
But what is he supposed to say? What would any of us say in his position? Is he supposed to say, 'Yes, it was very incriminating evidence and it certainly looks like she's guilty'? How can he say that? She's his daughter, and he's trying to do what he can for her.


The Daily Beast Exclusive: Author Barbie Nadeau interviews Curt Knox, Amanda's father, outside of the Perugia courthouse. May 11, 2009

(disclaimer: my comments are not directed at anyone specific, I am not attacking anyone here, okay?)

What would any of us say as a parent if our child was guilty of murder?

As for the cold hearted Snape I say please refer to my post about lies and lying from 1843 for how ANYONE should act.
That was a long time ago and nothing has changed.

I was so very touched with a tear and think it was just a cryin’ shame Curt Knox played his role on stage so well and has fooled many. Good for him! Perhaps Amanda will be set free because, after all, it is just the defense sees things differently than the prosecution. Wasn't it touching that he was right on cue choking up at that question? How many times do you think he has been coached and rehearsed on FOAK strategy?

I personally believe he was talking JUST LIKE AMANDA in her prepared statement. Same pauses, same continual stock statements with all the right gestures and emotions tossed in on cue.

This is Hollywood on a Burien budget played by a bunch of circus clowns. The only thing Curt was missing was the painted tear on his face and a red nose.

BTW, who the hell made him an arsenic expert? Don’t you think his comments flowed like a script? Curses, I did!!

How is he supposed to act as a parent given his daughter is guilty? He should keep his stinkin’ mouth shut and simply say, “No comment” and not launch a campaign against the victim and the court.

I can't wait to see Edda up on the stand. She's been using her casino and laundry money on professional acting lessons, "FOAK style!!"

Spellbinding performance! Bravo, Bravo!! :lol:

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:30 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
My understanding is that all these scientific witness are available to be challenged NOW by the defense lawyers, and whatever challenging, doubts, they have for police evidence it has to be questioned/challenged now while they are presenting the evidence. The cook telling her readers to wait, the time will come with better news when defense gets to present their case is just the usual false hope from the food blogger.

I doubt that the scientific police will be returning to court again to repeat same presentation and be challenge then by defense lawyers because supposedly is their time to present their case. Hoping for what? That all footprints, shoe prints, fingerprints, DNA, against the suspects gets thrown out as a result of some 'real' defense challenge?


Hi Jools. All my understanding too! The police experts will not be recalled. The names of several of the defense experts have already been put out there.

Dempsey is the arch-arbiter of the whack-a-mole school of trumping the prosecution that has legal case-followers here in NYC grinning very widely in disbelief.

Unless Dempsey can come up with a whole other overarching theory of the case, she wont ever again be taken seriously - not by anyone serious, at least!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 2:39 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
nowo wrote:
The Cook’s blog seems to be under the impression that even if all scientific testimonies appear to be not favorable to the suspects, it does not really matter as the defense still haven’t presented their case.

My understanding is that all these scientific witness are available to be challenged NOW by the defense lawyers, and whatever challenging, doubts, they have for police evidence it has to be questioned/challenged now while they are presenting the evidence. The cook telling her readers to wait, the time will come with better news when defense gets to present their case is just the usual false hope from the food blogger.

I doubt that the scientific police will be returning to court again to repeat same presentation and be challenge then by defense lawyers because supposedly is their time to present their case. Hoping for what? That all footprints, shoe prints, fingerprints, DNA, against the suspects gets thrown out as a result of some 'real' defense challenge?


Ta da! That's a wrap, Jools. Excellent!! 8-)
You have earned 2 spell points today. Redeem them as needed. Good for curses, jinxes, hexes and charms. 5 points required per spell.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline srilanka


Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:24 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:21 pm   Post subject:    

"
Catnip wrote:
There's also "puffery", which is what lawyers use when referring to ads,
including self-agrandising ones. "

Not to be forgotten is my lovely Irish Catholic mother's word, (she is rather gorgeous, getting old and so intelligent and wise.).
"Puggled" - "confused, can't think what to say, perhaps when feeling guilty and your mind clouds up." Probably in fornt of priests and lawyers I would think.
It is Mum's definition, as I have yet to see it in the dictionary, however it is often used colloquially.
:D
Keep up the excellent information provided, here it is beyond the normal expectations. Thank you.
Sri Lanka
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:42 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
Item
SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION
RS:
– “The bare footprints in the house in via della Pergola can not possibly be mine” (40, 42, 43)
– “It’s only my idea, but attributing prints based on the length of the foot does not exclude all possibilities and all those who could have ever visited that house. My expert witnesses will show that they are not prints attributable to me” (40, 42, 43)
– “I wanted to make it known, that for months these prints were attributed to me. I was arrested and carried off to prison on that evidence. Above all, the judge confirmed my arrest based on this connection – even though I’ve always said, from the start, that those shoe prints were not mine. No-one listened to me.” (34, 37, 40, 42, 43)
– “Those feet are not mine” (34, 37, 39)


This isn't exactly evidence but I do have to wonder about the sincerity of Raffaele's words.

Despite repeated requests, the investigators were refused the opportunity to obtain Raffael's footprints.

Instead they had to resort to a clandestine early morning raid on Terni prison. I think that took place back last May? Seven months of opportunity for Raffele to rule himself out of the equation. You'll have to get up earlier Giulia.


Another thing related to telephone taps, Papa Sollecito and water flowing up-hill. He resorted to attempting to use his power and influence on politicians. I can quite believe he doesn't want edited highlights of his conversations. Amongst his "leaked and published" words is this absolute gem:

Money makes water flow back up hill

What say you Guilia?
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject:    

This morning from The Huffington Post:

TEHRAN, Iran — An American journalist jailed for four months in Iran was freed Monday and reunited with her parents after an appeals court suspended her eight-year prison sentence on charges of spying for the U.S. Her parents said they would bring her home to the U.S. within days.

The release of Roxana Saberi, a 32-year-old dual Iranian-American citizen, clears a major snag in President Barack Obama's efforts to engage Iran in a dialogue after decades of shunning the country. Washington had called the charges against Saberi baseless and repeatedly demanded her release.

The United States, several European countries and human rights groups had been advocating for Saberi's release.
"They (Iranian officials) surely must have felt the weight of international pressure," U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota told the AP after hearing she would be released.

______________________________________

It seems the US felt the charges against Saberi were wrongful and baseless so went about diplomatically to have Saberi freed. So far the US has not intervened on behalf of Knox to have her charges dismissed or have her freed; even with the shouts and screams coming from Wilkens on Frank's blog.

Thank you, Catnip for your excellent, detailed reports. I'm sifting through them with a fine toothed comb.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:38 pm   Post subject:    

GreenWyvern wrote:
I just watched the video of Curt Knox on the Daily Beast, and I must say that I felt really sorry for him. Barbie Nadeau was being a bit hard on him when she said, "Either because he doesn’t understand Italian, or simply because he’s in denial, he didn’t seem to grasp the full impact of the day’s testimony."


I don't think Barbie was being harsh on him and I don't think he has grapsed the impact of the day's testimony or Amanda Knox's predicament.

GreenWyvern wrote:
So I would go easy on the guy. He hasn't committed a crime, he's entitled to do everything he can to defend his daughter, and to assume that she's innocent until proved guilty.

If he just shrugged his shoulders and washed his hands of her, would he be a better parent?


He's not entitled to misinform the general public about the case, which is what he and Edda Mellas have consistently done.

There have been a number of magazine and newspaper articles which featured Curt Knox or Edda Mellas.. There were full of the familiar myths about the all night interrogation, Amanda Knox being hit or smacked around, no interpreters being present etc. The most offensive claim was that there was no evidence of sexual assault. This must have come from Knox's parents. They were feeding the journalists their carefully prepared points. That is unforgiveable.

Curt Knox and Edda Mellas have never sent their condolences to Meredith's family, which is also unforgiveable.

In the Jamie Bulger case, John Venables's mother told him to tell the truth and that she would still love him even if he was guilty. John Venables confessed immediately afterwards. Burying your head in the sand like an ostrich is not being a good parent.

Curt Knox and Edda Mellas are trying to interefere with the legal process of another country in an attempt to secure the release of their daughter. The PR campaign smearing Italy, Mignini, the police, the forensic scientists etc has been distasteful and dishonest. The bullying of journalists who don't the official FOA party line is reprehensible.

Edda Mellas had to take Curt Knox to court on several occasions to collect child support from him. He's not quite the ideal father that Marriott's PR company would have you believe.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:05 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S wrote:

Quote:
Another thing related to telephone taps, Papa Sollecito and water flowing up-hill. He resorted to attempting to use his power and influence on politicians. I can quite believe he doesn't want edited highlights of his conversations. Amongst his "leaked and published" words is this absolute gem:

Money makes water flow back up hill

What say you Guilia?


Guilia says "of course money makes water flow back up hill, Doctor Sollecito!" I find it interesting that the Sollecitos now seem to want to argue - à la Spezi - that these phone taps are a violation of their privacy.

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

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:17 pm   Post subject:    

Jodyodyo wrote:

‘It seems the US felt the charges against Saberi were wrongful and baseless so went about diplomatically to have Saberi freed. So far the US has not intervened on behalf of Knox to have her charges dismissed or have her freed; even with the shouts and screams coming from Wilkens on Frank's blog.’

Exactly. Apples and oranges compared to Amanda’s case. Saberi was tried and convicted in secret. The evidence against her was never made public. If Iran had a legitimate case against her than some of it would have been made public. Appears to be totally a bogus political stunt in order to make what’s his name from Iran look good , or at least look moderate compared to the hard core mullahs. Iran doesn’t tolerate any internal independent news which may be critical of its regime. I don’t think they have a firm grip on there own public.
I think the American consultants just want to insure that Amanda is treated and judged fairly., and there probably is not a substantial a lot of difference as to what would have happened over here, except she may have able to meet bail. But over there she’s a flight risk, among probably other things. I think the FOA has tried, and tried real hard to get the US embassy involved. The embassy probably see's the case exactly like we do, let the trial play out.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Catnip,
Ahhh, “ball of foot,” yes and “palmare” certainly throws another tomato in the sauce. Thank you!!! You make beautiful linguini!
P.S. You can only plead moonshine if you wear your “hand-shoes” while you drink it, or sit in it (the moonlight not the hooch). Cheers!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject: Chis Mellas   

From Andrea Vogts's article:

Quote:
"At the end of Saturday's hearing, Amanda's father Curt Knox said goodbye to his daughter (her guards often permit them to hug). He will return to Seattle on Sunday after handing over the car to Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas. Knox said he will return for the presentation of the defense's case later this summer, when forensic experts will give their interpretation of the evidence being presented.



Oh no, does this mean we've got Chris Mellas taking over again in Perugia? Could Curt really be daft enough to trust him again after having to pull him last time? And does that also mean we've now got to put up with him for 'another' few weeks (or at least until Curt has to rush in and pull him out again, which may be sooner rather then later)? :shock:

_________________
"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 jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:33 pm   Post subject:    

This may seem somewhat OT however, all the talk about Knox’s family and their behavior has reminded me of the familiar case of the Unibomber here in the US. David Kazynski believed that his brother, Ted may be the unibomber and so turned his name into the FBI. The FBI interviewed both David and his and Ted’s mother who were very gracious. Even Ted’s mother cooperated in the investigation because she too feared Ted was involved. Well, he was in fact the unibomber. One of Ted Kazynski’s victims, Gary Wright was so moved by the courage of David that they have formed a friendship. This relationship is a shining example of how the truth can heal. David’s truth, coupled with Gary’s respect and forgiveness is the basis for the deep friendship the two now have.
Obviously Knox’s situation is different, but nonetheless, does provide the opportunity to “do the right thing”.

For anyone interested, here is a CNN article link:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/06/una ... index.html

Sorry for the OT!
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: Chis Mellas   

Michael wrote:
Oh no, does this mean we've got Chris Mellas taking over again in Perugia? Could Curt really be daft enough to trust him again after having to pull him last time? And does that also mean we've now got to put up with him for 'another' few weeks (or at least until Curt has to rush in and pull him out again, which may be sooner rather then later)? :shock:


Too funny ....I am SO PUMPED! I can't wait for this unnatural disaster to happen. It's going to raise the bar on the "train wreak" theory.

Is it against the law to lay "Crash & Burn" bets down?? I've got some Spell points to toss into the hat! :lol:

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: clarify   

kredsox wrote:
Just for my infor, but is Amanda Knox claining that she took a shower while seeing blood in the bathroom, and at the same time Meredith was dead in the bedroom and she did not know it? Maybe I misunderstood something I read, but if she is saying this it is ridiculous that anyone could believe that story. It gets back to what reasonable people believe. Could someone tell me if this is in fact what she is claiming? Anyone who believes that story loses all credibility.


Kredsox,
Yes you are correct, forgive me for being quick but the Pakistan army are bombing my position here due to my revolting attitude that Amanda Knox could actually be lying and guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher and should be punished for her crime, but nevermind.

According to Knox's repeated statement, she went home to her digs, the front door was open (she had full view of Filomena's broken window on her way to the open front door but never saw it)
called out to see if anyone was home but got no reply, decided to take a shower (not bad for someone who was known in the house for her bad hygiene habits) but never saw blood splattered and smeared on the walls and floor until she got out and then did a weird sack race type thing to get to her room. (bit funny seeing now it is now proven that the bloody footprint on the sack is actually her wimp boyfriends).
Then she went into the other girls bathroom as there is a socket to plug in her hairdrier, notices the toilet is unflushed but stays there anyway to dry her hair and then leaves after drying her hair without having flushed the toilet.
She then walks to her boyfriends place and tells him she thinks something dont seem right at the ranch and can he come with her and and look see.(she must have really valued his opinion)
Just then a couple of police officers arrived...

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 6:50 pm   Post subject:    

La Nazione:
The journalist Mario Spezi will not receive, at least for now, compensation for having spent 21 days in jail in 2006. The fourth section of the Criminal Cassation has rejected the appeal by the reporter - writer against the order by which, in November 2007, the Perugia Court of Appeal had declared 'unthinkable' his request to be compensated for the unjust detention suffered. Spezi ended in prison on charges of slander and attempted obstructing related to the death of Francesco Narducci the Perugia gastroenterologist, in 1985, which would in some way be (the investigators), connected with the murders of the monster of Florence. The Perugia Court of Appeals had rejected his application stating that "is still an ongoing proceedings on the merits" and that therefore the question of repairing the damage "was not opportune" before a sentence has become irrevocable.
http://tinyurl.com/pa87th

http://www.libero-news.it/adnkronos/view/115116
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject: Re: clarify   

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
kredsox wrote:
Just for my infor, but is Amanda Knox claining that she took a shower while seeing blood in the bathroom, and at the same time Meredith was dead in the bedroom and she did not know it? Maybe I misunderstood something I read, but if she is saying this it is ridiculous that anyone could believe that story. It gets back to what reasonable people believe. Could someone tell me if this is in fact what she is claiming? Anyone who believes that story loses all credibility.


Kredsox,
Yes you are correct, forgive me for being quick but the Pakistan army are bombing my position here due to my revolting attitude that Amanda Knox could actually be lying and guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher and should be punished for her crime, but nevermind.

According to Knox's repeated statement, she went home to her digs, the front door was open (she had full view of Filomena's broken window on her way to the open front door but never saw it)
called out to see if anyone was home but got no reply, decided to take a shower (not bad for someone who was known in the house for her bad hygiene habits) but never saw blood splattered and smeared on the walls and floor until she got out and then did a weird sack race type thing to get to her room. (bit funny seeing now it is now proven that the bloody footprint on the sack is actually her wimp boyfriends).
Then she went into the other girls bathroom as there is a socket to plug in her hairdrier, notices the toilet is unflushed but stays there anyway to dry her hair and then leaves after drying her hair without having flushed the toilet.
She then walks to her boyfriends place and tells him she thinks something dont seem right at the ranch and can he come with her and and look see.(she must have really valued his opinion)
Just then a couple of police officers arrived...


Hi DF2K,

And don't forget in the bathroom where she supposedly showered there was a 15 inch blood smear on the door. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:25 pm   Post subject:    

Hey Y'all!

For anyone who is interested and in the US, Steve Huff will be on HLN between 7-8 p.m. tonight (ET/USA), on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell, discussing the Amanda Knox trial. He has covered the case off and on and received a threatening email from someone close to Chris Mellas in July 2008. He wrote about it on his old true crime weblog. Steve Huff currently writes the true crime report blog for Village Voice Media.

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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:39 pm   Post subject: Re: clarify   

Jools wrote:
DeathFish 2000 wrote:
kredsox wrote:
Just for my infor, but is Amanda Knox claining that she took a shower while seeing blood in the bathroom, and at the same time Meredith was dead in the bedroom and she did not know it? Maybe I misunderstood something I read, but if she is saying this it is ridiculous that anyone could believe that story. It gets back to what reasonable people believe. Could someone tell me if this is in fact what she is claiming? Anyone who believes that story loses all credibility.


Kredsox,
Yes you are correct, forgive me for being quick but the Pakistan army are bombing my position here due to my revolting attitude that Amanda Knox could actually be lying and guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher and should be punished for her crime, but nevermind.

According to Knox's repeated statement, she went home to her digs, the front door was open (she had full view of Filomena's broken window on her way to the open front door but never saw it)
called out to see if anyone was home but got no reply, decided to take a shower (not bad for someone who was known in the house for her bad hygiene habits) but never saw blood splattered and smeared on the walls and floor until she got out and then did a weird sack race type thing to get to her room. (bit funny seeing now it is now proven that the bloody footprint on the sack is actually her wimp boyfriends).
Then she went into the other girls bathroom as there is a socket to plug in her hairdrier, notices the toilet is unflushed but stays there anyway to dry her hair and then leaves after drying her hair without having flushed the toilet.
She then walks to her boyfriends place and tells him she thinks something dont seem right at the ranch and can he come with her and and look see.(she must have really valued his opinion)
Just then a couple of police officers arrived...


Hi DF2K,

And don't forget in the bathroom where she supposedly showered there was a 15 inch blood smear on the door. :lol:


Yes Jools,
Absolutely.
But of course to the FOAK's this is normal behaviour in their world.

I haven't heard anything from them regarding Amanda's poor hygiene habits, have you?
I just seem to hear things regarding her 10 million showers a day she always takes because she is so clean and the perfect human being.
I dont even believe she showered there when she said she did.
Why leave her boyfriends and go home to shower?
Nah... dont believe a word of it.
They contradict themselves on this point saying that she is so clean but then it is normal behaviour to not flush a lavortory on seeing the previous user hasn't!
Having said that, apparently the cookery blogger still thinks that Guede scaled up a vertical wall like spiderman instead of just simply walking in the front door or climbing in another obviously easier window.
Very telling.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 7:55 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Death Fish,

The Pakistani army shelled your fundamentalist strongholds, not because you believe that Amanda Knox is lying (we all *know* that she is lying) -- or guilty (we all realize she is probably if not certainly guilty) -- or should be punished (once guilt is established).

As you perfectly well know, the shelling was a reaction to your shameless display of pure enjoyment at the prospect of witnessing the well-deserved punishment of the evildoer. Others here find it impossible to rejoice over anyone's suffering, punishment and humiliation, no matter how deserved. Getting pleasure from the hurt or punishment of a perfect stranger is sick.


Brian S -- you're back! Are we going to get the explanation of yesterday's mysterious message? The one about choosing to believe and stopping posting?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:07 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
As you perfectly well know, the shelling was a reaction to your shameless display of pure enjoyment at the prospect of witnessing the well-deserved punishment of the evildoer. Others here find it impossible to rejoice over anyone's suffering, punishment and humiliation, no matter how deserved. Getting pleasure from the hurt or punishment of a perfect stranger is sick.


I don't recall DF2K writing that he was going to derive pure enjoyment at witnessing the well-deserved punishment of Amanda Knox. You're twisting his words and giving them a more sinister meaning.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:13 pm   Post subject:    

DF2K,
In the FOAK's world everything AK did is normal. Poor hygiene habits? Normal.
I agree with you that she didn't showered there when she said she did. I tend to believe THEY (RS&AK) probably showered there much earlier in the morning. Remember when she wrote about Sollecito's cleaning her ears when they were showering together and him claiming that Knox was mistaken dates as that happened some other day? How can they mistake dates? They only met 7 days prior, not that difficult to remember every one of those days what they did or did not.
Ah, yes the cookery blogger... well it only took her 18 months to realized that Guede did not have a criminal record, I guess she is in slow cooking mode. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:27 pm   Post subject:    

Skep,

Thanks for the heads-up about the HLN show tonight. I'll set the TIVO - that way I won't miss a thing.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Machine,
I hardly think my expression "enjoyment at the well-deserved punishment of others" is a twisted description of Death Fish's words: "Amanda Knox is a murderess...She will be convicted for murder. I am very much looking forward to all the photos that will be taken of her when the guilty verdict is read out to her."

For that matter, Death Fish hasn't hesitated to twist the words of everyone in the forum by making such statements as "Apparently on this board it's revolting to say anything against Knox smiling in court" and "the Pakistan army are bombing my position here due to my revolting attitude that Amanda Knox could actually be lying..." If this is not twisting, it is malevolent (and somewhat self-pitying) sarcasm at the very least. It is also aggressive. I probably shouldn't even bother to take the bait.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:29 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:
DF2K,
In the FOAK's world everything AK did is normal. Poor hygiene habits? Normal.
I agree with you that she didn't showered there when she said she did. I tend to believe THEY (RS&AK) probably showered there much earlier in the morning. Remember when she wrote about Sollecito's cleaning her ears when they were showering together and him claiming that Knox was mistaken dates as that happened some other day? How can they mistake dates? They only met 7 days prior, not that difficult to remember every one of those days what they did or did not.
Ah, yes the cookery blogger... well it only took her 18 months to realized that Guede did not have a criminal record, I guess she is in slow cooking mode. :lol:


I concur.
They probably both showered in the murder house together and not as she says, on her own - thus his footprint on the bathmat.
Horrible I know to picture in ones mind, but they probably did so at some awful time during the clean up.
What a state they must have been in.
Remember when I posted the image of them talking to Monica Napoleani outside the murder house?

Edit to add.

So whose blood is the footprint in and why loads of blood in the bathroom?
Menstrual issues as Amanda says?
I am sure that all the ladies on this board will quite rightly dispell this scenario.

Her supporters believe absolutely everything she says so this must be correct.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Mon May 11, 2009 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 8:52 pm   Post subject:    

any possibility of youtube-ing Steve Huff's segment on JVM's show??
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:16 pm   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
Jools wrote:
DF2K,
In the FOAK's world everything AK did is normal. Poor hygiene habits? Normal.
I agree with you that she didn't showered there when she said she did. I tend to believe THEY (RS&AK) probably showered there much earlier in the morning. Remember when she wrote about Sollecito's cleaning her ears when they were showering together and him claiming that Knox was mistaken dates as that happened some other day? How can they mistake dates? They only met 7 days prior, not that difficult to remember every one of those days what they did or did not.
Ah, yes the cookery blogger... well it only took her 18 months to realized that Guede did not have a criminal record, I guess she is in slow cooking mode. :lol:


I concur.
They probably both showered in the murder house together and not as she says, on her own - thus his footprint on the bathmat.
Horrible I know to picture in ones mind, but they probably did so at some awful time during the clean up.
What a state they must have been in.
Remember when I posted the image of them talking to Monica Napoleani outside the murder house?

Edit to add.

So whose blood is the footprint in and why loads of blood in the bathroom?
Menstrual issues as Amanda says?
I am sure that all the ladies on this board will quite rightly dispell this scenario.

Her supporters believe absolutely everything she says so this must be correct.


Bath mat footprint according to scientific police is compatible with Sollecito.
Mesntrual issues? I think was a FOAK's bullet point which I doubt even Knox believed it herself as she said she touch it, whould anybody touch blood specially if they thought it was menstrual? As for the place where this blood was located... only desperados would think of a line like that!
:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:37 pm   Post subject:    

Jools wrote:

Quote:
Menstrual issues? I think was a FOAK's bullet point which I doubt even Knox believed it herself as she said she touch it, would anybody touch blood specially if they thought it was menstrual? As for the place where this blood was located... only desperados would think of a line like that!



This is a good point, Jools. If she had thought for one second it was mentrual blood she would certainly not have touched it.

_________________
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: Mon May 11, 2009 9:39 pm   Post subject:    

Mojo wrote:

Quote:
Any possibility of youtube-ing Steve Huff's segment on JVM's show??


I seem to recall it being difficult to find on Youtube last time Steve was on. I'll contact Steve and see if there is some easy way to gain access. Maybe he can get ahold of a transcript at least.

_________________
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: Mon May 11, 2009 9:42 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Dear Machine,
I hardly think my expression "enjoyment at the well-deserved punishment of others" is a twisted description of Death Fish's words: "Amanda Knox is a murderess...She will be convicted for murder. I am very much looking forward to all the photos that will be taken of her when the guilty verdict is read out to her."

For that matter, Death Fish hasn't hesitated to twist the words of everyone in the forum by making such statements as "Apparently on this board it's revolting to say anything against Knox smiling in court" and "the Pakistan army are bombing my position here due to my revolting attitude that Amanda Knox could actually be lying..." If this is not twisting, it is malevolent (and somewhat self-pitying) sarcasm at the very least. It is also aggressive. I probably shouldn't even bother to take the bait.



Twist and shout!
How about if we agree that a broad spectrum of opinions co-exists here and leave it at that?
Anyway, I thought we exhausted the possibilities of that one at the end of last week. At least I hoped we did. :)

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

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:46 pm   Post subject:    

Again Jools,
Absolutely.
Desperadoes are indeed what they are - all of them.
I try and look at it from different viewpoints sometimes but still cannot see it like they do - it is so far fetched it is an insult to ones intelligence.
When you stand back and look at it - they are following Amandas word to the letter!
Absolutely everything she says is 100% true without any shred of a doubt!
All the stories and spin and lies she started off with is exactly what the FOAK are still maintaining now and have never deviated from.
This of course stinks of a strategy.
It is precisely this that makes me all the more determined that justice is done for Meredith Kercher.
I do not believe in the concept, and I think it is very wrong that a group of people can band together and influence a murder trial and get someone cleared of the charge in this manner, whatever they percieve as their truth.
The law is the law and that is it, so abide by it.
Finito.
It is equally as abhorrent as the murder itself to smear the lawful process in this way.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 10:44 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
It is equally as abhorrent as the murder itself to smear the lawful process in this way.


maybe this is a bit exaggerated.
I think you don't have to be too concerned about the health of the legal process. The only danger in these campaign, is for the defendants. The only actual risk is to destroy the legal defenses' crediility or interfer with them. On any level concerning the legal aspect, they have to defend themselves. As far as what they do is good for their defence, they are acting properly. While insulting judges, instead, is obviously never a good idea for your defense.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:02 pm   Post subject:    

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
On any level concerning the legal aspect, they have to defend themselves. As far as what they do is good for their defence, they are acting properly. While insulting judges, instead, is obviously never a good idea for your defense.


Inside Italy, it seems that Amanda Knox's defense team has been very careful to condemn the attitude of some US supporters toward Mignini. And I have heard nothing about Sollecito's defense team smearing the prosecutor or the various judges. On some blogs, the judges and one of the prosecutors have been attacked, but I doubt this has any impact in Italy. Or does it?

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 11:44 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
On some blogs, the judges and one of the prosecutors have been attacked, but I doubt this has any impact in Italy. Or does it?


No, I don't think so. Not yet. If I throw stones to a hornet hive up to a high tree out of my range, probably won't get it, but it's not a good reason to do it. So it's better not try to irritate judges, anyway.

But I was just answering to deathfish and others who seem to me quite too "agressive" or too "concerned" towards the policy of Amanda's supporters, parents and friends. I don't subscribe with much of the moralism and condemning expressed by the most convinced posters (Machine, Michael, etc). I don't trust entirely the prosecution's evidence, I know that there is an intrinsec possibility of error, although the arguments brought by many defensive supporters' are very often pathetic, the risk of error is still serious. It is very difficult to defend oneself from possible thecnical mistakes in a complex frame of clues, unfortunatly many of those clues were created by the irresponsible behaviousr of the defendant themselves (so if they are innocent, then there is a chain of mistakes which can be possibly irreversible).

Above all, I don't subscribe to the idea of "supporters of guilt", I don't think that the Italian legal system needs this kind of protection neither, nor to be blindly trusted. It's just a number of professionals dealing with a very difficult case. Let's see objectively what the real issues can be. For me, a key role is the observation of the bathmat print, in relation to Rudy Guede's print. We should be able to make our own mind and think to this piece of evidence, and all others, separately, then put them together.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:15 am   Post subject:    

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
But I was just answering to deathfish and others who seem to me quite too "agressive" or too "concerned" towards the policy of Amanda's supporters, parents and friends. I don't subscribe with much of the moralism and condemning expressed by the most convinced posters (Machine, Michael, etc). I don't trust entirely the prosecution's evidence, I know that there is an intrinsic possibility of error, although the arguments brought by many defensive supporters' are very often pathetic, the risk of error is still serious. It is very difficult to defend oneself from possible technical mistakes in a complex frame of clues, unfortunately many of those clues were created by the irresponsible behaviousr of the defendants themselves (so if they are innocent, then there is a chain of mistakes which can be possibly irreversible).

Above all, I don't subscribe to the idea of "supporters of guilt", I don't think that the Italian legal system needs this kind of protection neither, nor to be blindly trusted. It's just a number of professionals dealing with a very difficult case. Let's see objectively what the real issues can be. For me, a key role is the observation of the bathmat print, in relation to Rudy Guede's print. We should be able to make our own mind and think to this piece of evidence, and all others, separately, then put them together.



It seems to me that this case has become very polemical. I guess it is just human nature but it is too bad because in antagonistic curcumstances the human tendency is to dig into an entrenched position and defend it at all costs rather than to look objectively at the evidence and the arguments. I see this happening a lot on both "sides", if that is the right term. And what is really strange is that then a quite reasonable (at least to me) position is criticized from all points of view. I believe that the investigation was carried out professionally and in good faith, but that some mistakes were undoubtedly made. It is possilbe to maintain both if you have not adopted an extreme view. Human beings are involved in the process of investigation, so the possibility of error is ever present. Denying this is not reasonable.

I believe, as you seem to, that the suspects now on trial have created and also lent credence to some of the clues against them. Defending them at all costs, rather than acknowledging reality, has led some supporters to take ridiculous positions from which they cannot seem to retreat. It has also led them to paint an untrue picture of the Italian justice system. We know that it is not perfect (no system is), but we also know that it is not at all like the cartoon version. I just saw a program on US television about this case that relied totally on this caricature. And that is too bad because it doesn't help anyone understand anything.

In fact, the guilt or innocence of the suspects won't be based on one thing. It will be based on how all of the clues relate to one another and what overall picture is created. I don't believe those in the position of deciding will do anything less than what you suggest: for each piece of evidence, weigh it, weigh the arguments and counter-arguments and place it within a larger context. It is a very complex task and the simple arguments don't work to anyone's satisfaction.

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

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:51 am   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Mojo wrote:

Quote:
Any possibility of youtube-ing Steve Huff's segment on JVM's show??


I seem to recall it being difficult to find on Youtube last time Steve was on. I'll contact Steve and see if there is some easy way to gain access. Maybe he can get ahold of a transcript at least.



OH MY GAWWWWWWD!

I would have written sooner, but I couldn't stop.......... gagging............. after watching this segment!
I just happened to read about this TV program here... at the very minute the show aired.
Drifted away from the television until I happened to hear them beginning the Perugia trial discussion at
about the 3/4 hour mark. And then it all began...
"AMANDA PROPAGANDA" as I refer to it.
Folks, this has to be seen to be believed: In fact, it is the most slanted AMANDA PROPOGANDA that I've seen in the media, to date!
Jane began the segment on this case by yacking about Amanda, the young "American beauty" (because as we all know, attractive people, like Amanda are always innocent, and the uglier you are, the guiltier you are, right?! CASE CLOSED!)

SERIOUSLY-Did Jane get her information on this case from Candace Dempsey? "Cause from what little I've read of her style of Amanda Propoganda, this show sounded like the same one-sided rubbish "Candace don't-confuse-me-with-the facts Dempsey" writes.

A video was shown of an emotional Curt Knox being interviewed.

They might--MIGHT-- have briefly shown a photograph of the uh..."English roommate." You know, the one whose life was taken.

Can't say for sure. If a photo was flashed on my TV screen, I missed it and any mention of Meredith Kercher, THE REAL VICTIM.
I'm just not sure if the victim's name was actually even mentioned. :evil:

I'm not sure they even said the word "victim" in this segment on a murder. However, they certainly portrayed
AK as a victim------- of the Italian system! SHAME ON JANE!!

I know, I know, tabloid is tabloid, but this is bad even for tabloid standards.


The panel on this live show took a comment from a caller in Pennsylvania who mentioned that Mignini was under investigation in Italy. The caller raised the question about the possibility that corrupt Mignini possibly "planting evidence" (against Amanda!)
AND no one on the panel even questioned that allegation!!! If anything, they fanned the flames on that idea. Imagine what malfeasance Mignini might be capable of doing to that poor American innocent!!

Jane and others went on and on about how downright primitive and injust the Italian system was, only two days a week in court. Can you imagine? Those Italians! WHAT third-world....SAVAGES!

Jane really came across as being the essence of an "ugly American" tonight, calling the entire Italian system "crazy" and finishing her segment by saying "It's a mess over there!" (i.e., ITALY and this case against poor Amanda).

As an American, I am disgusted by this type of slanted, superficial sensationalistic crap.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:58 am   Post subject:    

The 411 wrote:

Quote:
Folks, this has to be seen to be believed: In fact, it is the most slanted AMANDA PROPOGANDA that I've seen in the media, to date!
Jane began the segment on this case by yacking about Amanda, the young "American beauty" (because as we all know, attractive people, like Amanda are always innocent, and the uglier you are, the guiltier you are, right?! CASE CLOSED!)

SERIOUSLY-Did Jane get her information on this case from Candace Dempsey? "Cause from what little I've read of her style of Amanda Propoganda, this show sounded like the same one-sided rubbish "Candace don't-confuse-me-with-the facts Dempsey" writes.

A video was shown of an emotional Curt Knox being interviewed.

They might--MIGHT-- have briefly shown a photograph of the uh..."English roommate." You know, the one whose life was taken.

Can't say for sure. If a photo was flashed on my TV screen, I missed it and any mention of Meredith Kercher, THE REAL VICTIM.
I'm just not sure if the victim's name was actually even mentioned.

....

Jane really came across as being the essence of an "ugly American" tonight, calling the entire Italian system "crazy" and finishing her segment by saying "It's a mess over there!" (i.e., ITALY and this case against poor Amanda).

As an American, I am disgusted by this type of slanted, superficial sensationalistic crap.


It was one of the worst discussions of this case I have seen to date. I got the feeling that only one of the guests was at all familiar with the case (Steve Huff), and he barely got a chance to do anything more than answer Jane's rhetorical questions. I wondered where they had dredged the other guests up from. One guy noted how lucky we should all feel as Americans, and that pretty much set the tone. No accurate discussion of the evidence; the focus seemed to be on how outrageous it is that court is in session just two days a week. No mention of a co-prosecutor, but a vague mention of Mignini's "abuse of office". No mention as far as I can remember of the victim, which was probably a good thing given how sorry the whole affair was. Jane was reduced to spouting at the end - like you say, 411 - about "what a mess" Italy is. She sounded like a first-time overseas traveler describing traffic conditions in Paris or Rome at rush hour. I felt sorry for Steve Huff. He did not deserve to be with the three ringers they brought in from the street just prior to air time. I am laughing as I write this, but it was painful to watch.

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


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Tue May 12, 2009 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:09 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
"American beauty" (because as we all know, attractive people, like Amanda are always innocent, and the uglier you are, the guiltier you are, right?! CASE CLOSED!)


but... American Beauty, wasn't she, as a movie charactcter, a girl who asked her one-week boyfriend "would you kill for me?"

*

p.s. did the panel and journalist conclude the show with a big throw of pizzas to each others?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:23 am   Post subject:    

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
"American beauty" (because as we all know, attractive people, like Amanda are always innocent, and the uglier you are, the guiltier you are, right?! CASE CLOSED!)


but... American Beauty, wasn't she, as a movie charactcter, a girl who asked her one-week boyfriend "would you kill for me?"

*

p.s. did the panel and journalist conclude the show with a big throw of pizzas to each others?



You're right about that American Beauty. They ended the show by declaring war on Italy. Then they called for a boycott on pizza until further notice. :)

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:25 am   Post subject:    

I didn't see the segment on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell, but I watched most of the Nancy Grace segment. It seemed like the guests she had on the show were not at all informed about the case. It seems like there is a real lack of information among journalists, etc., regarding this case. How frustrating. Grrrrr. And then there was some relative of Amanda's proclaiming that the footprints compatible with Amanda were NOT set in blood. I thought they had been tested and that the substance that reacted with the luminol was indeed blood? Maybe I'm misremembering, though.

Then Nancy Grace made a point that seems obvious to me: If there is evidence placing RS at the scene of the crime, and if Amanda's alibi is that she spent the entire night with RS, then Amanda is in trouble. Some guest (I don't know who it was - I don't generally watch the show) was attempting to deny this sequence of logic with some nonsensical reply.

It was very frustrating to watch. Nancy asked some guest about what the evidence against Amanda actually was. The guest replied with nothing more than a "theory" about the case. I kept thinking, "Why don't they have anyone on who actually KNOWS ABOUT THE CASE??????" Ugh.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:28 am   Post subject:    

Skep wrote:


Quote:
It was one of the worst discussions of this case I have seen to date. I got the feeling that only one of the four guests was at all familiar with the case (Steve Huff), and he barely got a chance to do anything more than answer Jane's rhetorical questions. I wondered where they had dredged the other guests up from. One guy noted how lucky we should all feel as Americans, and that pretty much set the tone. No accurate discussion of the evidence; the focus seemed to be on how outrageous it is that court is in session just two days a week. No mention of a co-prosecutor, but a vague mention of Mignini's "abuse of office". No mention as far as I can remember of the victim, which was probably a good thing given how sorry the whole affair was. Jane was reduced to spouting at the end - like you say, 411 - about "what a mess" Italy is. She sounded like a first-time overseas traveler describing traffic conditions in Paris or Rome at rush hour. I felt sorry for Steve Huff. He did not deserve to be with the three ringers they brought in from the street just prior to air time. I am laughing as I write this, but it was painful to watch.


Oh you forgot some of the people interviewed: Knox's aunts! But to me the worst part was when the panelists were saying just how this case made them realize how grateful they are to live here in the USA - as if Italy is a third world country! AARRGGHHH!
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:43 am   Post subject:    

ehm.. do you think, on one of the next hearings, is it possible Mignini could decide to show this video to the jury, in case he runs out of evidence?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:48 am   Post subject:    

jodyodyo wrote:

Quote:
Skep wrote:
Quote:
It was one of the worst discussions of this case I have seen to date. I got the feeling that only one of the four guests was at all familiar with the case (Steve Huff), and he barely got a chance to do anything more than answer Jane's rhetorical questions. I wondered where they had dredged the other guests up from. One guy noted how lucky we should all feel as Americans, and that pretty much set the tone. No accurate discussion of the evidence; the focus seemed to be on how outrageous it is that court is in session just two days a week. No mention of a co-prosecutor, but a vague mention of Mignini's "abuse of office". No mention as far as I can remember of the victim, which was probably a good thing given how sorry the whole affair was. Jane was reduced to spouting at the end - like you say, 411 - about "what a mess" Italy is. She sounded like a first-time overseas traveler describing traffic conditions in Paris or Rome at rush hour. I felt sorry for Steve Huff. He did not deserve to be with the three ringers they brought in from the street just prior to air time. I am laughing as I write this, but it was painful to watch.

Oh you forgot some of the people interviewed: Knox's aunts! But to me the worst part was when the panelists were saying just how this case made them realize how grateful they are to live here in the USA - as if Italy is a third world country! AARRGGHHH!


Oh, I missed that. For some reason, I thought the show was over so I moved on to other things. Little did I know that Nancy Grace would be picking random people off the streets to discuss how glad they are to live in the USA.


Yummi wrote:

Quote:
ehm.. do you think, on one of the next hearings, is it possible Mignini could decide to show this video to the jury, in case he runs out of evidence?


You realize that in this case the defense would ask for a delay in order to figure out which murder trial this video is about? :lol:

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:11 am   Post subject:    

The thing about Nancy Grace is that she has a reputation of being extremely pro-prosecution, in general. If she would just become better-informed about the case I bet she could air some shows that would really raise the ire of the FOA group. It will be interesting to see if she devotes more time to the case in the future.

edit: When I say that she has the reputation of being "pro-prosecution," I mean in regards to criminal cases in general. She seems to have the reputation of always giving the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution and of being disdainful about defense arguments. I'm not sure about her feelings relating to this particular case - but if she had all the facts she would probably be leaning heavily towards guilt.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:21 am   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Oh, I missed that. For some reason, I thought the show was over so I moved on to other things. Little did I know that Nancy Grace would be picking random people off the streets to discuss how glad they are to live in the USA.




I think this was in the Jane Velez-Mitchell show. I watched the Nancy Grace show and I don't remember that discussion.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:28 am   Post subject:    

Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


Oh, I missed that. For some reason, I thought the show was over so I moved on to other things. Little did I know that Nancy Grace would be picking random people off the streets to discuss how glad they are to live in the USA.

I think this was in the Jane Velez-Mitchell show. I watched the Nancy Grace show and I don't remember that discussion.


For sure it was stated by one of Jane's guests.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:32 am   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


Oh, I missed that. For some reason, I thought the show was over so I moved on to other things. Little did I know that Nancy Grace would be picking random people off the streets to discuss how glad they are to live in the USA.

I think this was in the Jane Velez-Mitchell show. I watched the Nancy Grace show and I don't remember that discussion.


For sure it was stated by one of Jane's guests.


Oh, okay - you talked about Nancy Grace having picked random people off the street to talk about it, but you must have accidentally typed "Nancy Grace" instead of "Jane Velez-Mitchell." No worries. :D
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:19 am   Post subject:    

Between the Jane Velez-Mitchell show and the Nancy Grace segments on Meredith Kercher case , the Nancy Grace show seemed much better. Both shows remind me of professional wrestling , a lot of flair and style, but of little substance sometimes. You can’t go wrong with Nancy Grace. She had Janet Huff (Amanda’s Aunt), Steve Shay (West Seattle Herald) , Anne Bremner, and John Lucich (Cyber Lies).. They are all staunch Amanda supporters. Typical question from Nancy Grace was: ’What is the evidence in this case against Amanda ?’, typical answer was ‘there is no evidence against Amanda!’. The best part was when Nancy and Anne got into a cat fight over this questionable video showing a girl (Amanda?) entering the cottage that night. Nancy almost accused Anne of having a dog in this fight, and refusing to give a straight answer to a simple question.
I’m generally in favor of air time given to this case, but some of these shows are simply bizarre. Steve Huff ,on Jane Velez, and Nancy Grace get thumbs up.

The startling evidence of the bloody footprint in the bathroom (not Rudy’s footprint for sure), and Amanda’s in the corridor and her bedroom in blood (to be determined by Ms Stefanoni) which prompted this new renewed interest, didn’t seem to get adequate attention.
Top Profile 

Offline DeathFish 2000


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:53 pm

Posts: 340

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:41 am   Post subject:    

Ok.
So the defence hasn't tried to attack the legal system now.
In my view that has been the main strategy of the defence and Knoxes supporters, just attack everything above floor level that says anything remotely negative about Amanda.

No railroad job from hell now.

No judge in Seattle writing to the President wanting the case moved.

No wrongful arrest anymore.

No Amanda beaten and interrogated/tortured into a false confession.

No keystone cops/incompetent police, forensic people and investigators.
No maniac prosecutor.
And when you start sniffing that the defence hasn't suggested any of this, perhaps you should ask why they say the forensic scientists are so bad at their job they contaminate the samples they gather for one.

Sorry about being aggressive, it must really offend some perfect people who have infilitrated themselves onto this board now.
Maybe you perfect people should oneday look at the aggression suffered by Meredith Kercher when she had a knife plunged into her neck when you classify a poster as aggressive because they have an opinion different to yours in your perfect PC world. I'm really sorry, it must be awful for you.

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.


Last edited by DeathFish 2000 on Tue May 12, 2009 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:25 am   Post subject:    

I have never seen Nancy Grace before. Now, that woman is my idea of torture and should be illegal. The only sympathetic thing I could say about her is that she seemed just as frustrated as I was by the fact that none of the participants would (or could) give a summary of the case--they just kept yelling out about some obsessive fragment of evidence they wanted to protest: "Bra strap, bra strap, bra strap!!!" Then Nancy Grace would shriek back at them and flounce and mug and roll her eyes and finally finished up by saying how stupid they all were (which seemed alas true) and how beautiful and wonderful her twin tots are. Pure torture.
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:48 am   Post subject:    

here's the transcript segment from JVM on the case -- jumping jehosephat. another italian bash-a-thon?? :shock:

JVM - May 11


Chilling news in the truly bizarre murder case out of Italy; prosecutors now claim they can place American beauty Amanda Knox`s bloody footprints at the scene of the crime. 21-year-old Knox called Foxy Knoxy by the Italian media is on trial with her Italian ex-boyfriend for the murder of British co-ed, Meredith Kercher. Kercher found half naked and stabbed in the neck in November 2007.

Prosecutors allege her death was the result of a drug-fueled sex game with Knox, Knox`s boyfriend and a third man who has already been convicted. In stunning testimony over the weekend, a print identity expert claims two bare footprints were compatible with Knox`s right foot; one exiting her own room, the other outside the victim`s room.

Knox`s dad who is in court spoke to "Good Morning, America" about the trial`s emotional toll.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CURT KNOX, AMANDA KNOX`S FATHER: She seems to be holding up okay. It`s nice to see her and hug her. Tell her I love her. But I`m not going to get to see her for a long time now just because I`m going back to the States. That was tough leaving.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That dad going through hell. Knox`s Seattle-based family critical of the Italian authorities, reportedly claiming they`re bullying her.

Joining me again: Darren Kavinoky, criminal defense attorney; Jayne Weintraub, criminal defense attorney and Steve Huff joins us from truecrimereport.com, a "Village Voice" media blog.

Steve, what is the very latest?

STEVE HUFF, TRUECRIMEREPORT.COM: The very latest is footprints. Amanda`s and her co-defendant`s Raffaele Sollecito`s. Specifically, Raffaele`s were found on a carpet in the bathroom, in the house that Amanda shared with Meredith Kercher. And another footprint compatible with Raffaele`s print was found in the hallway. Also there were footprints found compatible with Amanda`s sole prints. One of them specifically was outside the room where Meredith Kercher was found dead.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But you know, I`ve got to say, Jayne Weintraub that this entire trial seems like a kangaroo court to me. And there are so many things that are disturbing. For example, the defense said, "Hey, did you - - there`s two other girls who shared that same house -- did you check the footprints to see if they matched the other two girls?" Apparently not.

JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, it`s really frightening and it truly highlights the privileges that we have as being Americans. Often I`m joking, I`m saying something to be funny.

But I have to tell you, we are so honored and privileged to have the rights that we do. And not be judged, but thrown in jail like this. Young girl of 21 or 22 on, well, maybe it was hers, it looked like it could have been. And possibly it was his. That`s really scary.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes because they`re even using the words probably -- you know, a probable match.

WEINTRAUB: Comparable.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Darren Kavinoky, this is kind of scary, especially when you see how this trial is proceeding. They`re going to be going -- get this, I almost fell off my chair when I read this -- they`re going to be going on a two-month sabbatical for the summer. So the trial is just going to sort of stop while everybody goes on vacation. And they`ve only been meeting two times a week, three weeks a month. That is a crazy system.

KAVINOKY: Yes. I would absolutely agree with Jayne here, that for all of the foibles and all of the problems we have in the American justice system, when you observe a case like this, it really renews your sense of gratitude.

One other point about that probable match, which, of course, would never be enough to fly here, when you look at the videotape about how that crime scene was processed and how that evidence was gathered, there`s just so much ammunition for a good, capable defense lawyer to get in there.

WEINTRAUB: You mean how contaminated it was?

KAVINOKY: How contaminated it was -- exactly. That`s exactly my point. That this would never fly here and hopefully it wouldn`t.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Knox`s dad is very upset as well with the Italian authorities. Here`s what he told NBC`s "Today Show."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KNOX: She was taken advantage of, being a young girl very naive to the situation. And I think they took advantage of her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, I have to ask you this question, Steve Huff because the family is extremely upset with her being portrayed as Foxy Knoxy and all sorts of sexual innuendos. How do they even know there was a sex game going on?

I don`t want to be too graphic. But if you`re going to determine sex was had, you have to do tests and you have to come up with semen. Was there any evidence of semen?

HUFF: There was evidence of semen. It was brought up, I believe, in Rudi Guede`s trial. He`s already been convicted.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Whose? The boyfriend -- Rudi Guede or...

WEINTRAUB: There was a third person there. He was sentenced to 30 years.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right. Yes, he`s in jail but what about Amanda`s boyfriend?

HUFF: I don`t know of any evidence of semen on his part, no.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, I mean, they`ve got this one guy they`ve convicted and yet what evidence do they have that these two people who said they were over at her boyfriend`s house that night; that they weren`t even there. What evidence do they have that they participated in the sex game?

HUFF: So far they`re pointing to blood evidence and they have claimed -- this has not been brought out in court yet, I don`t think -- DNA evidence on a probable -- once again, probable -- murder weapon that links both Amanda and Meredith. That they say that Amanda`s DNA was found on a knife handle and Meredith`s was found on the tip of the knife.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, but I understand the family says that that knife was like a family knife, a kitchen knife that they would have had DNA on.

More bizarre details -- we want to take your calls -- when we come right back. Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTINA HAGGE, AMANDA KNOX`S AUNT: The information that`s being reported out there that there was Amanda`s bloody fingerprint in the bathroom, that is completely false. There is no evidence of Amanda there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Accused coed killer, Amanda Knox`s aunt refuting earlier evidence that Amanda`s fingerprint was at the crime scene. Now Italian prosecutors claim they can place Knox`s bloody footprint there. Is this the damning evidence, the smoking gun that will send Foxy Knoxy to jail to life or is she just an innocent trapped abroad in a terrible situation?

Phone lines lighting up. Camilla, Illinois, your question or thought, ma`am?

CAMILLA, ILLINOIS (via telephone): Yes, I love your show, Jane. I was wondering what family members if any does she have there giving her the reassurance and love that she needs right now?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Steve huff, this has got to be a terrible situation for her; trapped in jail, her family lives in Seattle. How are they supporting her?

HUFF: They`re doing kind of a round robin where her mom, Etta and her father, Curt and her stepfather Chris Mellas are trading places. I think they even rent out an apartment in Perugia and they come and visit Amanda regularly. So there`s -- I believe there`s almost always someone on her side, her family members, in the courtroom.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: One Italian author tapped into lurid details of the Amanda Knox case writing a best seller and she had some personal thoughts on this young lady.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FIORENZA SARANINI, AUTHOR "AMANDA AND THE OTHERS" (through translator): What comes out of the investigation is her ability to transform herself. She`s certainly a girl with many faces.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. Her parents and her whole family in Seattle are saying, this is not the Amanda they know.

Rose, Pennsylvania, your question or thought?

ROSE, PENNSYLVANIA (via telephone): Hi, Jane, you`re awesome.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you.

ROSE: Jane, I have a question. If the prosecutor, from my understanding, is under investigation for prosecutorial misconduct, how can he defend such a high-profile case while under investigation? And do you think he`ll do anything to plant evidence?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Darren Kavinoky, what is going on with this Italian court? It just seems like so crazy, haphazard.

KAVINOKY: Yes, it is. And of course, this is a prosecutor who, as your caller points out, is under investigation for misconduct as well. And it`s an entirely different system over there and the case still goes forward, even with those allegations.

(CROSS TALK)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s a mess over there. I wouldn`t want to be trapped over there. This is Italy, I mean. You think Italy, this is Europe -- I`m very shocked. This is something you would expect somewhere - - some remote point of the earth and not in Italy. But we`ll follow this case.
:shock:
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:54 am   Post subject:    

Nancy Grace -- May 11


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Italian police are still trying to piece together a horrific night of sex, drugs, and murder.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The night Amanda Knox`s roommate died, were Knox`s footprints left inside the house? The prosecution says yes. And in court, a police print expert testified that Knox and two other suspects` footprints were found, but Knox`s defense attorney strongly questioned the alleged footprint evidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prosecutors say Meredith Kercher was murdered fighting off a sexual assault. Police collected a mountain of evidence they say will prove that the victim`s American roommate, Amanda Knox, her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede, a 21-year-old with origins in the Ivory Coast, strangled and stabbed her to death.

The murder weapon, this kitchen knife, prosecutors say police found in Sollecito`s apartment with DNA traces of both Knox and the victim.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They simply don`t have any evidence against Amanda. There is nothing. There`s lots of guesses, there`s theories, there`s stories. Nothing physical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY GRACE, HOST: She told them she was there in the apartment, in the cottage when her roommate began screaming and she put her hands over her ears then later said that was actually a vision or a dream that she had had.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. This is, again, a case of someone not interpreting correctly. She made this statement -- she was asked to imagine what she would do if she was there during the time, and she would have heard Meredith in the room with someone else, what would she have done if she would have heard them in there.

And at that point, it was just, was it consensual sex or not. And she said, wow, if I would have heard my roommate in there with someone else, if I was there, I might have covered my ears. It was something she was asked to imagine. It was not her statement saying that`s what happened.

GRACE: If your niece was with the boyfriend at the time of the murder, what is his DNA doing on the murder victim`s bra?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, from what I can understand, as far as how the evidence was collected and this bra strap was moved around quite a bit that it`s most likely a case of contamination of evidence.

If you watch the crime scene video of how they`re collecting the evidence, it`s been moved, put here, put there, handed off to several people. It`s been contaminated.

GRACE: Apparently in court, bloody footprints from the American teen, showing up as evidence.

Out to Steve Shay, reporter with the "West Seattle Herald." Steve, you`ve been on the story from the very beginning. What can you tell me?

(ON THE PHONE)

STEVE SHAY, REPORTER, WEST SEATTLE HERALD, COVERING STORY: Thank you very much very having me. I`ve done four articles on the Knox case, not since the beginning, but since they had a fund-raiser last fall or winter.

GRACE: OK, that`s good to know. What can you tell me about the evidence?

SHAY: So far, like you heard, the evidence has been sullied and mishandled and contaminated, as far as I understand. So gloves that touched the bra clasp -- prior to touching the bra clasp, may have touched the doorknob, clothes, other things belonging to Raffaele. And so there`s -- you know, a cornucopia of evidence on the bra clasp, et cetera.

GRACE: OK. You know what, let`s take it from the top. Let`s go to John Lucich, former investigator, author of "Cyber Lies." What is your understanding of the evidence? What happened that night, John Lucich?

JOHN LUCICH, INVESTIGATOR, AUTHOR OF "CYBER LIES": Look, I`m really disturbed, Nancy, about a couple of different things. Number one, the bra strap that shows up three weeks later after the initial search.

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on. Before we all talk about a bra strap, can we go back to the beginning.

LUCICH: You asked about the evidence.

GRACE: You know? ABC. No.

LUCICH: That`s the evidence.

GRACE: No, you don`t start the story with a bra strap. Tell me.

LUCICH: Where would you like to start, Nancy?

GRACE: Tell me what happened that night? What happened? What do we know?

LUCICH: Well, we know one thing, that there was a bra strap involved. We know there were bloody footprints involved. And I`ll tell you one thing. Footprints are not the same as fingerprints.

When you read this report that says this is compatible with that, that is not a sure thing. I`d hate to think that someone`s going to get convicted on a footprint and not actual evidence. And evidence that wasn`t contaminated or may have not been contaminated.

GRACE: OK. Let me try one more time. Sue Moss, what is your understanding of the fact scenario the night of the murder?

SUSAN MOSS, FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY & CHILD ADVOCATE: Well, allegedly, there was some sort of a drug-fueled sex game that was going on in this cottage, according to the prosecution, and what happened, allegedly, is that the victim did not want to participate, and that set off some sort of scenario where ultimately it led to her murder and ultimately led to this boy`s DNA on her bra strap.

GRACE: Susan, what is the girl`s defense?

MOSS: The girl`s defense is that she wasn`t there, that she was with her boyfriend and that they were somewhere else. And that`s not going to work for two reasons. One, she put her foot in her mouth. And the other is because she put her foot in the blood.

She put her foot in the mouth because she gave an alibi that apparently is going to be disproven, because the boy`s DNA, where she`s supposed to be, was on the bra strap, and she put her foot in the blood because apparently there are now footprints in the blood and that that testimony is going to be presented at this trial.

GRACE: But we all know about other famous footprints that have come in at trial before, I think immediately of the O.J. Simpson double murder trial, where footprints, bloody footprints were found at the double murder scene.

Now the state didn`t have the photo at the criminal trial, but at the civil trial, Orenthal James Simpson`s Bruno Magli`s shoes, photos of him wearing them, that`s the specific photo, were brought in to show that they matched the bloody footprints at trial.

Footprint evidence is acceptable. It comes into courts all over the country.

I want to go to a special guest joining us tonight. In addition to Anne Bremner, who is for the friends of Amanda Knox, with us is Janet Huff. This is the American teen, Amanda Knox`s aunt, and she is speaking on her behalf tonight.

Janet, thank you for being with us. Janet, is it true that the night of the murders, your niece called home to the U.S. to stay she could not find her roommate?

JANET HUFF, AUNT OF AMANDA KNOX: She called home and spoke to her mother, yes.

GRACE: OK. And why was it important for her to call home and say, I don`t know where my roommate is?

HUFF: Well, I don`t think that was the whole reason she called home. She called home because she calls home all the time and she just happened to mention that, you know, it`s kind of strange, I found the door was broken and it was just a little bit odd. And I`m kind of worried about her, she`s not answering her phone calls, her door is locked, I`m kind of concerned.

GRACE: You know, out to our staffer, Matt Zarrell, on the story. Matt, I`m not getting a clear picture of what police have. What`s the evidence? What`s the scenario of what happened?

(ON THE PHONE)

MATT ZARRELL, NANCY GRACE STAFFER, COVERING STORY: Well, a lot of what they have is they have a lot of bloody footprints that they believe some of which believe came from Knox`s shoe. They presented millimeter by millimeter evidence in the case where they show that it could not have been Sollecito or Guede that had these couple of footprints near Kercher`s room.

GRACE: OK. Back it up now. Who is Sollecito?

ZARRELL: Sollecito is the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend of Amanda Knox and Guede, they`re describing, as a drifter that was somehow involved in this two-way tryst.

GRACE: Now Guede has already been found not guilty, right?

ZARRELL: Yes, he has.

GRACE: OK, so these two, the boyfriend and the girlfriend, are on trial together. And the problem with that, Peter Odom and Hugo Rodriguez, is DNA evidence against the boyfriend, Sollecito, has come in. They claim they were together that night. So if he is damned, then she is too. Her alibi rises and falls with his.

(CROSSTALK)

PETER ODOM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, not really, Nancy. Her DNA would be all over this place. This is a place that she frequented, that she lived in so...

GRACE: I`m not really talking about DNA. What I`m saying is, Peter Odom, is that they say they were out together, but if the state can place him there the night of the murder, then her alibi is no good either.

ODOM: Well, I don`t see that necessarily as true, Nancy. Just because their DNA is tied together in a place where she would be, just because his DNA was there doesn`t mean that they were together. That doesn`t hang together. And that`s why there`s reasonable doubt all over this case.

GRACE: OK, well, they`re saying they were together that night, and if the state can prove he was in the apartment around the time of the murder, then that ruins her alibi, too. I don`t know why you`re fighting me on that.

What I`m also.

ODOM: Because it doesn`t ruin her alibi at all. Because her DNA is going to be all over that apartment. And just because his is also there, doesn`t place them there together.

GRACE: OK. Hugo Rodriguez, there is the issue of the knife. The knife found at boyfriend`s home with victim`s blood on the blade and American girl, Amanda Knox`s DNA on the handle.

HUGO RODRIGUEZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FMR. FBI AGENT: Correct. Once she lived there, I don`t have an answer to that, but that doesn`t mean that she killed her nor that she was involved in her murder. They have no evidence that she was involved in her murder or killed her.

What they have is -- what they believe to be comparable footprints in the hallway outside this girl`s -- room and in her own room. That doesn`t add up to murder. She may know something.

GRACE: OK.

RODRIGUEZ: . but she wasn`t involved with that.

GRACE: Because her DNA is on the murder weapon, that means nothing to you or Odom?

RODRIGUEZ: No. She could have picked it up.

GRACE: OK. And.

RODRIGUEZ: She could have picked it up. It doesn`t mean she murdered anybody.

GRACE: OK. All right. Anne Bremner, weigh in.

ANNE BREMNER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Nancy, I don`t even know where to start. The fact of the matter is, with the knife, it`s not -- it`s just not matching the wounds. In fact, it`s inconsistent. They`ve never found the murder weapon. And doesn`t even match the knife print on the bed and the footprints are not in blood.

GRACE: Anne, it`s got the victim`s blood on it.

BREMNER: No, it doesn`t. It`s not even enough to measure. It`s not even identified as blood. But also, these footprints of Amanda are not in blood. And finally, this print in the bathroom is partial, it`s from a photo and the police don`t even back up this photo, quote, "comparable finding."

It`s not from the police. They had to hire someone in to come and say that. It`s not even identified as Raffaele.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Knox maintains she was at his home that night and says after dinner, "I noticed there was blood on Raffaele`s hands, but I was under the impression it was blood from the fish."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They claim they have that evidence, but again, if you read carefully the paperwork that the prosecutors have put together, it actually doesn`t state with 100 percent certainty that this is, in fact, the murder weapon.

They said they have this knife. The forensic evidence suggests that the cut that was -- that killed Meredith Kercher is not incompatible with the actual blade, meaning that they don`t have a 100 percent match between the blade and the actual wound to her throat.

GRACE: I know that she told police she was with her boyfriend at the time of the murder, at his place. He is also charged in the murder. Now there`s surveillance video, apparently, of her near her place, near the murder scene that night.

HUFF: No. Actually, there isn`t. There`s video that shows somebody, but it`s not been confirmed that that`s Amanda.

GRACE: Do place say it`s Amanda?

HUFF: They`re guessing.

GRACE: They`re guessing, OK. Then in your understanding, Miss Huff - - everyone, with me, the aunt of Amanda Knox -- what is their evidence against Amanda?

HUFF: They simply don`t have any evidence against Amanda. There is nothing. There`s lots of guesses, there`s theories, there`s stories.

GRACE: OK.

HUFF: Nothing physical.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is no evidence. There`s no physical evidence, there`s no eyewitness, there`s no confession. There`s no case. We have a prosecutor who`s been indicted and is currently on trial for official misconduct, illegal wiretaps, harassing media personnel, et cetera.

His own prosecutors in that country have called him a man with a case of delirium. That`s a quote from the prosecutor in his case. This case would not be prosecuted anywhere else in the world. This is a tragedy. This kid has been in prison for 15 months now. It would be funny if it wasn`t so tragic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Out to Matt Zarrell. Matt, everyone keeps say they don`t have any evidence. Then how do they bring the case to court? What do they have against this girl?

ZARRELL: Well, they believe that Kercher on November 1st, 2007 came home from a friend`s house and at that point her --she was attached, her throat was slit. She choked on her own blood and was left partially clothed on the floor.

They alleged that Kercher died fending off a sex-based attack by Knox, Sollecito, and the third man Rudy Guede in her room. They claimed that Sollecito held Kercher by the shoulder from behind while Knox touched her with a point of a knife and then Guede, allegedly tried to sexually assault her, and then Knox finished her off by stabbing her in the throat.

GRACE: I understand that scenario, but what is the evidence they`ve got against her?

ZARRELL: Well, a lot of what they have is their forensic experts believe that not only the footprints that they talk about, but they have a -- they have her fingerprints, obviously, in the home, and they have the bra strap, as was mentioned, linking Sollecito, which does not make the alibi for Knox work. It doesn`t make it hold up.

GRACE: Back to Steve Shay with the "West Seattle Herald," what can you tell me about alleged video of the girl near the apartment at the time?

SHAY: That I`m not sure. I wanted to mention that Anne Bremner and the others are beautifully demonstrating the DNA flaws, but the mental image, they don`t have a motive that`s DNA based, so they`re trying to discredit her personality, her demeanor.

Now I`ve talked to her sister, Deanna, her parents, stepparents, grandmother and her college friends and they all say the same thing, that she was worried that when she got back the next morning, after spending the night with her boyfriend, that she could have been the victim instead of Meredith -- instead of Meredith.

So that`s why she was in shock. That`s why she acted the way she did. And she certainly did cry.

GRACE: OK. You know what? I appreciate your theory on motive, but I`m trying to find out about video taken of them.

Matt Zarrell, what do you know about video taken of the American and her boyfriend?

ZARRELL: Well, apparently, there are reports, you know, as we know, that Knox just claimed that she was at Sollecito`s apartment that night. There are reports that she was caught, as we talked about, on camera walking towards the apartment she shared with Kercher the night Kercher was killed.

GRACE: Back to Anne Bremner, attorney out of Seattle with the Friends of Amanda Knox. What can you tell me about this video that police say places her at the apartment?

BREMNER: It just -- when I think about why I got involved in this case, trying to turn around this supertanker of misinformation in the media and the British tabloids in Italy, this is another example. This was just ablaze. There are no bloody footprints of Amanda Knox. There`s no match Raffaele`s foot?

GRACE: The video? Video.

BREMNER: Ablaze. Yes. It doesn`t identify her. That was.

GRACE: What is the video, Anne? That`s what I`m asking you.

BREMNER: It shows -- the video, like I just said, Nancy, is just someone`s legs.

GRACE: Where?

BREMNER: You can`t identify her that way.

GRACE: Look, Anne, I realize you`ve got skin in the game. You`ve got a dog in the fight. I understand that. Could you just tell me, where`d the video come from? All right? Was it at the gas station, was it outside the apartment, was it in the Macy`s? Where`s the video coming from? What is the video?

BREMNER: You know what, yes, I have a dog in the fight, we all have a dog in the fight which is injustice.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK, you know what, never mind. Out to the lines, Mary in Illinois.

BREMNER: It`s right by the house.

GRACE: OK, great. Thanks, Anne.

Mary, what`s your question, dear?

MARY, CALLER FROM ILLINOIS: Hi, Nancy, happy belated Mother`s Day to you also.

GRACE: Thank you very much.

MARY: Oh, you`re welcome. Those precious babies, just got to love them.

Anyway, my question is, I did see an investigative report from another network and they did indicate this prosecutor is quite corrupt. And I was wondering what your take was on it and how much you actually do know relative to his potential corruptness?

GRACE: Well, Mary, regarding the prosecutor`s alleged corruptness, I`ve heard those reports, but I can`t say yea or nay. From what we are hearing, all of the reports seem extremely flawed.

So if you want to take all of the media reports from Europe with a box of salt, then that would say none of it is true, including the prosecution`s corruption. You can`t have your cake and eat it, too.

You can`t say the press is right about his corruption but they`re wrong about the evidence. The evidence is coming out in the courtroom, that`s very black and white. How a jury or a judge will decide for that evidence is completely a different matter.

Out to Penny in Massachusetts. Hi, Penny?

PENNY, CALLER FROM MASSACHUSETTS: Hi, Nancy. I love your twins. They`re precious.

GRACE: Thank you.

PENNY: The question I had was already answered, that she`s been in jail for 15 months, Amanda. But I wanted to know how is her family -- I mean how are they dealing with it? Do they get to see her every day, once a week or how does that work in Italy?

GRACE: To Janet Huff, the aunt of Amanda Knox. When has the family seen her?

HUFF: The family is allowed to go in for one hour twice a week and the family is disgusted actually by the way that the media is portraying all of the evidence that`s coming out in court.

If something`s coming out in court like the bloody footprints that aren`t actually in blood, it just gets regurgitated over and over again as being fact, that it`s black and white, when actually, you`re regurgitating a lie. So the family is disgusted by how this is being portrayed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUFF: Amanda is -- she`s a wonderful girl, who has never even been accused of hurting somebody`s feelings let alone caused anyone any physical harm. She`s honest, caring, wonderful person.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:06 am   Post subject:    

I know that Steve Huff is very well thought of on here, and that he hosted the forerunner of this site, but it seems to me that his only significant intervention in that show (to judge from the transcript) was to introduce the misinformation that Rudy Guede's semen was found at the scene of the crime.

Aside from that (in fact, even including that) it sounds like an excruciatingly bad show.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:18 am   Post subject:    

Thanks Mojo for the transcript.

After reading it I get the impression that if viewers knew nothing prior about the case they'll be totally disinterested and if they had some previous knowledge they would be so confused by the show that they would've given up on it before it ended. :roll:

Does anybody know what the 'supertanker lawyer' is talking about re some video showing someone's legs? Which video? Is this a Fellini surrealism? :lol:

GRACE: The video? Video.

BREMNER: Ablaze. Yes. It doesn`t identify her. That was.

GRACE: What is the video, Anne? That`s what I`m asking you.

BREMNER: It shows -- the video, like I just said, Nancy, is just someone`s legs.
:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 11:13 am   Post subject:    

i agree Finn. i was a bit surprised by Steve's remarks, but he was quite remiss in some of the stuff he disseminated in the Natalee Holloway case as well. i wonder just how closely he has followed this case recently and where he's getting his info?

i do wonder if the prosecution has a strong enough case. until we hear what the defense puts forward it's hard to tell. i think stewart's comments and analysis has been on the mark. but as he says "vediamo"

and having said that -- scott peterson was convicted on far less -- i never did think ole scotty got a fair trial in that the 24 hour media had him drawn and quartered by the time amber frey surfaced. did i think he was guilty?? hell, yes! but the trashing of the italian justice system and their experts....seems not only unwarranted, but nothing i've read can back it up....
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 12:25 pm   Post subject:    

mojo wrote:
i do wonder if the prosecution has a strong enough case. until we hear what the defense puts forward it's hard to tell.


I think you're right to say that we'll have to wait to see what the defense puts forward, but at the moment it's looking pretty bleak for the defense, especially after last weekend's forensics (which are also due to be followed up at the next hearing, so it's not even over yet on the footprints).

So far, the defense strategy has been a kind of anti-Occam approach - the experts will say something like "the victim appears to have been attacked by multiple assailants", and the defense will ask, "But can you rule out the possibility that there was just one assailant, acting in a frenzy?" And the experts admit that, "No, I can't rule that out."

But it's a risky strategy. Sollecito's team spent a lot of energy showing how a person could physically have broken in through Filomena's room, and they proved their point that it's not impossible. But the trouble is, when all the other evidence confirms what the first observers thought, that the break-in was faked, this leaves you with a completely useless theory that nobody believes any more. And that makes it more difficult for you to switch to an idea that, say, Rudy Guede faked the break-in himself.

And last weekend was difficult because Rindaldi's presentation apparently showed (amongst other things) why Rudy Guede's footprint has to be ruled OUT. So there's no possibility to ask him, "Yes, but do you accept that it could also be ruled in?" Rinaldi has ruled out Guede (and there's no other evidence of Rudy in that bathroom, in any case), and has identified the footprint as compatible with Sollecito. So the defense can argue that "it's only compatible, it's not an exact match" - but if Rudy Guede is ruled out, then this raises the question of who else, with Sollecito-shaped feet, could have stood barefoot in Meredith Kercher's blood and then stood on that bathmat? And if there was no clean-up, then how come there's only a single footprint on the absorbent mat, but none on the washable tiles around?

I don't know how the defense plans to answer that. Charlie Wilkes came up with what I think is quite an ingenious solution: he says that the footprint is in fact Guede's (so Rinaldi has simply got that wrong) and that Rudy's sock got soaked with blood, which drenched the inside of his shoe, so he took off his shoe to clean his foot in the bidet, and for balance he stood on the bathmat and left that print. It's a great idea, but the only people whose DNA (and indeed whose blood) is in the bidet are Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. There's no sign of Rudy Guede in there. And there's also the whole question of how you manage to get someone else's blood on the inside of a shoe that you're wearing, without also getting some on the outside.

West of the Atlantic, the focus on irrelevancies (like tabloid inaccuracies, procedural issues in the Monster of Florence or the Narducci cases, or even wild claims of police brutality) leave the FOA totally unprepared to deal with any of the actual evidence itself, as it comes in. The trouble with ridiculing straw men is that it can leave you all ridiculed-out by the time the real men show up.
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 May 12, 2009 12:37 pm   Post subject:    

The Messaggero seems to go the extra yards, and in reports from the 9 and 10 May (thanks, Jools!) has some in-depth pieces (about 5 or 6 of them) that are worth presenting in full, I think.

Here is the first of them - an interview with a young media-type from Germany.
The others will follow in due course (meaning, as I get around to them in the next couple of days).


Quote:

Saturday, 09 May 2009

by LUIGI FOGLIETTI

Many are the journalists, both from within Italy and also belonging to the foreign press, who have been accredited to the Court of Assize to follow the case where Amanda and Sollecito are standing in the dock. Each journalist has their own opinion, very different to that of their colleagues’, and depending, in some part, on nationalities. The innocentisti form the greater part of the US contingent, leaning in favour of Amanda, while the colpevolisti are the majority party amongst the British, perhaps in part to uphold and dignify the memory of the young victim. Practically divided right down the middle are the Italians who see Raffaele as either incapable of doing bad, or as an accomplice of, and hag-ridden by, Amanda, his then girlfriend.

So now a calmer and more objective opinion could come from Anke Helle, 27 years old, a journalist from Focus TV (a German TV show based in Munich in Bavaria) and sociology graduate of Trento University, who comes from a country that is neutral in this case.

What are they saying in Germany about this murder?

“The case is well enough known in my country, and I am convinced that their interest is above all in Amanda because the case is being followed above all by the scandal mags, and that genre requires a beautiful woman who is intriguing and a touch diabolical. Naturally, in following the case attentively and with curiosity, they haven’t yet settled on the identify of the guilty party. We are still at the interrogative stage, in fact – my colleagues who are following up the case, are directing the attention of their readers to the question whether Amanda, so beautiful and intriguing, could really be the authoress of such a horrendous crime”.

And what do they say about Raffaele?

“They are more detached about him, and play up the doubt that the ‘boyfriend’, so sweet, affectionate and thoughtful, could really be complicit in such a murder”.

Rudy?

“As for him, unfortunately being already assured of a sentence, they are not that interested in him except to say and write that ‘a person’ is already in prison, without even quoting his name”.

And what do they think about the investigations and the case?

“As far as regarding the unfolding of the investigations and of the case in general, in Germany it is being seen in the usual light that reinforces the perception that, in Italy, things are done “the Italian way (all’italiana)”.

And what do you think?

“Having come to know your country well, I love it and appreciate everything about Italian life, so
I don’t agree with these criticisms, which, in any case, don’t come from any hostile preconceptions, but only from a very lightly held attitude. As for the facts, initially I was thinking that Amanda could be innocent, now I’m not so sure”.

[Messaggero] 09 May 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 1:14 pm   Post subject:    

Finn wrote:

Quote:
I know that Steve Huff is very well thought of on here, and that he hosted the forerunner of this site, but it seems to me that his only significant intervention in that show (to judge from the transcript) was to introduce the misinformation that Rudy Guede's semen was found at the scene of the crime.

Aside from that (in fact, even including that) it sounds like an excruciatingly bad show.


I got the feeling that the "expert guests" were engaged at the last minute and nobody, least of all the hostess, was prepared. Steve got tossed a couple of badly-worded questions, and basically "confirmed" that semen was found on the crime scene, rather than stating it was DNA. I was surprised by that as well, and wanted to see the show again or a transcript to confirm before commenting. The reason I wanted to see it again is that I thought Steve winced when the question was asked about the semen. I imagined a thought bubble above his head going "Oh, shit!" Jane was just clueless, a real crime tourist lost in translation.

I missed Nancy Grace the first time around but caught the rebroadcast late last night. My, oh my, that was top notch in comparison. Note that I said in comparison. Nancy at least seemed somewhat familiar with some aspects of the case, not necessarily the most recent ones - though she did insist on the footprints - and was merciless with Steve Shay and Anne Bremner. She noted that Anne has a horse in the race, which was a nice touch, and that Steve Shay's answer to her question was ludicrous and off-topic.

Question: Is Anne Bremner unable to get through a media opp without using the word "supertanker"?

Question: Is Steve Shay an FOA member?

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


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Tue May 12, 2009 3:30 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: Tue May 12, 2009 3:09 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I missed Nancy Grace the first time around but caught the rebroadcast late last night. My, oh my, that was top notch in comparison. Note that I said in comparison.


I'm not sure why Knox family interests are so bitter about news reporting on this case when they have practically OWNED the press coverage all along, at least here in the USA. The bitterness today must be because the evidence they have always insisted never existed is now actually being presented in court for judge and jury to evaluate.

It's completely understandable. I would be embarrassed and humiliated too if I had put my face out to the world the way they have - only to be proved wrong. And it appears that Nancy Grace is getting a little irritable with being led down the garden path. But there can be no doubt that these shows are only the prequel to the on-air rioting we will see when the prosecution finally rolls out the knife.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:15 pm   Post subject:    

Thanks for posting the transcript of the JVM show. Wow, that really was bad. And to think I actually used to be somewhat of a fan of JVM. She seems woefully uninformed about the case. :(
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:19 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
I have never seen Nancy Grace before. Now, that woman is my idea of torture and should be illegal. The only sympathetic thing I could say about her is that she seemed just as frustrated as I was by the fact that none of the participants would (or could) give a summary of the case--they just kept yelling out about some obsessive fragment of evidence they wanted to protest: "Bra strap, bra strap, bra strap!!!" Then Nancy Grace would shriek back at them and flounce and mug and roll her eyes and finally finished up by saying how stupid they all were (which seemed alas true) and how beautiful and wonderful her twin tots are. Pure torture.


Yeah, a little bit of Nancy Grace goes a loooooooong way. If AK and RS are found guilty, maybe they should be required to listen to her shows for 5 hours a day or something as punishment. :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:35 pm   Post subject:    

Finn wrote:

Quote:
And last weekend was difficult because Rindaldi's presentation apparently showed (amongst other things) why Rudy Guede's footprint has to be ruled OUT. So there's no possibility to ask him, "Yes, but do you accept that it could also be ruled in?" Rinaldi has ruled out Guede (and there's no other evidence of Rudy in that bathroom, in any case), and has identified the footprint as compatible with Sollecito. So the defense can argue that "it's only compatible, it's not an exact match" - but if Rudy Guede is ruled out, then this raises the question of who else, with Sollecito-shaped feet, could have stood barefoot in Meredith Kercher's blood and then stood on that bathmat? And if there was no clean-up, then how come there's only a single footprint on the absorbent mat, but none on the washable tiles around?



This is critical. It should be impossible by now to maintain that no clean-up took place, regardless of who you think committed this murder or how many people were involved. And as Rinaldi has specifically ruled out this print as being compatible with Rudy Guede, then we have to accept that someone else stepped barefoot in Meredith Kercher's blood and it wasn't Amanda Knox.

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


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Tue May 12, 2009 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:40 pm   Post subject:    

According to today's Daily Mail online (UK), prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is facing up to 10 months in prison,
after a court heard that he should be convicted for 'abuse of power'.

Can anyone shed anymore light on what is happening today in the matter?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... arges.html
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject:    

KCL wrote:

Quote:
According to today's Daily Mail online (UK), prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is facing up to 10 months in prison,
after a court heard that he should be convicted for 'abuse of power'.

Can anyone shed anymore light on what is happening today in the matter?


I was told yesterday by someone in Italy that the Florence prosecutor in charge of this case has asked for this sentence, and two months for Guittari. Now it is up to the judge to decide. In a related matter, Spezi was denied his request for compensation for the brief time he was imprisoned.

_________________
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: Tue May 12, 2009 3:51 pm   Post subject:    

Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
disinterested wrote:
I have never seen Nancy Grace before. Now, that woman is my idea of torture and should be illegal. The only sympathetic thing I could say about her is that she seemed just as frustrated as I was by the fact that none of the participants would (or could) give a summary of the case--they just kept yelling out about some obsessive fragment of evidence they wanted to protest: "Bra strap, bra strap, bra strap!!!" Then Nancy Grace would shriek back at them and flounce and mug and roll her eyes and finally finished up by saying how stupid they all were (which seemed alas true) and how beautiful and wonderful her twin tots are. Pure torture.


Yeah, a little bit of Nancy Grace goes a loooooooong way. If AK and RS are found guilty, maybe they should be required to listen to her shows for 5 hours a day or something as punishment.


I have never been a fan of these programs. Nancy Grace is very hard to take for long periods, and I get so tired of hearing every caller comment on those fabulous twins. Is it a prerequisite for being allowed to ask a question? I did get a kick out of Nancy's annoyed dismissal of Anne Bremner. I gotta believe Anne was not expecting that. She looked like she'd been slapped. And Steve Shay was incomprehensible. When asked about the CCTV footage, he started babbling about how he had spent time with Amanda's family, grandma included, and friends. Janet Huff's soundbite was memorable too: Amanda wouldn't hurt someone's feelings let alone kill her roommate. All in all, an oddly entertaining moment in television. I followed this up with an old episode of the Sopranos, the one where Christopher gets shot and almost dies. He has a near death experience in which he sees hell close up. He says hell is a card game with a bunch of Irishmen and they're winning all the time.

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

Offline Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:52 pm   Post subject:    

Thanx Skep.

Seeing that they have no shame nor morals at all, expect the FOA/Dempsey and co, to go into overdrive with that event.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:06 pm   Post subject:    

From Nancy Grave show:

Quote:
STEVE SHAY, REPORTER, WEST SEATTLE HERALD, COVERING STORY: Thank you very much very having me. I`ve done four articles on the Knox case, not since the beginning, but since they had a fund-raiser last fall or winter.


Including one fascinating article about how the Italian cops misread "yoga moves" and accused Amanda of doing cartwheels. The source for this article was Chris Mellas. This was before we learned about the mystery cop who made Amanda do cartwheels, thus negating the yoga moves defense. Steve Shay has been one of the key reporters to cover this case.

Late January is winter in the Northern Hemisphere.

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

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:22 pm   Post subject:    

Skep, any time frame as to when a decision will be handed down in the Mignini trial??

oops, just saw that decision is expected at the end of the month.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject: Nancy Grace   

Than's Mojo for the transcripts from the shows. I particularly liked this from Grace:


Quote:
GRACE: Well, Mary, regarding the prosecutor`s alleged corruptness, I`ve heard those reports, but I can`t say yea or nay. From what we are hearing, all of the reports seem extremely flawed.

So if you want to take all of the media reports from Europe with a box of salt, then that would say none of it is true, including the prosecution`s corruption. You can`t have your cake and eat it, too.

You can`t say the press is right about his corruption but they`re wrong about the evidence. The evidence is coming out in the courtroom, that`s very black and white. How a jury or a judge will decide for that evidence is completely a different matter.



There, with a simple wave of the hand, Grace completely dismisses one of the main FOA talking points (and has been from since before they even named themselves the FOA). It is also one example of many cases of the Knox crowd wanting their cake and eating it, which is a euphemism for double standards and my, if anything has been the hallmark of the Knox Camp bandwagon, it's been hypocrisy. It's really nice to see someone with a platform and respect like Grace essentially say 'Look, stop being hyocrites'.

I'm also thinking that one weekend we should have a drinking game. We'll call it the 'Supertanker Game'. We put all these clips of Anne Bremner on her various cases together and play it through, fill up our glasses with an alcoholic beverage and every time we hear Anne Bremner say 'supertanker, we each have to shout 'supertanker' and take a great big gulp from our glass. The one to shout last has to finish their glass and on we go, refilling as needed.

On second thoughts, perhaps we'd better scrap that idea, for the health and safety of our members. The frequency of Anne's use of the word will almost certainly have many of our members admitted to hospital with accute alcohol poisening :)


Edit to add: I also noted that Dempsey wasn't invited back to the studio for a sercond time, in fact, she didn't get to appear even by phone :)

_________________
"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: Tue May 12, 2009 4:42 pm   Post subject: Mignini   

Kent County lad wrote:
According to today's Daily Mail online (UK), prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is facing up to 10 months in prison,
after a court heard that he should be convicted for 'abuse of power'.

Can anyone shed anymore light on what is happening today in the matter?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... arges.html



Just to ellaborate on this. Mignini in fact has already had the charges against him dismissed by a judge. It seems despite that, the Florentine prosecutor, desperate to to receive satisfaction appealed (in Italian cases, not only can the defendent appeal if found guilty, but the prosecution can appeal and get an appeal trial if the defendent is found innocent. That's also worth remembering for the Meredith Kercher trial). In any case, the Florentine prosecutor, Turco, has asked for sentence of two and a half years for the police officer Giuttari, and 10 months for Mignini IF they are found guilty. However, IF they are convicted, they won't see the inside of a jail, the consequnces will be financial in nature, in the form of a large fine and Mignini will also still be able to continue in his job of prosecutor.

It seems the bee in the bonnet of the Florentine Prosecutor, is that not only was his office tapped by Giuttari, but that Mignini used one Turco's own departments against him to place the tap. In short, Turco has found himself with a very bruised ego. Mignini in his defence is claiming that he was in the right. One judge has already agreed with him so far, so I don't hold much for Turco's chances and he probably doesn't either, but it does give him some satisfaction in inconveniencing Mignini somewhat and damaging his reputation to some degree.

_________________
"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 Tue May 12, 2009 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:49 pm   Post subject:    

Skep said "Nancy Grace is very hard to take for long periods.."

I really found her excruciating for a relatively short period--although the show was chaotic, which didn't help. It makes me doubt my own reactions being she's such a hit. (Of course so many folks love Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern and their ilk.) Nancy is very bossy and aggressive--punishing--she reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell with an extreme makeover...

OK, sorry to be driveling on OT here. I was just stunned. I'm a bit of a TV virgin.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:21 pm   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
Skep said "Nancy Grace is very hard to take for long periods.."

I really found her excruciating for a relatively short period--although the show was chaotic, which didn't help. It makes me doubt my own reactions being she's such a hit. (Of course so many folks love Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern and their ilk.) Nancy is very bossy and aggressive--punishing--she reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell with an extreme makeover...

OK, sorry to be driveling on OT here. I was just stunned. I'm a bit of a TV virgin.


What I really meant was that it seemed to be a long period. I had never even heard of Nancy Grace until relatively recently. I lived outside the US for a very long time and even after I returned did not watch much television. I still don't. Partly because there is too much of this kind of crap. I know what you mean about the show being chaotic, but the amazing thing is how deftly Nancy handled the chaos she created. I think she must thrive on it. She kept moving from one guest to the next, back and forth. Not much time to dither. Put up or shut up and hear about it from Nancy. I thought I saw her suppress a laugh when Steve Shay talked about a "cornucopia" of DNA on the bra clasp.

I do find the aggressive nature of these television hosts and the pundits they talk to very hard to take. I'm more of a radio person and tend to like listening to people who can lay out an argument without screaming and shouting.

_________________
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: Tue May 12, 2009 5:31 pm   Post subject: Jane Velez-Mitchell source   

Here have a laugh...

Harry Wilkens claims to be Jane Velez-Mitchell's source of information. :lol:

HW wrote:

"Jane Velez-Mitchell's HLN show...
Well, she can't say that she is misinformed, because we sent her all the infos she needed. But what if she hides behind Steve Huff's bullcrap????"

"if Jane was favorable for Amanda it's surely due to the info she got from us. But it was not strong enough, again it was - like the French would say - "pipi de chat" (cat's pee). The Amanda Resistance should be organized more professionally - like that of the Tehran Chick; however the latter was State-run (Iran+USA); they got more means, professionally and financially.
The Amanda Trashers got more means too.
How comes?"

:lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:36 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
He says hell is a card game with a bunch of Irishmen and they're winning all the time.


Ah, yes, sorry about that.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:43 pm   Post subject:    

Jools quoted Harry:

Quote:
"if Jane was favorable for Amanda it's surely due to the info she got from us. But it was not strong enough, again it was - like the French would say - "pipi de chat" (cat's pee). The Amanda Resistance should be organized more professionally - like that of the Tehran Chick; however the latter was State-run (Iran+USA); they got more means, professionally and financially.
The Amanda Trashers got more means too.
How comes?"



Pipi de chat, indeed. I think that the lack of mobilization on the part of the US government for Amanda's release is because ils ont d'autres chats à fouetter, Harry.

Did anyone ever see the French movie Harry, un ami qui vous veut du bien? The title was translated in English as "With A Friend Like Harry" (because of the expression with a friend like Harry, who needs enemies?). Anyway, Harry is willing to do anything for his long lost friend Michel, including kill his parents and Harry's own girlfriend Prune. Michel manages to stop him before he decides to kill Michel's own wife and daughters because they're inconvenient. Believe it or not, this is a very funny movie in a dark way and the demented but well-meaning Harry (played by Sergi Lopez) reminds me of another Harry....

_________________
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point; on le sait en mille choses.
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 8 of 10 [ 2401 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 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 


29,448,254 Views