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: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:50 pm
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:50 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject:    

Finn wrote:

Quote:
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.


You could get whacked for that! :)

_________________
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 5:55 pm   Post subject: Re: Jane Velez-Mitchell source   

Jools wrote:
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:


"The Amanda Resistance" and "The Amanda Trashers"????? Oh brother.

But yeah, he surely does seem to have an inflated sense of his own importance.

I wonder if he's still blathering on about his "Amanda is going to be killed in prison" theory.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:11 pm   Post subject: Re: Jane Velez-Mitchell source   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Jools wrote:
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:


"The Amanda Resistance" and "The Amanda Trashers"????? Oh brother.

But yeah, he surely does seem to have an inflated sense of his own importance.

I wonder if he's still blathering on about his "Amanda is going to be killed in prison" theory.


Oh yes he is, he even has a latest version!
HW latest Suntra chanting is "get her out of death row"
:lol:
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 6:15 pm   Post subject:    

Does anyone know if he's related to Amanda?
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:27 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
Does anyone know if he's related to Amanda?

I don't know, but who would want to be related to that? On second thought maybe Goofy.
:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:30 pm   Post subject: Re: Jane Velez-Mitchell source   

Jools wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Jools wrote:
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?"



Wow, with Harry chanting, the resistance organizing and Peter Van Sant bringing in the 82nd Airborne, Amanda may just levitate out of Capanne Prison, on wings...

(Hey, DO we have more means? How come? Payola?)
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 6:59 pm   Post subject: Re: Jane Velez-Mitchell source   

disinterested wrote:

(Hey, DO we have more means? How come? Payola?)


But of course - payola from Mignini! ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:26 pm   Post subject:    

From the CBS Sports blog:

Mariners season looking like Amanda Knox trial.

"Solid Blog Mr. Evans! Now living in the Twin Cities its great to find a great read to recap me on how things are going with the Mariners. I just watched them take the Twins 5-3. Twins were talking sweep. Yeah right!!!" seahawks76

Obviously the guy is familiar with the case. :lol: :lol: :lol:

PS - to the smokin' Salty's crew. You know who you wild smokers and stalkers are!

...remember that very embarrassed (poor dear, it was hard for her to say, "murder." :shock: ) and super nice lady on the patio at Salty's wearing the Seahawk's letterman jacket - taking smack about Amanda? ..oh, $1000 for the Hawaiian vacation bid?? WOW, that is a lot of cabbage!

Now THAT was funny...... :lol:

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
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 11:42 pm   Post subject:    

The flour proverb and
Maresca in the Messaggero,
or,
"A chip off the old block"


Quote:

Saturday 09 May 2009

Prisoner writes: 'I know real murderer's name'

“I know the real name of Meredith’s killer, a fellow-brother Albanian friend of mine told me, and it’s not Raffaele Sollecito.” Luciano Aviello is Raffaele Sollecito’s ex-cellmate and, now, maybe encumbering his admirer, is writing another letter to Court of Assize president Giancarlo Massei.

A few weeks ago he had sent a letter in which he claims to have asked two of his friends to break into the murder house to prove that anybody could have done so. Yesterday, the page count of his letter jumped to five, and the tone was angrier. He’s had it with journalists, because they’ve referred to his less than clear past and because they wrote about his previous never-proven-true “revelations” on various important and dramatic criminal cases (like the disappearance of little Angela Celentano).

He’s had it with the police too, in whom he confided his secret about Raffaele’s innocence and who didn’t even give him the time of day. He maintains that, actually, he has a letter written by an Albanian friend, which contains the real name of the murderer, and he wants to speak only to the court president, Giancarlo Massei, to reveal it to him.

Although even the lawyer on the civil side of the case, Francesco Maresca, acting for the Kerchers, remains skeptical: “That letter ought to be re-read carefully: it’s not flour from his grainsack*”.


[Messaggero] 09 May 2009


* Proverbial phrase: non è farina del suo sacco = “it’s not grist from his own mill”, meaning it wasn’t written off his own bat, and that other hands contributed to it.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 12:32 am   Post subject:    

I'd like to take a moment to comment about Amanda's Aunt Janet Huff's comments in last night's program. Huff attempted to to defend, (explain away) Amanda's incriminating original statement about being at the scene of the crime.

When Nancy Grace questioned HUFF about WHY Amanda told the police that she WAS present at the cottage when Meredith was killed, Huff simply repeated the same lame
"explanation" we've been hearing from the defense since....well, forever.

The statement about being at the cottage with her hands covering her ears, was simply a HYPOTHETICAL, says Huff and so says Amanda's father and all the FOA. Huff and FOA say it was just a "fantasy,"an exercise in imagination. As in, being creative...

Uh-huh...

OK, let's assume, for a moment THAT is exactly what happened, and that's why Amanda said what she did.

Now, even assuming that it happened just as the FOA say (i.e., the police ask her to "imagine" how it might have happened), there is something very revealing here that points (AGAIN!!!) to her lack of credibility.

Take a moment, all of you reading this, and imagine how any of YOU would respond, given the same task.of *imagining* how a similar crime would have happened in your home to your good friend and what would you do in reaction to that.

Wouldn't the normal natural, dare I say INNOCENT response for a FEMALE would be to say something like this:

"Oh, I'd be so terrified by the noises coming from my FRIEND Meredith's room. I'd have locked my door, my heart beating a million beats a minute. Then I would grab my phone and call the police.
(And if I didn't know the police number, I'd call a ANYONE to help!!) I'd be shivering and shaking, but I'd make sure I was very, very quiet, even whispering while on the phone. I'd be scared for Meredith, and terrified for myself AND PRAY FOR HELP TO COME ASAP!!!!"

Usually when people are prompted to give a hypothetical of how they would "imagine reacting" under a stressful situation, most people would give a scenario in which they'd appear in the best possible light, the most honorable light,ESPECIALLY IN FRONT OF THE POLICE, not in the wimpiest ("covered my ears")light. They'd fantasize aloud about being some kind of hero, braver and nobler than they actually might be in real life.

Particularly someone like Amanda who wasn't any shrinking violet /scaredy cat and who had an overly inflated sense of self.

The "it was just a fantasy so everyone please just disregard that statement" defense is not going to help Amanda one bit.
It doesn't pass the believability test. It doesn't pass the giggle test.

No one over the age of say, two years old, would actually suggest such a scenario of "covering one's ears" in response to a friend being threatened with violence in the next room.

Remember: this is NOT a stranger ! This is her (ahem! cough!) good friend she's imagining being assaulted in the next room IN HER OWN HOUSE!!! She's not a two-year old, she's a young woman.

I'm afraid the defense story she's woven is coming unravelled and frayed, thread by thread.
Memo to FOA: best to drop this little invented "explanation"in future interviews because far from being exculpatory, it makes Amanda seem more and more like a calculated liar.
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: Wed May 13, 2009 1:18 am   Post subject:    

The 411 wrote:
Memo to FOA: best to drop this little invented "explanation"in future interviews because far from being exculpatory, it makes Amanda seem more and more like a calculated liar.


Q: Why did you really say that about the screaming and the ears?
A: Because they asked me to imagine what it would be like to be at the murder scene.
Q: You mean, like at a movie or something?
A: Yes.
Q: Ah, so it was all just hypothetical?
A: Yes. :D Just like the answer. :) Aren't you glad now?
Q: Just like what answer?
A: About why I said what I said I said.
Q: :!: So, ...
A: I'm all confused again. :cry:
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: Wed May 13, 2009 1:19 am   Post subject:    

Patumi laughs at the experts’ long bows
The Messaggero gets feedback on the print experts from one of the defence team

Quote:

Sunday 10 May 2009

“Laughable print on the pillow-case” – Patumi

by LUIGI FOGLIETTI

PERUGIA – The day, given over to questioning the two Scientific Police experts, physicist Lorenzo Rinaldi who occupied himself with the relevance of the shoe prints and footprints found at the murder scene, and fingerprint specialist Pietro Boemia, started with a coincidence. Both were called to provide expert advice on comparisons by the prosecutors, by the defence, and by the civil side.


Rinaldi and Boemia split the load between themselves: the fomer spoke about footprints, the latter about shoes. There were seventeen blood-stained footprints found: in the living room, in the corridor, in the entrance hallway, and in the victim’s room. Then it came to those found on the pillow-acse, and the 11 dust and dirt prints, and the 2 dust and grease ones found in Rudy’s house.

Paying close attention, in order to find the way out of the expert evidence for his client Amanda Knox, was medico-legal Walter Patumi, who assisted lawyer Luciano Ghirga during the depositions.


Doctor Patumi, what comments can you make about the two police experts?

“They presented material in the hearing that was not available to us, that is, they spoke about an investigatory activity about which there was no communication.”


Was there anything new?

“They said little new, technically, as regards what is written in the case file. They were trying to turn rough compatibility reasoning into identification reasoning.”


So then there’s material to argue against, for the defence?

“We will rebut these allegations via our upcoming depositions, and in our prepared submissions which we will hand over at that time.”


The experts spoke of the methods used to exclude [people], and so were talking about size 36/38 women’s shows, but does that make comparison with other prints possible?”

“They were unable to make other comparisons because, other than the photos, they had no other elements, therefore there were no analogies [possible].”


In conclusion?

“They were unable to prove a scientifically objective technical truth. It was also laughable, when they tried to prove that there could be a woman’s shoeprint on the pillowcase with a dissertation concerning the length of a heel, when in reality on the photo from which they drew that expert opinion, there’s nothing of the sort there. And also, the affirmation that there were three people on the murder scene due to the number of prints, considering that one of them could also have removed a shoe.”


[Messaggero] 10 May 2009
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:49 am   Post subject:    

FYI:
Today The "New York Times" own Science Times section features the topic of "The New Forensics."

One article in the group caught my eye.

"Judging Honesty by Words, Not Fidgets"
by
BENEDICT CAREY
Published: May 11, 2009
"Before any interrogation, before the two-way mirrors or bargaining or good-cop, bad-cop routines, police officers investigating a crime have to make a very tricky determination: Is the person I’m interviewing being honest, or spinning fairy tales?


The answer is crucial, not only for identifying potential suspects and credible witnesses but also for the fate of the person being questioned. Those who come across poorly may become potential suspects and spend hours on the business end of a confrontational, life-changing interrogation — whether or not they are guilty.

Until recently, police departments have had little solid research to guide their instincts. But now forensic scientists have begun testing techniques they hope will give officers, interrogators and others a kind of honesty screen, an improved method of sorting doctored stories from truthful ones.

The new work focuses on what people say, not how they act. It has already changed police work in other countries, and some new techniques are making their way into interrogations in the United States.

In part, the work grows out of a frustration with other methods. Liars do not avert their eyes in an interview on average any more than people telling the truth do, researchers report; they do not fidget, sweat or slump in a chair any more often. They may produce distinct, fleeting changes in expression, experts say, but it is not clear yet how useful it is to analyze those.

Nor have technological advances proved very helpful. No brain-imaging machine can reliably distinguish a doctored story from the truthful one, for instance; ditto for polygraphs, which track changes in physiology as an indirect measure of lying.

“Focusing on content is a very good idea,” given the limitations of what is currently being done, said Saul Kassin, a professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

One broad, straightforward principle has changed police work in Britain: seek information, not a confession. In the mid-1980s, following cases of false confessions, British courts prohibited officers from using some aggressive techniques, like lying about evidence to provoke suspects, and required that interrogations be taped. Officers now work to gather as much evidence as possible before interviewing a suspect, and they make no real distinction between this so-called investigative interview and an interrogation, said Ray Bull, a professor of forensic psychology at the University of Leicester. "

READ MORE of this and other articles in the May 12, 2009 edition entitled "THE NEW FORENSICS." You may have to suscribe, to see the articles, but, of course it is free and painless.

Also relevent in the Forensic section is today's article about DNA processing.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:19 am   Post subject: Frank's   

This evening, I took the evening off, relaxing, watching a film. So, I was quite surprised to then find that during my evening away from the computer I'd been posting on Frank's. Of course, it wasn't me but rather my troll shadows who love to post under my identity...usually saying all manner of ridiculous things, although they've now taken to copying old posts of mine,,,months, even more then a year old and posting them on Frank's out of context as me in the first person. It seems they've taken to doing this when I'm not even there. Normally, in the past, they've only tended to hijack my identity on those occasions when I decide to post on Frank's and start to demolish their flimsy arguments. It's the only weapon they have against me, as they don't have my personal data and photographs to expose and they certainly don't know where I live or work, so they can't stalk me or threaten to contact my employer, as they've done with certain others who post on PMF. Really, it emphasises the aggressive and unethical cyber bullying tactics of these people. Nothing is too low. 'These people' are a small group, made up primarily of DJ, Goofy and Chris Mellas (DJ has been posting on Frank's a lot tonight in fact).

A couple of days ago I created a Blogger ID, complete with my avatar, here is my Blogger ID number: 09945912155063316171

Here's the link to my profile (Note my Blogger ID number forms the final part of the url): http://www.blogger.com/profile/09945912155063316171

From two days ago onward, I will only ever post on Frank's under my Blogger ID. If you see a post using my identity and it isn't a signed in Blogger ID, then the post isn't mine. If you see a post under what 'appears' to be my Blogger ID (one can immitate another's profile and indeed, they did so with Dynamohum a few days ago) and it doesn't have that number, but a different one in the profile url, it isn't mine.

Cyber Bullies, indeed any kind of bully, love power. When you take away their weapons and therefore their power, they are impotent. They hate that.

_________________
"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: Wed May 13, 2009 8:28 am   Post subject:    




A couple of days ago, on 11 May 2009, Public Prosecutor Antonella Duchini began final summing up in the Perugia Court of Assize in the case brought against Roberto Spaccino, 39, for the murder of his 8-months-pregnant wife, Barbara Cicioni, 33 in their cottage on the night of 24/25 May 2007.

Presiding over the court is Giancarlo Massei, who is heading a collegium, the judicial panel of judges, different in composition to the one trying Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Quote:

Cicioni Murder

… According to the prosecution, Spaccino killed his wife after an umpteenth domestic dispute. In particular, he struck her and suffocated her in the bedroom, hastening her death. The accused then simulated a rape to mislead investigators. In addition to murder, he is being tried for maltreatment of his wife, for having provoked the interruption of her pregnancy, for having staged a burglary in the cottage and for making false declarations to the Prosecutor’s Office. …

Spaccino, defended by lawyers Michele Titlo and Luca Gentili, has always proclaimed his innocence, affirming that when his wife was killed, he was not at home. He therefore hypothesised that somebody entered the cottage during his absence, perhaps taking advantage of a persian shutter that had been left half-open. The ex-truck-driver told investigators that when he arrived back home, the woman was already dead in the bedroom.

[Nazione] 11 May 2009


Reasoning by analogy, we could say that the idea of a half-open cottage window-shutter, through which a murdering-raping burglar would have gained fatal entry, could have been in the air in Perugia, six months later, in November 2007. As would be the idea of a staged burglary.

In terms of alibi motifs, put this one in the “getting too close for comfort” coincidence category.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:01 am   Post subject:    

Thank you Catnip for translating Il Messaggero articles.
:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 11:27 am   Post subject: Re: Frank's   

Michael wrote:
This evening, I took the evening off, relaxing, watching a film. So, I was quite surprised to then find that during my evening away from the computer I'd been posting on Frank's. Of course, it wasn't me but rather my troll shadows who love to post under my identity...usually saying all manner of ridiculous things, although they've now taken to copying old posts of mine,,,months, even more then a year old and posting them on Frank's out of context as me in the first person. It seems they've taken to doing this when I'm not even there. Normally, in the past, they've only tended to hijack my identity on those occasions when I decide to post on Frank's and start to demolish their flimsy arguments. It's the only weapon they have against me, as they don't have my personal data and photographs to expose and they certainly don't know where I live or work, so they can't stalk me or threaten to contact my employer, as they've done with certain others who post on PMF. Really, it emphasises the aggressive and unethical cyber bullying tactics of these people. Nothing is too low. 'These people' are a small group, made up primarily of DJ, Goofy and Chris Mellas (DJ has been posting on Frank's a lot tonight in fact).

A couple of days ago I created a Blogger ID, complete with my avatar, here is my Blogger ID number: 09945912155063316171

Here's the link to my profile (Note my Blogger ID number forms the final part of the url): http://www.blogger.com/profile/09945912155063316171

From two days ago onward, I will only ever post on Frank's under my Blogger ID. If you see a post using my identity and it isn't a signed in Blogger ID, then the post isn't mine. If you see a post under what 'appears' to be my Blogger ID (one can immitate another's profile and indeed, they did so with Dynamohum a few days ago) and it doesn't have that number, but a different one in the profile url, it isn't mine.

Cyber Bullies, indeed any kind of bully, love power. When you take away their weapons and therefore their power, they are impotent. They hate that.



Hi Michael - I've been away for a couple of days too, and just read what was going on over at Frank's. Goodness they do get their knickers in a twist when you post over there don't they! To be honest with you it is always totally clear to me when the posts are actually written by you (i.e they make sense, have some salient points to make, are on topic and answering points raised by others in a logical and polite manner). Whenever they try and imitate you they don't quite get the right tone. It's an English thing maybe. But they lack the right tone. To me it is obvious who the 'real' Michael is, so I would not worry too much about being misrepresented. I think you do an amazing job of keeping calm under fire over there.

p,s I am just counting the time till half of this post appears as 'Unintended Humour' !!! I think it's a good Private Eye type exercise and does make me laugh sometimes. There are a few wits there who provide the odd smile!

p.p.s In Winston's words: 'Forward!'
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:21 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
A couple of days ago I created a Blogger ID, complete with my avatar, here is my Blogger ID number: 09945912155063316171

Here's the link to my profile (Note my Blogger ID number forms the final part of the url): http://www.blogger.com/profile/09945912155063316171

From two days ago onward, I will only ever post on Frank's under my Blogger ID. If you see a post using my identity and it isn't a signed in Blogger ID, then the post isn't mine.


I hope you won't waste your time and energy posting on Frank's blog ever again. Anyway, whether you post or not you will be talked about, your posts from here will be reposted there when things get dull and fake posts will be made in your name. Nobody thinks "you" have written those fake posts, so no disclaimer is needed. As for the comments about you (and others), they are a reflection on those making them - and it ain't pretty.

Basta!

_________________
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: Wed May 13, 2009 2:28 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip translated:

Quote:
Spaccino, defended by lawyers Michele Titlo and Luca Gentili, has always proclaimed his innocence, affirming that when his wife was killed, he was not at home.


Catnip wrote:

Quote:
Reasoning by analogy, we could say that the idea of a half-open cottage window-shutter, through which a murdering-raping burglar would have gained fatal entry, could have been in the air in Perugia, six months later, in November 2007. As would be the idea of a staged burglary.

In terms of alibi motifs, put this one in the “getting too close for comfort” coincidence category.



Luca Gentili, is not to be confused with Nicodemo Gentile, one of Rudy Guede's lawyers. Speaking of coincidences, when Sollecito was moved to the Terni prison, wasn't it reported that Spaccino occupied the cell next to his? Something like that.

_________________
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: Wed May 13, 2009 2:51 pm   Post subject:    

The 411 wrote:

Quote:
The "it was just a fantasy so everyone please just disregard that statement" defense is not going to help Amanda one bit.
It doesn't pass the believability test. It doesn't pass the giggle test.

No one over the age of say, two years old, would actually suggest such a scenario of "covering one's ears" in response to a friend being threatened with violence in the next room.

Remember: this is NOT a stranger ! This is her (ahem! cough!) good friend she's imagining being assaulted in the next room IN HER OWN HOUSE!!! She's not a two-year old, she's a young woman.

I'm afraid the defense story she's woven is coming unravelled and frayed, thread by thread.
Memo to FOA: best to drop this little invented "explanation"in future interviews because far from being exculpatory, it makes Amanda seem more and more like a calculated liar.



It seems that this "explanation" has been around forever because it is so tiresome and implausible, but I believe it was concocted relatively recently, after Preston's Monster of Florence book was published in the US. I think FOA took a page from his book, so to speak. Its spokespeople, and in particular Edda Mellas and her female relatives (Christina Hagge, Janet Huff and Deanna Knox), started inserting this into television interviews and now it has become an obligatory talking point.

If I am not mistaken, Preston claims that Mignini used this technique when he questioned him. The thing is, Mignini wasn't present when Knox was first questioned by the police.

I have always found the "I covered my ears" story bizarre in and of itself. As part of some "let's imagine" game, it is even more bizarre. How can anyone be perturbed by the terrible noise being made by unspeakable violence being committed in the next room but not at all frightened for one's own safety? Are we supposed to believe that "Patrick" reassured Amanda that he would only rape and murder her roommate? Remember, Knox also told police that Patrick was "bad, very bad" and that she was afraid of him.

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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:11 pm   Post subject:    

Hello Everyone,

The mention of Asics brand sneakers seems to hint at something to come. While none may have been found and that has been testified to, it seems nothing is brought up for no reason in this case.

ANYWAY...

nothing to add and lots to catch up on. My bees are doing great and the colonies are thriving but little did I know my hobby was going to wind up eating up as much free time as my job. I'm not complaining though, just a little overwhelmed at the efficiency and amount of work these girls can accomplish in a short period of time when the nectar is flowing! Just wanted to check in and update myself briefly before heading out to the beeyard. They're so cute when they come in with their little pollen bags all fulled up...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:23 pm   Post subject:    

Corrina wrote:

Quote:
My bees are doing great and the colonies are thriving but little did I know my hobby was going to wind up eating up as much free time as my job. I'm not complaining though, just a little overwhelmed at the efficiency and amount of work these girls can accomplish in a short period of time when the nectar is flowing! Just wanted to check in and update myself briefly before heading out to the beeyard. They're so cute when they come in with their little pollen bags all fulled up...


Hi Corrina! I hope you wear your protective beekeeper's attire at all times. They may look so cute with those bulging pollen bags but don't forget they are armed with a stinger and will use it if necessary. Stay Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy! b-(((


That emoticon? It's two smileys drinking beer together. Apparently, me and hubby do nothing but. Morning, noon and night. :lol:

_________________
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: Wed May 13, 2009 3:39 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

That emoticon? It's two smileys drinking beer together. Apparently, me and hubby do nothing but. Morning, noon and night. :lol:


lucky, you!! ....srsly, why do you guys go over there and read the crap they post?? i say consider the source and ignore the morons.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject:    

Mojo wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


That emoticon? It's two smileys drinking beer together. Apparently, me and hubby do nothing but. Morning, noon and night.


lucky, you!! ....srsly, why do you guys go over there and read the crap they post?? i say consider the source and ignore the morons.


Mostly I just hear about it from my blogwatchers. It is interesting though, that the source for that rumor is an actual conversation/meeting between my husband and Chris Mellas. The "anonymous" posting of a detail from that encounter was very useful in fact.

I just wanted to use a new emoticon. I had never clicked on view more emoticons before. Now it's back to work or back to the bar for another brewski, depending on your source. Sow me your shources, I always say. :lol:

_________________
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: Wed May 13, 2009 4:08 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Corrina.

Corrina said "The mention of Asics brand sneakers seems to hint at something to come. While none may have been found and that has been testified to, it seems nothing is brought up for no reason in this case."

Just as the crime scene video was 'restored' just in time for court, I was wondering if by miraculous means some hard drive material (maybe AK's photo stash) would be making an appearance. After all the FOA were bemoaning the loss of all those shots proving AK and MK were the best of mates, so (if they are to be believed) a few of them must have been taken in Perugia. Thing is, I don't recall the Italian flatmates being asked about it.....then again, if they had photos no need to ask...
Speculation, of course!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject:    

mojo wrote:
....srsly, why do you guys go over there and read the crap they post?? i say consider the source and ignore the morons.


I think for me it has something of a matador quality watching that blog. There's Michael, standing in the firing line, and they keep charging at him with all this nonsense and he is so cool. Just answers with fact and little emotion. It's impressive! Then when he wins points they start being ridiculous and just making stuff up like children. It is so clear where the wisdom is. Also I notice that the stupid stuff written about our lovely Skep is refuted quite often. People standing up for her and trying to shout down the fools! It is all sound and fury at the end of the day...anything worth hearing about is on here. Any fule kno that!
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:10 pm   Post subject:    

nowo wrote:
Hi Corrina.

Corrina said "The mention of Asics brand sneakers seems to hint at something to come. While none may have been found and that has been testified to, it seems nothing is brought up for no reason in this case."

Just as the crime scene video was 'restored' just in time for court, I was wondering if by miraculous means some hard drive material (maybe AK's photo stash) would be making an appearance. After all the FOA were bemoaning the loss of all those shots proving AK and MK were the best of mates, so (if they are to be believed) a few of them must have been taken in Perugia. Thing is, I don't recall the Italian flatmates being asked about it.....then again, if they had photos no need to ask...
Speculation, of course!


Hello Nowo,

Casting my memory back, didn't Raffaele mention that when Amanda returned from her home that she was wearing her hiking boots? It must have been one of the few things he remembered from smoking the chronic, like how cute it was Meredith was wearing her boyfriend's jeans. As you say, it's speculation, of course!

OFF TOPIC

Hey, Skep, but it's so hard seeing through the veil! The first 5 stings to the face were alright, but after the one to the eye, I started to make do with the veil. The gloves, however, are off. Too hard to grab hold of the frames. The guard bees are mostly all bluff, but those little girls pack a wallop when they connect!

Beer? Morning Noon and Night? No wonder you weigh 345 pounds... :roll: That's why I stick to the vino! Oh and the Mother Nature. At least, I think I do or that's the best truth I can remember! co-((
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:27 pm   Post subject:    

Found it. From Raffaele's November 7 *Prison Diary*

but
I'm sure that she had changed and had put on the white skirt and her
usual black hiking shoes. She was cleaned up and had brought me a mop

****

He begins by saying he doesn't remember what she wore the night before. This also contains his cute memory of Meredith in her boyfriend's jeans.

I wish I had more time to go back and read the whole thing. It starts out like a letter to his father and sister so why the need to tell them what Amanda was wearing? He knew this would be confiscated.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:45 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Catnip translated:

Quote:
Spaccino, defended by lawyers Michele Titlo and Luca Gentili, has always proclaimed his innocence, affirming that when his wife was killed, he was not at home.


Catnip wrote:

Quote:
Reasoning by analogy, we could say that the idea of a half-open cottage window-shutter, through which a murdering-raping burglar would have gained fatal entry, could have been in the air in Perugia, six months later, in November 2007. As would be the idea of a staged burglary.

In terms of alibi motifs, put this one in the “getting too close for comfort” coincidence category.



Luca Gentili, is not to be confused with Nicodemo Gentile, one of Rudy Guede's lawyers. Speaking of coincidences, when Sollecito was moved to the Terni prison, wasn't it reported that Spaccino occupied the cell next to his? Something like that.


Hi Skep,

Yes, not the same Gentili. You are also right about Spaccino and Sollecito apparently they even prepared a pasta dish (pappardelle al sugo) together.
Coincidences are plenty between the two trials: Luca Lalli, Carlo Torre and a few others.
http://tinyurl.com/qyjz5b
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject:    

Now, to me, it looks like AK and RS were in the area of the cottage at 9:30, 10:30, and around midnight. It also looks like they were in the cottage and stepped in MK's blood from her room or from the hallway and bathroom.

AK's footprints may be be explained away via blood from the hallway and bathroom and the shower explanation. However, there is no similar explanation for the other footprints, which are compatible with RS's footprints. Also, the bathmat shuffle works for me from the shower to the toilet in the bathroom, but to extend this beyond the bathroom and into the hallway and into the bedroom sounds ridiculous. Why not simply walk, with half dried feet, into the bedroom and wipe up what little water there is with the towel. I do that in a house with tile in the bathroom and hardwood floors in the hallway and bedroom.

Something else went on in the cottage with AK and RS footprint sized feet in blood. AK may have an explanation, RS doesn't.

I can hardly wait for more evidence, such as the bra strap DNA.

Regards,
Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:48 pm   Post subject:    

Corrina wrote:

Quote:
I'm sure that she had changed and had put on the white skirt and her
usual black hiking shoes. She was cleaned up and had brought me a mop

****

He begins by saying he doesn't remember what she wore the night before. This also contains his cute memory of Meredith in her boyfriend's jeans.

I wish I had more time to go back and read the whole thing. It starts out like a letter to his father and sister so why the need to tell them what Amanda was wearing? He knew this would be confiscated.



This brings up some questions I have. I was not reading the original haloscan blog, but I think it may have been covered there: What was Amanda supposedly wearing the day/evening of the murder? Wasn't there some info being floated around about a missing polar fleece sweatshirt of Knox's? Also, if Knox owned the type of shoe ID'd from the bloody shoe print in Meredith's room, would anyone have any photos of her wearing said shoes? The british girls? On Meredith's computer perhaps? Surely Knox's family would know whether she owned that type of shoe???
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:14 pm   Post subject:    

People who will have been asked by ILE about those shoes: classmates, teachers, Patrick, flatmates, Curatolo etc. Anyone they could find who took photos at the relevant bars (Halloween?), the girl who RS was supposed to take to the station etc. I wonder if ILE found what they wanted....
The FOA(disbanded) don't like the print, which is promising!
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:28 pm   Post subject:    

Friends of Amanda has been disbanded? I have missed some things.

I only notice shoes if they are nice boots. Do people pay attention to sneakers? I sure don't.

Sniff...I'm missing my Doc Marten's now.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:44 pm   Post subject:    

Well I was thinking that since Knox was in Italy such a short time she would only have one pair of tennis shoes and then other various shoes: sandals, hiking boots, etc. So if the police found no tennis shoes in the flat belonging to Knox?
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 6:47 pm   Post subject:    

Swanny said:

‘AK's footprints may be be explained away via blood from the hallway and bathroom and the shower explanation.’

That maybe quite a stretch to assume that. That little bit of blood, although obvious (from photo shots of the bathroom), would have had about 12 hours of drying and clotting time. For me it’s hard to figure out how the moisture or wet feet would allow that dried blood to evenly coat Amanda’s feet and toes to leave those uniform prints. I think it would have taken fresh blood for Amanda to have stepped in. Best for Amanda is that they can’t tell 100% for sure those prints were made in blood. However they try to twist it, I don’t think the court is going to buy it.
Top Profile 

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:12 pm   Post subject:    

jodyodyo wrote:
Well I was thinking that since Knox was in Italy such a short time she would only have one pair of tennis shoes and then other various shoes: sandals, hiking boots, etc. So if the police found no tennis shoes in the flat belonging to Knox?


That makes sense and is a very good point, especially since she is the sporty type. You would expect that she would own sneakers or trainers for our UK friends.

DLW, I'm with you on that. I don't see how a nearly full print can be set in the blood of a victim by merely stepping on a nearly (by that time) dried drop of the victim's blood, even if the foot doing the stepping were dripping wet with water from the shower. One step on the bathmat would have dried most of the water off, or at least that's how it works in my part of the world.

I apologize if I'm missing something, but have we heard anything about the cross examination by the defense? Are they saying the foot prints are due to some other agent besides blood? How does that work if there was no clean-up?
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:51 pm   Post subject:    

well, as i pop the top on a couple of coldies (actually wine's my drug of choice) i bow to the dirty job that you and the Bard have taken on, Skep!! Saluti!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 7:57 pm   Post subject:    

Corrina wrote:

Quote:
One step on the bathmat would have dried most of the water off, or at least that's how it works in my part of the world.


Didn't Knox state/write somewhere that she used the batmat to dry her feet?

_________________
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: Wed May 13, 2009 7:59 pm   Post subject:    

Mojo wrote:

Quote:
well, as i pop the top on a couple of coldies (actually wine's my drug of choice) i bow to the dirty job that you and the Bard have taken on, Skep!! Saluti!


Truth be told, it is mine as well. Red.

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

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 9:15 pm   Post subject:    

I read that luminol reacts with some fruit juices, rust, bleach, and blood. I think the experts will be discussing this shortly in the trial.

I think I also agree with DLW. If the footprints were made visible via luminol due to blood on AK's foot or feet, where did the blood come from? I don't see how it could come from dried or semi-dried droplets that were rehydrated.

Also, with only two footprints from AK in the hallway and her bedroom, and since I find the bathmat shuffle very diffcult to believe or even ridiculous, it appears there was a clean-up.

In addition, the foot that made the footprint on the bathmat must have had a lot of MK's blood on it to make such a pronounced print, and I don't see how this blood could come from droplets in the bathroom either.

Thus, the blood must have come from MK's room and that places one or both of the people who made the footprints in MK's room. With the footprints matching AK and RS, it appears that one or both of them were in MK's room.

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 9:20 pm   Post subject:    

I suppose I should add, unless there is another explanation.

Regards,
Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:15 pm   Post subject:    

Swanny wrote:

Quote:
I read that luminol reacts with some fruit juices, rust, bleach, and blood. I think the experts will be discussing this shortly in the trial.

I think I also agree with DLW. If the footprints were made visible via luminol due to blood on AK's foot or feet, where did the blood come from? I don't see how it could come from dried or semi-dried droplets that were rehydrated.

Also, with only two footprints from AK in the hallway and her bedroom, and since I find the bathmat shuffle very diffcult to believe or even ridiculous, it appears there was a clean-up.

In addition, the foot that made the footprint on the bathmat must have had a lot of MK's blood on it to make such a pronounced print, and I don't see how this blood could come from droplets in the bathroom either.

Thus, the blood must have come from MK's room and that places one or both of the people who made the footprints in MK's room. With the footprints matching AK and RS, it appears that one or both of them were in MK's room.



I see this as one of the dilemmas facing the defense. If there was enough visible blood to make these marks "after the fact", then it is inconceivable that AK was not alarmed enough to contact the police immediately. If there was not enough visible blood to be alarming, then how did the footprints get made? Also, as DLW points out, blood dries through contact with the air.

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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:35 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Swanny wrote:

Quote:
I read that luminol reacts with some fruit juices, rust, bleach, and blood. I think the experts will be discussing this shortly in the trial.

I think I also agree with DLW. If the footprints were made visible via luminol due to blood on AK's foot or feet, where did the blood come from? I don't see how it could come from dried or semi-dried droplets that were rehydrated.

Also, with only two footprints from AK in the hallway and her bedroom, and since I find the bathmat shuffle very diffcult to believe or even ridiculous, it appears there was a clean-up.

In addition, the foot that made the footprint on the bathmat must have had a lot of MK's blood on it to make such a pronounced print, and I don't see how this blood could come from droplets in the bathroom either.

Thus, the blood must have come from MK's room and that places one or both of the people who made the footprints in MK's room. With the footprints matching AK and RS, it appears that one or both of them were in MK's room.



I see this as one of the dilemmas facing the defense. If there was enough visible blood to make these marks "after the fact", then it is inconceivable that AK was not alarmed enough to contact the police immediately. If there was not enough visible blood to be alarming, then how did the footprints get made? Also, as DLW points out, blood dries through contact with the air.



There is NO WAY that Raff's footprint was made on that bathmat in 'residual' blood. There is too much of it. Anyway, why the hell would he be in there with bare feet?! No suggestion of him being barefooted when the Police arrive. If that footprint is Raff's then it is incredibly damning. This had not struck me with such force before now. If it is his then I cannot see how they can possibly explain it. It is clear proof of a clean up. I can see why that journalist thought Curt had not realised the gravity of the proceedings in court now. I don't think I did quite. Or maybe it has just become more clear.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:07 am   Post subject: Hypothetical   

The 411 wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to comment about Amanda's Aunt Janet Huff's comments in last night's program. Huff attempted to to defend, (explain away) Amanda's incriminating original statement about being at the scene of the crime.

When Nancy Grace questioned HUFF about WHY Amanda told the police that she WAS present at the cottage when Meredith was killed, Huff simply repeated the same lame
"explanation" we've been hearing from the defense since....well, forever.

The statement about being at the cottage with her hands covering her ears, was simply a HYPOTHETICAL, says Huff and so says Amanda's father and all the FOA. Huff and FOA say it was just a "fantasy,"an exercise in imagination. As in, being creative...

Uh-huh...

OK, let's assume, for a moment THAT is exactly what happened, and that's why Amanda said what she did.

Now, even assuming that it happened just as the FOA say (i.e., the police ask her to "imagine" how it might have happened), there is something very revealing here that points (AGAIN!!!) to her lack of credibility.



Hi 411. Well, on this claim made by Amanda and J Huff on her behalf, that her statement accusing Patrick was the result of the police pressuring her to 'imagine' a 'hypothetical', I can tell you that it is complete pish. Or, to describe it more accurately without pulling any punches, it's an outright lie! I can say this, because I can PROVE it.

The first questioning session of Amanda began at 12 Midnight, an informal affair and this was ended at 01:45, at which point, Amanda's legal status was changed from being a 'witness', to a 'suspect'. This occured because on being shown the text message she had sent to Patrick, she broke down, began hitting and shaking her head, saying over and over 'It's him, it's him, he id it, he's bad, he's bad.' The interrogation was terminated at this point on the back of the above statement and 'no' story was given ellaboration on that statement at this point.

At some point shortly afterwards, Amanda requested to be heard again, but there was no lawyer available at that later hour. She insisted on being heard. As she was now a suspect, the is required to have a lawyer present. The only way any interrogation without a lawyer would be legal was if the interview occured in the presence of the Prosecutor. Although, that would mean that no statement she made could be used in court. Amanda, ot willing to wait until morning when a lawyer would be available, PM Mignini was dragged out of his bed, arrived at the police station and Amanda was heard for a second time in his presence, the interview commencing at 03:30 am (and halted at 05:45).

It was during the course of this second interview, in the presence of Mignini, that Amanda relayed the story FOR THE FIRST TIME of how she left Raffaele's on the evening of the 1st Nov, met Patrick Lumumba at the basketball court, went with him to the house and then he raped and murdered Meredith as Amanda cowered in the kitchen hearing banging and screams. It was in this session that Amanda explained how Patrick always 'wanted' Meredith and how Amanda was afraid of Patrick.

Now, we know NO suggestions to 'imagine' any 'hypothetical' were made in the first interview session, as Amanda gave no scenario then, the interview being halted as soon as she stated 'It's Patrick, he's bad, he did it.' Therefore, this could only have possiply taken place in the 'second' questioning session. Only it didn't, because PM Mignini was present and we know no such requests were made to 'imagine' a 'hypothetical'. How do we know this? Because of the transcripts and tape recordings released of Amanda's THIRD questioning session, this time by PM Mignini directly, in December 2007.

In excerpts from that December questioning session, we hear PM Mignini REPEATEDLY asking Amanda WHY she accused Patrick. What follows his questioning are several rambling responses from Amanda where she keeps repeating 'Because 'they' kept telling me to imagine X....they told me to think of what 'might' have happened....they kept on and on about Patrick to me'.

If this 'imagine' buisness happened in the second interview in the presence of Mignini, then WHY was Mignini repeatedly asking her why she accused Patrick, clearly not knowing the answer and also clearly having a hard time understanding the answer Amanda was giving?

If this 'imagine' buisness happened in the second interview, then WHY is Amanda not justifying her explanation with statements along the lines of 'Well, YOU know, YOU were there and YOU heard them, they were saying X and telling me to imagine Y!!'...'? Instead, she is explaining it to Mignini as though he was not present when this occured.

So, the answer to both the above questions is that none of this 'imagnine hypotheticals' stuff took place in the second interview during which Mignini was present!

Therefore, it is only possible that what Amanda is referrng to took place in the FIRST session when Mignini 'wasn't' present. But we know this isn't possible either, since the first session was halted as soon as Amanda named Patrick....she gave no hypothetical story in the first session! Moreover, say what Amanda is saying is true for a moment and that is what occurred in the first session. What then is the explanation for her giving a highly embellished and detailed narrative in the second session where Mignini was present and we know nobody was demanding hypotheticals from Amanda in that session, as clearly evidenced by the dialogue in the December (Third) interview???

In short, that whole story of 'hypertheticals' is bogus...or to be plain, a lie.

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:03 am   Post subject: Re: Hypothetical   

Michael wrote:
The 411 wrote:
I'd like to take a moment to comment about Amanda's Aunt Janet Huff's comments in last night's program. Huff attempted to to defend, (explain away) Amanda's incriminating original statement about being at the scene of the crime.

When Nancy Grace questioned HUFF about WHY Amanda told the police that she WAS present at the cottage when Meredith was killed, Huff simply repeated the same lame
"explanation" we've been hearing from the defense since....well, forever.

The statement about being at the cottage with her hands covering her ears, was simply a HYPOTHETICAL, says Huff and so says Amanda's father and all the FOA. Huff and FOA say it was just a "fantasy,"an exercise in imagination. As in, being creative...

Uh-huh...

OK, let's assume, for a moment THAT is exactly what happened, and that's why Amanda said what she did.

Now, even assuming that it happened just as the FOA say (i.e., the police ask her to "imagine" how it might have happened), there is something very revealing here that points (AGAIN!!!) to her lack of credibility.



Hi 411. Well, on this claim made by Amanda and J Huff on her behalf, that her statement accusing Patrick was the result of the police pressuring her to 'imagine' a 'hypothetical', I can tell you that it is complete pish. Or, to describe it more accurately without pulling any punches, it's an outright lie! I can say this, because I can PROVE it.

The first questioning session of Amanda began at 12 Midnight, an informal affair and this was ended at 01:45, at which point, Amanda's legal status was changed from being a 'witness', to a 'suspect'. This occured because on being shown the text message she had sent to Patrick, she broke down, began hitting and shaking her head, saying over and over 'It's him, it's him, he id it, he's bad, he's bad.' The interrogation was terminated at this point on the back of the above statement and 'no' story was given ellaboration on that statement at this point.

At some point shortly afterwards, Amanda requested to be heard again, but there was no lawyer available at that later hour. She insisted on being heard. As she was now a suspect, the is required to have a lawyer present. The only way any interrogation without a lawyer would be legal was if the interview occured in the presence of the Prosecutor. Although, that would mean that no statement she made could be used in court. Amanda, ot willing to wait until morning when a lawyer would be available, PM Mignini was dragged out of his bed, arrived at the police station and Amanda was heard for a second time in his presence, the interview commencing at 03:30 am (and halted at 05:45).

It was during the course of this second interview, in the presence of Mignini, that Amanda relayed the story FOR THE FIRST TIME of how she left Raffaele's on the evening of the 1st Nov, met Patrick Lumumba at the basketball court, went with him to the house and then he raped and murdered Meredith as Amanda cowered in the kitchen hearing banging and screams. It was in this session that Amanda explained how Patrick always 'wanted' Meredith and how Amanda was afraid of Patrick.

Now, we know NO suggestions to 'imagine' any 'hypothetical' were made in the first interview session, as Amanda gave no scenario then, the interview being halted as soon as she stated 'It's Patrick, he's bad, he did it.' Therefore, this could only have possiply taken place in the 'second' questioning session. Only it didn't, because PM Mignini was present and we know no such requests were made to 'imagine' a 'hypothetical'. How do we know this? Because of the transcripts and tape recordings released of Amanda's THIRD questioning session, this time by PM Mignini directly, in December 2007.

In excerpts from that December questioning session, we hear PM Mignini REPEATEDLY asking Amanda WHY she accused Patrick. What follows his questioning are several rambling responses from Amanda where she keeps repeating 'Because 'they' kept telling me to imagine X....they told me to think of what 'might' have happened....they kept on and on about Patrick to me'.

If this 'imagine' buisness happened in the second interview in the presence of Mignini, then WHY was Mignini repeatedly asking her why she accused Patrick, clearly not knowing the answer and also clearly having a hard time understanding the answer Amanda was giving?

If this 'imagine' buisness happened in the second interview, then WHY is Amanda not justifying her explanation with statements along the lines of 'Well, YOU know, YOU were there and YOU heard them, they were saying X and telling me to imagine Y!!'...'? Instead, she is explaining it to Mignini as though he was not present when this occured.

So, the answer to both the above questions is that none of this 'imagnine hypotheticals' stuff took place in the second interview during which Mignini was present!

Therefore, it is only possible that what Amanda is referrng to took place in the FIRST session when Mignini 'wasn't' present. But we know this isn't possible either, since the first session was halted as soon as Amanda named Patrick....she gave no hypothetical story in the first session! Moreover, say what Amanda is saying is true for a moment and that is what occurred in the first session. What then is the explanation for her giving a highly embellished and detailed narrative in the second session where Mignini was present and we know nobody was demanding hypotheticals from Amanda in that session, as clearly evidenced by the dialogue in the December (Third) interview???

In short, that whole story of 'hypertheticals' is bogus...or to be plain, a lie.




I'm following your logic here Michael, but why is Mignini questioning her 'WHY did you accuse Patrick?' if he was at the second interview and had heard her detailed story? Was it just to confirm it again?

I agree it does make sense that the 'imagine' stuff would have happened at the first session. I wonder if she was tricked into a half confession with this, if it happened. I can imagine a scenario of having huge stress about what you have done and needing some release. She is under pressure and disturbed by what happened and needed to release the pressure. The 'imagine' scenario would have allowed some release, but with the substitute of Patriick for Guede. Once she had experienced some relief from saying this she needed more and could not wait till the morning and needed to speak more but they would not let her. The pressure must have been unbearable. So her tongue runs away with her, but she is safe (she thinks) by substituting Patrick for Guede and making lots of circuitous comments and confusing ramblings. It feels like a safe way of releasing the pressure. I think at this point she is in a great deal of trouble psychologically, almost in breakdown.

I have seen people talk in this very strange way before and it is when they are trying to avoid talking about something incredibly painful and traumatic. It is almost textbook. In some ways Amanda cannot actually talk normally as her brain is not letting her. It is a protective mechanism. The brain knows that to speak of it will cause huge trauma psychologically, so it 'protects the organism' (the person) by not allowing the words to come out in a coherent way. It is most striking when you hear people talking like this. It is almost impossible to get them to 'talk straight'. The brain is not letting them. It is bizarre to witness, but I have seen it several times and it is 100% genuine. The mind creates a 'safe place' for itself - in Amanda's case it has created her belief that she did not do it. She cannot even approach the truth in her own mind.

Amanda has been through a huge trauma, I am absolutely sure of it.
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: Thu May 14, 2009 8:44 am   Post subject: Re: Hypothetical   

Michael wrote:

In excerpts from that December questioning session, we hear PM Mignini REPEATEDLY asking Amanda WHY she accused Patrick. What follows his questioning are several rambling responses from Amanda where she keeps repeating 'Because 'they' kept telling me to imagine X....they told me to think of what 'might' have happened....they kept on and on about Patrick to me'.


Besides the ever-present requirement to filter a '"they" kept telling me" comment and pin it down to
actual specifics (e.g., names, faces, etc) and exclude the possibility of fragmentary/fractured
thoughts/memories entering the picture and confusing it (e.g., the hitting of the head comes from where?
another personality, perhaps? a miswiring?),

how would you explain to a primary-school teacher and other non-linguistics experts what the subjunctive mood is?
say, for example, in a phrase like:

Dimmi, che fossero stati li'? (Tell me, who was there?)

Wikipedia says the subjunctive is used for "statements that are contrary to fact at present"
Quote:
...la cui funzione basilare è quella di indicare un evento non sicuro, non obiettivo o non rilevante: È possibile che sia così.
Italian Wikipedia
...the basic function of which is to flag an uncertain, subjective or unimportant event: It is possible that it were so.



This sounds like "imagine" to me, or at least one way of rendering the function of the verb mood into something easily understood, perhaps in 5th-grader terms.

It's not that Amanda was necessarily intentionally lying when she explained about being asked to imagine something, it's just that she's climbing the mountain from the "other" side.

This is all moot, though, until the fractured memory and head-hitting incidents are resolved.

(Slightly off topic: Once I saw a young lad, about 6-8 months ago, early twenties, really good suit, just finished work for the day: I thought he was talking on the phone, when he slaps his cheek, I presumed it was a mosquito or something, the phone conversation continues for a few more minutes, getting angrier and angrier with the other person, then he slaps his face with both hands really strongly, five or six times, in a reprimanding punitive way - he hadn't been on the phone at all! - that seemed to have worked, and he was able to walk off to catch his train or ferry home. My conclusion: that must have been a short-circuit, and, given the suit and the socio-economic bracket he seemed to be in, high likelihood of being chemically induced, rather than being born with it.)
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:45 am   Post subject:    

Michael, that logic is unassailable. You are certainly right. Pity we don't have transcripts of the second interview. Can one see the transcripts of the third one somewhere?

I think Mignini might have asked "WHY" in the third interview because it was already December, so by that time maybe Patrick had already been disculpated and released. Then it seems very natural that Mignini would want to know why Amanda had accused him in the first place.

I haven't read the transcripts of the third interview, but you'd think Mignini would ask: "When did they tell you to imagine it? Who told you to? What exactly did they tell you to do? Why didn't you tell me this in the second interview?"
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:22 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
Dimmi, che fossero stati li'?


This sentence has no meaning in Italian.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:31 am   Post subject:    

Catnip,

the language issue is interesting to explain what could have happened in a misunderstood interrogation leading to the accuration of Patrik.

The use of verbal forms could possibly lead to confusion. But you have to think some other line of sentences.

However, there is another problems. The written memorial. Ther she writes in English, and appears to reckon her statement as reality, not envisioned material, she defines the fact as "seeming more unreal to me", thus indicating they are in regardi to a "reality" ground she examines.
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: Thu May 14, 2009 11:43 am   Post subject:    

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Dimmi, che fossero stati li'?


This sentence has no meaning in Italian.

Yummi,
Yes, that's right -
It should be marked with an asterisk in Italian:
*Dimmi, che fossero stati li'?
(* = does not exist as a valid construction in the source language).
I was thinking actually of thought-processes in Italianified English, though.
Sorry to confuse.

Do you know: What are the more common verb-learning mistakes and errors going into Level1 Italian by US-English speakers?

Or is getting Amanda on the side of truth a lost cause?
E.g.,
Q: Could a sia X sia Y construction be interpreted as "imagine X"?
A: No way.
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: Thu May 14, 2009 11:58 am   Post subject:    

Yummi wrote:
However, there is another problems. The written memorial. ...


Everything, the memoriale, the diaries, letters, declarations, etc
all have the air of post-hoc (re)constructions about them
(at best, a particular way of trying to make sense of something;
at worst, giving the perception of lying, according to the everyday meaning of the word).

It seems to me any original memory may be lost (or locked up tightly,
as suggested up above). Oh, well - there's nothing I can do about that.

Perhaps it is a riddle: when is a liar not lying?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 1:17 pm   Post subject: Imagine   

The Bard wrote:
I'm following your logic here Michael, but why is Mignini questioning her 'WHY did you accuse Patrick?' if he was at the second interview and had heard her detailed story? Was it just to confirm it again?



It wasn't 'to' confirm Bard. This was December and everybody, including Mignini, knows Patrick is innocent. Mignini is not asking her to confirm here, he's asking her essentially why the hell she accused an innocent man in the first place and why she came out with such a story. It's clear from his line of questioning and the way Amanda is answering him that he doesn't know the answer. He's trying to get the answer and understand it, not confirm something he already knows.


Quote:
I agree it does make sense that the 'imagine' stuff would have happened at the first session.



Well, it certainly didn't happen in the second session. But Bard, it didn't happen in the first session either. It it had happened in the first session, in order to justify Amanda's claim about being asked to 'imagine a hypothetical', we would expect to see Amanda's story about going to the cottage with Patrick emerge in THAT first session, where the supposed requests to imagine were being made, but it didn't. There was no 'story' given in that session, Amanda simply mentioned Patrick's name in the context of 'he did it' and at that point the session was halted. The 'story' of going to the cottage with Patrick did not emerge until the second session, where we have established, 'nobody' was demanding she 'imagine' or 'hypothesise' anything.

In other words, this supposed pressure to 'imagine a hypothetical' stuff didn't happen in either sesision, it never happened at all.

But if that's not enough anyway, her written two page 'memoir' makes no mention of her only saying what she said because she was being asked to 'imagine a hypothetical' or any paraphrase to that extent. As Yummi says above, she refers to the content of what she'd said that night in a manner that clearly suggests she was not making up an imaginary scenario 'It seems like a dream to me now', in other words...'it wasn't a dream to me THEN', or in other words, it 'wasn't imaginary THEN, I was telling something REAL'.

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 1:31 pm   Post subject: Statement to Micheli   

Here is Amanda's spontaneous statement to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial attempting to explain why she accused Patrick. However, this statement referes to the FIRST questioning session that night which we know was halted as soon as she mentioned 'Patrick did it'. She mentions no 'imagine' or 'hypotheticals' here, but neither did she give any in that session anyway. So, what is the explanation for the story she gave in the SECOND session when Mignini was present?:


Amanda Knox wrote:
Amanda Knox:

I want to-- reiterate my position, for all of this case, and also to clarify-- the confusion that I-- have brought to this case.


Okay. I want to clarify what it is that happened to me in-- the-- in the Questore -- the day that-- the day that I made declarations that didn't make sense, that changed.

After-- the discovery of Meredith, I had spent days in-- cooperating with the police, to try to just give as much information as I could.

The day of the fifth, I wasn't called to the Questore. Raffaele was called, but I decided to go with him, to keep him company, but also because I was scared to be alone.

When I was there, I had just planned to wait, but the police came into their waiting room and wanted to talk to me more about what I knew, people that I knew who had come to my house. I gave them phone numbers and--

After that, they moved me into another room and started asking me the same questions, what I had done that night, asking me-- for times, exact time periods, exactly what I did. And was-- it was difficult for me because it was in the middle of the night that I-- we had been called. I was very tired. And I was also quite stressed out. And I-- so I--


They kept asking me the same questions, time periods-- exactly sequences of actions and I did my best, to give the same information over and over and over again.

At a certain point-- excuse me. At a certain point, the-- they began-- the police began to be more aggressive with me.

They called me a liar and--

They told me that I was-- of all the things that I had kept saying, over and over again, they said that I was lying. They said that--

They threatened that I was going to go in prison for 30 years because I was hiding something. But I-- but I felt-- I felt completely stressed out, blocked, because I wasn't lying. I didn't know what I-- I didn't know what to do.

Then they started pushing on me the idea that I must have seen something, and forgotten about it. They said that I was traumatized.

I didn't understand. I became really confused. I tried to-- re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work. At that point, they-- I gave them my phone so they could see that I didn't have to-- I received-- okay-- okay--

See - because I received an SMS, and for that reason, they kept repeating to me that I was lying about - SMS. I was confused.

So, what ended up happening was the fact that I had been pressured so much, and I was-- I was hit in the back of the head by one of the police officers and--

Who said she was trying to make me-- help me remember the truth.

I was terrified, because I didn't know-- I-- I didn't know what to do anymore.

And so what ended up happening was they said they-- they went-- take me to jail, and I'm - and because of all this SMS, because-- because of all this confusion, they kept saying, "You sent this thing to Patrick. We know that you left the house. We know." I just said his name. It wasn't because I was trying to say anything. I just said it because they were…

After that - at a certain point, I asked if I should have had a lawyer. And they said that it would have been worse for me.

So they asked me to make declarations about what I remembered, but I told that I didn't remember anything like this.

Because I was confused. What I remembered was different from what they were asking me to say.

They asked me for details, and I didn't have details to give them, so they just asked me questions that I just responded as -

From - I was stressed, so what I - what, in that moment that I was trying to think of something else - my memories of just random events, of seeing Patrick, for instance, one night, or…

I wrote these memorials that everyone's putting so much pressure on - only because I wanted to express the fact that I was confused. I felt like no one was listening to me anymore, and so I wrote these to express the fact that I didn't - I - I didn't - I wasn't for sure about anything anymore.

I want to stress the fact that I'm innocent. Meredith was my friend, and I could never have hurt her. I'm not the person that the prosecutor says I am.

And that's all I want to say. Thank you.



KNOX STATEMENT TO THE COURT IN PRE-TRIAL, JUDGE MICHELI PRESIDING, OCT 18, 2008

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 2:17 pm   Post subject: December Interview   

thoughtful wrote:
Michael, that logic is unassailable. You are certainly right. Pity we don't have transcripts of the second interview. Can one see the transcripts of the third one somewhere?

I think Mignini might have asked "WHY" in the third interview because it was already December, so by that time maybe Patrick had already been disculpated and released. Then it seems very natural that Mignini would want to know why Amanda had accused him in the first place.

I haven't read the transcripts of the third interview, but you'd think Mignini would ask: "When did they tell you to imagine it? Who told you to? What exactly did they tell you to do? Why didn't you tell me this in the second interview?"



Hi Thoughtful, I'm trying to track those down for you. I thought I had them uploaded to the board, but I don't...oops. Here is part of the December interview with Amanda by Mignini anyway, on this PORTA A PORTA VIDEO at about 53:43 in. I'll try and find the other stuff for you (but if anyone else can lay their hands on it quickly, that'd be of great help).

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 2:28 pm   Post subject:    

Amanda Knox wrote:
I tried to-- re-express, re-explain what I had done-- the fact that I didn't have to go to work.


Reading over this again, that sentence jumps out at me (in the light of what we heard earlier during the current trial).

What Amanda is saying here is that the police have told her that Raffaele no longer supports her alibi that she stayed in the house with him. And we know from his own witness statement that he said that she went out to work at Le Chic earlier in the evening, while he stayed home alone.

And we know from police testimony that this is indeed what happened in the interrogations, some time after midnight - that they told Amanda that Raffaele said she left the house on the night of the murder.

It's a point that she returns to in her written memoriale, a few hours later: "I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly."

So what she's telling us is that she shows them her cellphone message because it backs up her story that she didn't have to go to work that night. The SMS contradicts what Raffaele has told them. (And there also seems to be an element of veiled threat to Raffaele when she reflects on this later: "What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide?")

But when she shows them the text message - and God preserve us from another discussion of its contents - it doesn't actually close the door off to her having gone out. So the police pick up on this idea that she may have gone to meet Patrick, and they ask her about that.

There are many things we can say about all that, and about what happens next. But it's worth noting that, according to Amanda, the line of questioning that the police were following at the time was: "Why did you tell us you were with Raffaele all night? He says that you went out to work."
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:39 pm   Post subject: Soundtrack   

Corrina wrote:
nowo wrote:
Hi Corrina.

Corrina said "The mention of Asics brand sneakers seems to hint at something to come. While none may have been found and that has been testified to, it seems nothing is brought up for no reason in this case."

Just as the crime scene video was 'restored' just in time for court, I was wondering if by miraculous means some hard drive material (maybe AK's photo stash) would be making an appearance. After all the FOA were bemoaning the loss of all those shots proving AK and MK were the best of mates, so (if they are to be believed) a few of them must have been taken in Perugia. Thing is, I don't recall the Italian flatmates being asked about it.....then again, if they had photos no need to ask...
Speculation, of course!


Hello Nowo,

Casting my memory back, didn't Raffaele mention that when Amanda returned from her home that she was wearing her hiking boots? It must have been one of the few things he remembered from smoking the chronic, like how cute it was Meredith was wearing her boyfriend's jeans. As you say, it's speculation, of course!

OFF TOPIC

Hey, Skep, but it's so hard seeing through the veil! The first 5 stings to the face were alright, but after the one to the eye, I started to make do with the veil. The gloves, however, are off. Too hard to grab hold of the frames. The guard bees are mostly all bluff, but those little girls pack a wallop when they connect!

Beer? Morning Noon and Night? No wonder you weigh 345 pounds... :roll: That's why I stick to the vino! Oh and the Mother Nature. At least, I think I do or that's the best truth I can remember! co-((



Hi Corrina, great to see you :)

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the bees...they seem to be enjoying you. But, careful of those stingers.

I saw this and I thought of you, of how annoyed you'd be when you heard what soundtrack they used for this AMANDA KNOX : what if she's innocent? video :(

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

[quote="Michael"]Here is Amanda's spontaneous statement to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial attempting to explain why she accused Patrick. However, this statement referes to the FIRST questioning session that night which we know was halted as soon as she mentioned 'Patrick did it'. She mentions no 'imagine' or 'hypotheticals' here, but neither did she give any in that session anyway. So, what is the explanation for the story she gave in the SECOND session when Mignini was present?:


Right. Am with you now. Thanks for clarifying.

Where did the whole line about her being 'asked to imagine' things come from then? Is it PR again?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:43 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
Here is Amanda's spontaneous statement to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial attempting to explain why she accused Patrick. However, this statement referes to the FIRST questioning session that night which we know was halted as soon as she mentioned 'Patrick did it'. She mentions no 'imagine' or 'hypotheticals' here, but neither did she give any in that session anyway. So, what is the explanation for the story she gave in the SECOND session when Mignini was present?:


Not only does she not state that she was asked to "imagine" what happened, she fails to mention that a cop asked her to do cartwheels in the waiting room. This may be a minor, minor point, but much was made of that recent revelation, so you would think it was noteworthy. And it is an unusual and noteworthy event. Perhaps this cop was trying to "get her in the mood" for the questioning and role play session.

_________________
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: Thu May 14, 2009 2:45 pm   Post subject:    

Finn wrote:

Quote:
There are many things we can say about all that, and about what happens next. But it's worth noting that, according to Amanda, the line of questioning that the police were following at the time was: "Why did you tell us you were with Raffaele all night? He says that you went out to work."


If I remember correctly, Raffaele actually stated to police that Amanda went out to meet friends at Le Chic and he stayed home. He said she was gone between around 9 pm and 1 am.

_________________
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: Thu May 14, 2009 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

Michael wrote:
Here is Amanda's spontaneous statement to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial attempting to explain why she accused Patrick.


This just shows how frustrating it must have been for the police to question her. She rambles on and on, doesn’t finish sentences and is unable to express herself clearly. I don’t know whether they actually told her to “imagine” anything and I don’t really understand why you place so much emphasis on it, but I can very well imagine how fed up they must have been having to question somebody like Amanda and not getting proper answers. They must have tried anything to stop her rambling. And when she finally mentioned Patrick they stopped questioning her immediately. Of course, they had enough!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject:    

Michael, the video does not seem to be on that link. Is it just me or has it been deleted?

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:08 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
Here is Amanda's spontaneous statement to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial attempting to explain why she accused Patrick.


This just shows how frustrating it must have been for the police to question her. She rambles on and on, doesn’t finish sentences and is unable to express herself clearly. I don’t know whether they actually told her to “imagine” anything and I don’t really understand why you place so much emphasis on it, but I can very well imagine how fed up they must have been having to question somebody like Amanda and not getting proper answers. They must have tried anything to stop her rambling. And when she finally mentioned Patrick they stopped questioning her immediately. Of course, they had enough!



Well Lancelotti, they didn't stop questioning her because 'they'd had enough', even though they probably had :) They stopped because as soon as she said Patrick's name in the context of some direct knowledge she had of his guilt of the murder, she ceased to be a 'wtness' and automatically became a 'suspect'. It therefore wasn't a case of the police simply wanting to end the session, they were obliged to. Otherwise, they would have continued to question what was then a 'suspect' in neither the presence of a lawyer, or of the prosecutor and that just isn't allowed. It would have also meant that that statement would have then not only have not been allowed to be used against Amanda (as it never was, as a her status was as 'witness' at that point and statements by a 'witness' cannot be used against the self), but it also then could not have been used against others (Patrick). However, as we know, the court ruled that statement 'could' be used against Patrick, which therefore means the police stopped the session as soon as Amanda made herself a 'suspect', so they therefore were not in breech of any rules.

I place emphasis on the supposed 'being told to imagine' because that is what Amanda's family, friends and supporters are very publicly and repeatedly putting so much emphasis on. The purpose of my posts was to debunk that 'defence', or better labelled, that 'excuse'.

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 3:13 pm   Post subject:    

The Bard wrote:
Michael, the video does not seem to be on that link. Is it just me or has it been deleted?



It's no longer there? Aah. We've lost that one then. Unfortunately, these media people, annoyingly, don't leave the stuff they put up forever and take it down after a while. Sorry about that :(

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:27 pm   Post subject:    

Maaaaan...just watched this video though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujzpVa3hMmM

This is the Nancy Grace woman you were all talking about? O M D Lord. She just stated on National television a) Amanda Knox's fingerprint was found in the victim's blood in the bathroom b) 'This is Italy - they don't even work every day!!!'

She seems to think Knox highly guilty though...

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:48 pm   Post subject:    

Amanda says in court: "I want to stress the fact that I'm innocent. Meredith was my friend, and I could never have hurt her. I'm not the person that the prosecutor says I am."

I don't know about you, but if I were being accused of a murder I didn't commit, I wouldn't say "I could never have hurt her." I'd say, "Please please please believe me. I absolutely, unequivocally, and without any shred of doubt DID NOT KILL MEREDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

Michael wrote:
I place emphasis on the supposed 'being told to imagine' because that is what Amanda's family, friends and supporters are very publicly and repeatedly putting so much emphasis on. The purpose of my posts was to debunk that 'defence', or better labelled, that 'excuse'


It does sound a bit silly. I wouldn't rule it out though. As I said, the police must have had enough at one point and I am sure they tried their very best to get a proper answer out of her.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 3:52 pm   Post subject:    

The Bard wrote:
Maaaaan...just watched this video though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujzpVa3hMmM

This is the Nancy Grace woman you were all talking about? O M D Lord. She just stated on National television a) Amanda Knox's fingerprint was found in the victim's blood in the bathroom b) 'This is Italy - they don't even work every day!!!'

She seems to think Knox highly guilty though...


I watched that video recently, too, and I was upset about the misinformation. If NG could just get all the proper facts, she would probably cause "lightbulbs" to go off in the heads of a lot of people in the U.S. who think Amanda is being railroaded. It seems that when NG believes in a suspect's guilt she's like a bulldog in hammering it home (I'm thinking of the Casey Anthony case).
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Here is Amanda's spontaneous statement to Judge Micheli in the pre-trial attempting to explain why she accused Patrick. However, this statement referes to the FIRST questioning session that night which we know was halted as soon as she mentioned 'Patrick did it'. She mentions no 'imagine' or 'hypotheticals' here, but neither did she give any in that session anyway. So, what is the explanation for the story she gave in the SECOND session when Mignini was present?:


Right. Am with you now. Thanks for clarifying.

Where did the whole line about her being 'asked to imagine' things come from then? Is it PR again?


I don't remember where I read it, but I'm almost positive I read about a real-life situation in which a person accused of murder gave a "confession" after the police asked him to "imagine" what might have happened at the time of the murder. The accused was later found to be innocent. I wouldn't be surprised if the FOA group knew about that case and decided to float the "asked to imagine" scenario as a way of explaining Amanda's statements. But this would only make sense if they knew transcripts were not going to be available of at least one of the interrogations. Because if they *knew* that the "imagine" questioning did not occur and that tapes were available to prove it, I doubt they'd outright lie about it. BUT - if tapes of one or more sessions were never going to become available, then they'd feel free to say that it happened. I wonder if all the interrogations were taped.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:15 pm   Post subject:    

Speaking of "lightbulb" moments, was there any piece of information in this case that kind of "broke the camel's back" for you? Information that caused you to once and for all believe that Amanda is, in all likelihood, guilty? I think for me it was reading that "two-page note" that Amanda wrote in prison. It is so utterly nonsensical and evasive. I just can't imagine an innocent person penning that note.

Maybe this is a silly question (because it's all the information viewed together that is important) and I won't get any responses (and that's totally fine), but I was just curious if anyone else had a "lightbulb"-type of moment.
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:36 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Truth Seeker,

My first (and not last) inkling that Knox and Sollecito were the murderers is when their alibis started conflicting, immediately. They lied. Over and over and over and over again.
Top Profile 

Offline kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:39 pm   Post subject: Guilty   

Look, anyone who thinks these two trolls are innocent is blind. Or a fool. Plus, I believe this was planned. I thought I read somewhere that the police found R.S. with a mop when they arrived? is that true? Also, it is just laughable that Amanda took a shower while Meredith was dead in the bedroom. I guess my biggest frustration was why no one who heard the sceams called the police? Also, these killers seemed to have been very lucky with the multiple times they seemed to have come across someone and not been caught: the taxi driver, the store owner, the woman who heard them run away from the scene. It is amazing that it took the police that long to get there, and it gave them a lot of time to clean up. Also, How the heck did they know about cleaning up with clorox like they did? I bet Raffy cleaned up there regularly, right? How many 20 year old guys do you know who mop up their girlfriends apartment for fun? They must have done some research. Solecito and Knox will get their's some day. God forbid for Solecito if he goes to jail for 30 years. daddy won't be there, but some one else in jail will be that punk's daddy. Just looking at him makes me feel too bad Meredith did not just have to fight him off, she would have had no problem. What a sissy he is. Spoiled rich kid. Too bad he can't go to jail in the states in the South. But, for those who think they are innocent, the earth must be flat, right? Or maybe we all imagined the earth is flat, along with Patrick, LOL. What a joke this is. Poor Meredith, She must have been like this can't possibly be happening. I hope these Killers rot in hell. Sorry I am writing this way, I also have disdain for anyone who argues with such certainty their innocence. It's obvious they are guilty. Or, the real killers are in Mexico with those drug dealers who killed O.j.'s wife? LOL.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 4:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
I place emphasis on the supposed 'being told to imagine' because that is what Amanda's family, friends and supporters are very publicly and repeatedly putting so much emphasis on. The purpose of my posts was to debunk that 'defence', or better labelled, that 'excuse'


It does sound a bit silly. I wouldn't rule it out though. As I said, the police must have had enough at one point and I am sure they tried their very best to get a proper answer out of her.



Yes, but don't miss the point. Even if we didn't 'rule it out' and gave Amanda the benefit of the doubt on that (and that would require a 'massive' leap of faith, since it would mean our accepting that the police and interpreters were 'all' lying on the stand in court under oath about that first session), it doesn't matter a damn what they may have said to her in the first session. That's because we did not get the expanded story of her going to the cottage with Patrick until the second questioning session, a completely seperate session, when Mignini was present and nobody was asking her to provide 'hypotheticals'. It was the statement made in that second session that led to Patrick's arrest and was one of the primary reasons for Judge Matteini confirming her arrest and detention two days later. That 'excuse' can only be applied to the first session not the second., which is where she gave all the important information, details and confirmed her direct accusation of Patrick.

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


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

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
I place emphasis on the supposed 'being told to imagine' because that is what Amanda's family, friends and supporters are very publicly and repeatedly putting so much emphasis on. The purpose of my posts was to debunk that 'defence', or better labelled, that 'excuse'


It does sound a bit silly. I wouldn't rule it out though. As I said, the police must have had enough at one point and I am sure they tried their very best to get a proper answer out of her.



Yes, but don't miss the point. Even if we didn't 'rule it out' and gave Amanda the benefit of the doubt on that (and that would require a 'massive' leap of faith, since it would mean our accepting that the police and interpreters were 'all' lying on the stand in court under oath about that first session), it doesn't matter a damn what they may have said to her in the first session. That's because we did not get the expanded story of her going to the cottage with Patrick until the second questioning session, a completely seperate session, when Mignini was present and nobody was asking her to provide 'hypotheticals'. It was the statement made in that second session that led to Patrick's arrest and was one of the primary reasons for Judge Matteini confirming her arrest and detention two days later. That 'excuse' can only be applied to the first session not the second., which is where she gave all the important information, details and confirmed her direct accusation of Patrick.



Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute Michael, and out of interest, have you read any of the material from the Innocence Project? I think that is what it is called. It's an organisation concerned with those who make 'false confessions'. There is a legitimate psychology there. It is widely recognised and has led to many wrongful imprisonments. I am not saying that this applies in Amanda's case, but I was frankly astonished at the cases I read on their site. I would be interested to hear your views on the materials on that site, with Ms Knox's statement in mind.

Just if you find yourself with any spare time!!! :D
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:10 pm   Post subject: Frank   

This from Frank:


Frank Sfarzo wrote:
frank said...
This forum is for discussing the articles, the case. I say no personal attacks, no swearing no posting private stuff and people agree. Many people just read, other people comment, agree, criticize in the right way, post their ideas, their researches.The rudeness, the libel comes just from one family.
As soon as Walt has five minutes he's the one who starts, and one or two people from his group follow him on the rudeness.
People have figured out, it seems, they don't need to know the IP address:


Anonymous said...

Oh. Shame. Walter Cougan is back with his wifey Margaret Gangong. They're so thick. Everything goes downhill when they appear. I wonder if they realize that sock puppets are really gross and actually quite cowardly. But perhaps dirty socks remind them of their wonderful White Center childhoods.

Nothing wrong with that

May 13, 2009 3:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You've got f*****g nerve, man, coming over here and criticizing Frank. He lives in Italy, man. He could get into so much trouble for the things he writes. But no the important thing is what kind of shoes he wears. That is pure Peg.

May 13, 2009 11:44 PM

That's what happens when you have the bad idea to respond to an email from that woman. First she and her friends will please you, then, when they realize you are not like them, she, her husband and 1 or 2 other time-wasters will try to discredit you for the rest of their life. And why? Because you are guilty of not attacking a girl who is already attacked by the state, you are guilty of not satisfying their hate for young free people.
Watch out Andrea, it may happen to you next. Make sure you never disappoint them now...

Actually I never believed their compliments. A critic criticizes the power, the government, the mayor, the prosecutor, not those who are attacked by the power. And his value is even bigger if that power is his own government, his own mayor, his own prosecutor.
Between the power and accused young people I stand for the accused young people. But with reasons, not because I was their friend or I was coming from their own town or stuff like that.
When I had reasons I started to criticize, when I didn't have data I had just to wait for them. In that phase the stupid people thought I was like them, I was a shooter, a punisher, a fascist, a moralist who attacks suspects before there's a proof against them, who criticize them for their free customs or stuff like that.

I would be disgusted if those people were approving me. I'm very happy to be different from those people, very happy to be libeled from them. Actually they brought so much luck to the others they attacked so go ahead, do the same advertising service to me too.

May 14, 2009 9:25 AM



PERUGIA SHOCK


I'm speechless. You won't hear that from me very often at all.

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

The Bard wrote:
Michael wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Michael wrote:
I place emphasis on the supposed 'being told to imagine' because that is what Amanda's family, friends and supporters are very publicly and repeatedly putting so much emphasis on. The purpose of my posts was to debunk that 'defence', or better labelled, that 'excuse'


It does sound a bit silly. I wouldn't rule it out though. As I said, the police must have had enough at one point and I am sure they tried their very best to get a proper answer out of her.



Yes, but don't miss the point. Even if we didn't 'rule it out' and gave Amanda the benefit of the doubt on that (and that would require a 'massive' leap of faith, since it would mean our accepting that the police and interpreters were 'all' lying on the stand in court under oath about that first session), it doesn't matter a damn what they may have said to her in the first session. That's because we did not get the expanded story of her going to the cottage with Patrick until the second questioning session, a completely seperate session, when Mignini was present and nobody was asking her to provide 'hypotheticals'. It was the statement made in that second session that led to Patrick's arrest and was one of the primary reasons for Judge Matteini confirming her arrest and detention two days later. That 'excuse' can only be applied to the first session not the second., which is where she gave all the important information, details and confirmed her direct accusation of Patrick.



Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute Michael, and out of interest, have you read any of the material from the Innocence Project? I think that is what it is called. It's an organisation concerned with those who make 'false confessions'. There is a legitimate psychology there. It is widely recognised and has led to many wrongful imprisonments. I am not saying that this applies in Amanda's case, but I was frankly astonished at the cases I read on their site. I would be interested to hear your views on the materials on that site, with Ms Knox's statement in mind.

Just if you find yourself with any spare time!!! :D



One could hardly not have looked Bard, since the Knox Camp have been thrusting the Innocence Project in our faces for over a year now. It wasn't, aside from confessing to have been there at the cottage, a 'false confession' in any case, it was a 'false accusation'. Besides, A claim like that 'might' be able to be made if those accusations were not all that was against Amanda, which is far from being the case. And anyway, those statements, aside from the memoir, do not form any part of the evidence against Amanda in her murder trial, that is all on 'other' evidence. The only area the 'false accusation' comes into play is the slander charge and Patrick's suit. And of course, the court of public opinion.

_________________
"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 Thu May 14, 2009 5:24 pm, 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: Thu May 14, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Do you know: What are the more common verb-learning mistakes and errors going into Level1 Italian by US-English speakers?

Or is getting Amanda on the side of truth a lost cause?
E.g.,
Q: Could a "sia X sia Y" construction be interpreted as "imagine X"?
A: No way.


The use of the Italian congiuntivo (subjunctive mode) goes beyond the knowledge of a level1 learner. Only Spanish, Portuguese and French speakers have already the usage of Latin to get it (but not in all contexts, cause there are slight differences in subjunctive rules among latin speeches, also between Italian regional variants).

One of the problem of english speakers towards languages like Italian and German, I observed, regards also the whole speech structure. English is almost completely a coordinated language. Sentences are following in a line, and speech - also "reasoning" in a certain meaning - tends to be "straight to the point". While the formal or written German and Italian (just like Latin), the case of a newspaper article for ex., is always a hierarchical, subordinate-structured speech.
In the Italian (also latin and German mind) a load less important exceptions come *before*, where an English would place the principal thought, while the *main* most important part of the speech is always to be find in a small part that foolws. The Latin speech is not straight in a line, but structured in several premises opened and followed at the seme time, and then the main line is allowed only after. English find irritating to detect this prosodic structure, probably just like thy find irritating an Italian full trial.

"sia ... sia" means "both... and".

The subjunctive "che sia" ("is") can be used to introduce a sentence depending from another verb, like in some kind of reported speech "I think it is late" = "penso che sia tardi", but in other kind of reported speech is not used.

Yes Latin subjunctive is not "accepted" - I mean, its existence not undestood - by English speakers. But Italian has also a second indirect mode, the conditional mode (easier) to be used for example, where the English use the word "allegedly" (this word does not exist in Italian, the phrase is simply put into the conditional mode).

One other main mistake for English speakers is the use of tenses, especially the imperfective past (the indicative mode alone in Italian has five different past tenses). Then, another source of problems is the pronon system: in italian there are 28 direct/indirect simple pronouns, among them partitive pronouns. This system is difficult for speakers of languages that almost don't use pronouns like English. Italian has also 8 definite articles to be concordated with nouns (where English has only "the").

I don't think, anyway, that it is possible to interpret "imagine this" , but probably also a mistake is unlikely by a level 1 learner, who does not even know enough about secondary verbal modes and their structure.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Truth Seeker,

My "lightbulb moment" was when Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both claimed they couldn't remember most of what happened on the night of the murder because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia. As soon as I read that they were claiming they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia, I knew that they both involved in Meredith's murder.

All the other information that emerged subsequently has confirmed my belief that they were involved in Meredith's murder:

The conflicting and contradictory witness statements.

The multiple alibis and repeated lies.

Knox's own lawyer telling her to stop lying.

Numerous witnesses: the postal police, officers from the Perugia Flying Squad, the Murder Squad, the Narcotics Squad, the interpreters, Meredith's English friends and the Italian housemates flatly contradicting Knox's claims.

Knox's and Sollecito's bizarre and highly inappropriate behaviour in the days after Meredith's murder.

Knox's numerous shaking fits and and hitting herself on the head at the police station.

Knox admitting she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

The double DNA knife.

Knoxs and Sollecito's mobile phone activity that night was very unusual with their mobile phones suspiciously silent just at the wrong time.

The three sets of different sized bloody footprints at the crime scene.

Sollecito's DNA on a small piece of Meredith's underwear.

Three instances of Amanda Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom at the cottage.

Knox's lamp lying on the floor in Meredith's room.

Sollecito’s pipes under the kitchen sink mysteriously breaking on the night of the murder, which necessitated Amanda Knox taking the bucket and mop from the cottage to Sollecito’s apartment on 2 November.

Judge Paolo Micheli saying that Knox and Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith's body and the murder.

The fact that Meredith's bra was removed some time after she had been killed.

The clean up of the crime scene.

The staging of the break in with shards of glass on top of Filomena's clothes and the inside of the shutters damaged by the rock.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu May 14, 2009 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: Statement to Micheli   

The Bard wrote:
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a minute Michael, and out of interest, have you read any of the material from the Innocence Project? I think that is what it is called. It's an organisation concerned with those who make 'false confessions'. There is a legitimate psychology there. It is widely recognised and has led to many wrongful imprisonments. I am not saying that this applies in Amanda's case, but I was frankly astonished at the cases I read on their site. I would be interested to hear your views on the materials on that site, with Ms Knox's statement in mind.

Just if you find yourself with any spare time!!! :D


Hi Bard,

You should read the testimony of the six witnesses, three police officers and three interpreters, who swore under oath at the trial that Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Incidentally, Amanda Knox didn't make a false confession. She made a false and malicious accusation. I don't see any connection between this case and the cases from the Innocence Project.


Last edited by The Machine on Thu May 14, 2009 5:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:33 pm   Post subject: Frank   

Oh, Frank isn't done yet:


Frank Sfarzo wrote:
frank said...
It's one family dear Frank Zappa, don't worry.
Wife and husband plus their friends. Always online 24 hours a day. They are obsessed with this case, their mission is the punishment of the youth, they scan the web for articles about the case. When they find one even in the smaller local sector of a local newspaper they post their urls convinced that they are doing some masterpieces. When they see an article which in some way they think accuses the accused they will start their pleasing work: 'Thank you for this well written and well reasoned article, keep up the great work'... Etc.
I was totally indifferent when they were doing like this with me and when I had to say the truth I said the truth, I didn't care that their compliments would turn into insults.
And if some journalists now relies on their fake compliments... I'm sorry for them...
Better having no compliments, no comments and only insults then having compliments from people who are worth zero.

May 14, 2009 10:03 AM



PERUGIA SHOCK


Unbelievable.

_________________
"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 Thu May 14, 2009 5:36 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: Thu May 14, 2009 5:36 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
I'm speechless. You won't hear that from me very often at all.


I had last looked at Frank's blog last night at around 6 pm (Seattle time), and sensed that things were starting to heat up. When I went to bed at 11 pm, I had another look and saw that there were tons of comments about me and my husband. Between 6 pm and 11 pm, we watched the end of a baseball game, did our workouts, cooked and enjoyed a nice dinner. My husband has no computer at home, by the way.

I noticed this morning at 7 am (Seattle time) that some comments had been removed, and then spent the next two hours in conversation with a client in Europe. My husband has been in a meeting all morning. Neither of us has been posting anything, anywhere. However, I am not surprised by Frank's comment. He must have seen Pete's post about his blog. I don't think making false accusations such as these is the best way to retaliate or gain credibility, but Frank tends to shoot from the hip. He seems to allude to past "friendly" contact with my husband. They have never had any contact whatsoever.

I don't like the way Frank blames his anonymous commenters (and implies that he "knows" who some of them are) rather than facing up to the fact that there would be no problem if he moderated his comments actively and even-handedly or disabled comments altogether.

As it stands, anyone can make libelous statements on Frank's blog. My husband and Chris Mellas shared a beer. A Bridgeport beer. The type of beer they shared was anonymously reported on Frank's blog, but the poster forgot to say they both had one. Quickly, this resulted in several posts claiming that my husband is an alcoholic. This is false and could be libelous depending on the consequences for my husband. Did my husband make this post? I seriously doubt it, but he certainly could have SINCE ANYONE CAN MAKE ANY COMMENT THEY LIKE ON FRANK'S UNMODERATED BLOG.

I find this post of Frank's very sad. I am naive enough to believe that people prefer truth to lies.

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

Offline Corrina


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:20 pm

Posts: 625

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 5:39 pm   Post subject: Re: Soundtrack   

Hi Corrina, great to see you :)

I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the bees...they seem to be enjoying you. But, careful of those stingers.

I saw this and I thought of you, of how annoyed you'd be when you heard what soundtrack they used for this AMANDA KNOX : what if she's innocent? video :(
[/quote]


Hi yourself, Michael...I have to say that's the first time I ever willingly turned Nick Drake off. In an effort to try and see a positive, at least somebody has good taste in music? :shock:


Hello Truth Seeker,

I had a *gut reaction* light bulb moment early on but the email Amanda sent to her friends and family was more like a flashing marquee. I don't know what she did or did not do, but that really clinched it for me that somebody is hiding something. I printed out that email and showed it to a friend of mine who knows nothing about the case at all and happens to have studied criminal law. She kept asking me who it was from, where I got it and I just said please read it and tell me what you think. She has two little girls so it took her forever to get to it and I had plumb forgotten I even gave it to her when she calls me out of the blue. She said, that email you gave me, from Amanda Knox? She said either she and the guy downstairs did it together and she's trying to put it all on him or she knows who did it and is trying to cover for them. She's involved. Of course, this is all speculation, but there's some of my :idea: (light bulbs)
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:00 pm   Post subject:    

'this resulted in several posts claiming that my husband is an alcoholic.'


That is disgusting.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject:    

SB wrote:

Quote:
This resulted in several posts claiming that my husband is an alcoholic.


The Bard wrote:

Quote:
That is disgusting.


It is disgusting and untrue. I am reassured by Pete's statistics, showing that Frank's blog does not have a big following. Just remember this: every time you click at Frank's, it generates google ad revenue. From here on out, I think I'll let the officer following my case contribute to Frank's cause and his friends. It is bad enough to read the lies they post; when Frank takes to doing the same it is time to turn away.

So many of the comments on Frank's blog are hateful towards women, starting with Meredith herself. Some of the comments about Amanda Knox have also been horrible, and Edda Mellas has not been spared. Neither has Claudia Matteini, the first judge to rule on the evidence. Anne Bremner takes some heavy hits for her alleged cosmetic surgey, and so does Candace Dempsey, who wrote about her rhinoplasty (the article is or was posted on her professional website). Professor Snape, who posts here, has been ridiculed, as has Tara. I'm just one among many.

All of these comments are unacceptable and should never have been tolerated. They stem from a deep anger toward women, especially women who voice their opinion. Why such hatred? Does Frank's tolerance for it reflect his own feelings toward women? Makes you wonder.

_________________
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: Thu May 14, 2009 6:18 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:

Quote:
The staging of the break in with shards of glass on top of Meredith's clothes and the inside of the shutters damaged by the rock.


Don't you mean Filomena?

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Don't you mean Filomena?


Yes.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject:    

Hi guys,

Very interesting discussion above about whether it ever did happen in Amanda's questore that any official, Magnini or otherwise, actually encouraged Amanda to "imagine" what happened at the murder. Except at that stage would they say that? Had Amanda admitted yet to remembering being there? If not, they would ask her to just imagine how the murder might have happened--who do you see being there? In that case it almost sounds like the method for putting someone under hypnosis to progress them back to the scene. (OK, shut your eyes, imagine....who do you see?). I'm assuming the investigation and prosecution have those interview transcripts--wish we did!

Truth Seeker: My light bulb moment was one word. Before that I was favoring Amanda's involvement but unsure. Then I read the statement she'd made to Filomena when she was explaining her fear about Amanda's room being locked and why? She said I'm afraid something "tragic" has happened. I just can't imagine, at that stage, about my roommate, using the word "tragic." (If she did use it, we can never be sure.) You might say something has happened, something bad has happened--but "tragic" is the word from the melodrama that Amanda was writing in her head. Even to save herself, she just couldn't drop the melodrama in which she starred and take on a more innocent, uninvolved persona that might have saved her from scrutiny.
Top Profile 

Offline Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 7:13 pm   Post subject:    

Just seen "The View" featuring Nancy Grace.
Woah! Thank the heavens that Mrs Grace would be liable to (at the very least) huge fines, should she have spouted off about a current trial in the UK.
Nonetheless, she clearly believes in Ms Knox's guilt.
As for Ms Goldberg, if she genuinely thinks that democracies like Italy "chop hands or heads off", then do us all a favour and STAY in America permanently (along with your current 36 death chambers nationwide).

Skep. The abuse that you and members of your immediate family are having to endure, is unacceptable AND criminal.

If you need to have it investigated by authorities, it does not take long to identify proponents of such harassment - including their home and/or work addresses etc.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 7:59 pm   Post subject:    

KCL wrote:

Quote:
Just seen "The View" featuring Nancy Grace.
Woah! Thank the heavens that Mrs Grace would be liable to (at the very least) huge fines, should she have spouted off about a current trial in the UK.
Nonetheless, she clearly believes in Ms Knox's guilt.
As for Ms Goldberg, if she genuinely thinks that democracies like Italy "chop hands or heads off", then do us all a favour and STAY in America permanently (along with your current 36 death chambers nationwide).

Skep. The abuse that you and members of your immediate family are having to endure, is unacceptable AND criminal.

If you need to have it investigated by authorities, it does not take long to identify proponents of such harassment - including their home and/or work addresses etc.


It's true that the hosts of these true crime shows in the US use their right to freedom of speech to maximum advantage.

Thanks for your comments about the ongoing online harassment issue. It too is related to freedom of speech in my opinion. I filed a complaint a couple of months ago with the local police and it is currently being investigated. In the meantime, those responsible for the attempted intimidation continue to act with impunity, aided and abetted by "Frank Sfarzo". He stated earlier today that he is tired of seeing "certain names" on his blog. Reading between the lines, I understood that mine was one. All he has to do is delete the posts that mention my name or any other name he doesn't want to see. He can also disable the comments when he is not there to monitor in real time. It isn't all that difficult. It just requires a little discipline and a sense of fair play. Is that too much to ask of the owner/moderator of a blog?

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:00 pm   Post subject:    

Kent County lad wrote:
Just seen "The View" featuring Nancy Grace.
Woah! Thank the heavens that Mrs Grace would be liable to (at the very least) huge fines, should she have spouted off about a current trial in the UK.


Nancy Grace on The View at least seemed like a rational person. Maybe that reflects the people she was with. On HLN with Amanda's aunt and Anne Bremner they all seemed psychotic. Nancy was not allowed to suggest anything questionable about Amanda without enraging her guests and then she started shrieking and it all got out of hand very quickly and became useless. I never would have believed 18 mos. ago that a trial in Italy could inflame such high feelings.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:02 pm   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
I'm assuming the investigation and prosecution have those interview transcripts--wish we did!


The transcripts exist; the question is whether they will ever be exposed. One of the many mini-controversies surrounding this case has to do with whether or not the defense has asked in vain for them or for tapes. I'm not sure what to think.

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

Offline BoneDawg


Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:58 pm

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:04 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
Speaking of "lightbulb" moments, was there any piece of information in this case that kind of "broke the camel's back" for you? Information that caused you to once and for all believe that Amanda is, in all likelihood, guilty? I think for me it was reading that "two-page note" that Amanda wrote in prison. It is so utterly nonsensical and evasive. I just can't imagine an innocent person penning that note.

Maybe this is a silly question (because it's all the information viewed together that is important) and I won't get any responses (and that's totally fine), but I was just curious if anyone else had a "lightbulb"-type of moment.


Like most, the first info I got on tihs case was from the US, so was pro-Amanda. Then the more I read the more I think she (they) are guilty. The tipping point for me was waching & reading the ppt presentations on this site about the luminol footprints and the broken window.

They proved a staging attempt was made, and that most likely RS, RG and AK were there that night. If they were there that night, walking through blood, and don't have a good explanation as to why ... then they are guilty of murder.

Now that the footprints have been proven in court, in my opinion, this case leanign strongly in the direction of the prosecution.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:21 pm   Post subject:    

'Just remember this: every time you click at Frank's, it generates google ad revenue.'

I did not know that Skep. I think it's all over at that site anyway. But I will not read it now I know it might be making money for someone who is exploiting Meredith's murder for profit. How very depressing.

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:29 pm   Post subject: Re: Frank   

Michael wrote:
Oh, Frank isn't done yet:


Frank Sfarzo wrote:
frank said...
It's one family dear Frank Zappa, don't worry.
Wife and husband plus their friends. Always online 24 hours a day. They are obsessed with this case, their mission is the punishment of the youth, they scan the web for articles about the case. When they find one even in the smaller local sector of a local newspaper they post their urls convinced that they are doing some masterpieces. When they see an article which in some way they think accuses the accused they will start their pleasing work: 'Thank you for this well written and well reasoned article, keep up the great work'... Etc.
I was totally indifferent when they were doing like this with me and when I had to say the truth I said the truth, I didn't care that their compliments would turn into insults.
And if some journalists now relies on their fake compliments... I'm sorry for them...
Better having no compliments, no comments and only insults then having compliments from people who are worth zero.

May 14, 2009 10:03 AM



PERUGIA SHOCK


Unbelievable.


Ahhh, come on! This isn't really Frank, is it??? Bro, he's kinna outta da loop, eh? :roll:

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 8:42 pm   Post subject: Frank   

Snape wrote:
Ahhh, come on! This isn't really Frank, is it??? Bro, he's kinna outta da loop, eh?



Oh yeah, it's Frank alright. And really, all that's been going on on his blog is enough to get him shut down ten times over by Google. Maybe that's who we should take this to. He's been acting as an enabler for a long time now. It's unacceptable and it will not stand.

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject: Tapes   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
I'm assuming the investigation and prosecution have those interview transcripts--wish we did!


The transcripts exist; the question is whether they will ever be exposed. One of the many mini-controversies surrounding this case has to do with whether or not the defense has asked in vain for them or for tapes. I'm not sure what to think.



Well, not in open court Skep...or to the judge.

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 8:48 pm   Post subject:    

From Frank's post, reposted by Michael:

Quote:
I was totally indifferent when they were doing like this with me and when I had to say the truth I said the truth, I didn't care that their compliments would turn into insults.


I can't be sure he's talking about me but assuming he is, once again he is not being truthful. My husband never complimented Frank or otherwise communicated with him. As for me, I was an honest editor of his work. My job was to make it easier to read, not comment on the content. The few times I did, my criticisms were ignored. For example, when F made the first in a series of bitter posts about Patrick, I said it was obvious he was settling personal scores. When he posted in praise of the first piece in the Seattle Times where he is mentioned (the journalist fails to note that Frank Sfarzo is not his real name and states he is a film professor, which is not true), I told him by email that his excessive praise of this article was unwarranted, suspect and possibly motivated by the publicity he was getting. I finally stopped editing for him because of his journalistic ethics and told him so in an email.

In other words, I have always been candid with the man. I am not a toady.

_________________
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: Thu May 14, 2009 9:07 pm   Post subject:    

I'm trying to think of a full screen reply to but out other peoples posts.
I think I am onto something, I'll cut and paste the middle section of war and peace.
Give us a couple of minutes.
Bye bye..

_________________
R.I.P
Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:26 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
Speaking of "lightbulb" moments, was there any piece of information in this case that kind of "broke the camel's back" for you? Information that caused you to once and for all believe that Amanda is, in all likelihood, guilty? I think for me it was reading that "two-page note" that Amanda wrote in prison. It is so utterly nonsensical and evasive. I just can't imagine an innocent person penning that note.

Maybe this is a silly question (because it's all the information viewed together that is important) and I won't get any responses (and that's totally fine), but I was just curious if anyone else had a "lightbulb"-type of moment.



For me it was the difference between Patrick and the defendants. Patrick was let go because he had an alibi and evidence of that alibi. The defendants have...a lot of question marks. It’s like Patrick is 1+1= 2 and the defendants are 1+1= a spinning f’ing headache. If you are innocent and have an alibi, and evidence of that alibi, that’s what you get to focus on. If you do not have an alibi (or hey, a pile of them), or evidence of that alibi, then you can focus on things like confusion, crappy policeman, stress, shitty investigators, a sweet personality, a toilet of a country, contamination, devil reporters, devilish blogs, etc. etc., none of which- even if these things were true- are anywhere near an alibi or an answer to the question: What happened that night?
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:31 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I can't be sure he's talking about me but assuming he is, once again he is not being truthful. My husband never complimented Frank or otherwise communicated with him. As for me, I was an honest editor of his work. My job was to make it easier to read, not comment on the content. The few times I did, my criticisms were ignored. For example, when F made the first in a series of bitter posts about Patrick, I said it was obvious he was settling personal scores. When he posted in praise of the first piece in the Seattle Times where he is mentioned (the journalist fails to note that Frank Sfarzo is not his real name and states he is a film professor, which is not true), I told him by email that his excessive praise of this article was unwarranted, suspect and possibly motivated by the publicity he was getting. I finally stopped editing for him because of his journalistic ethics and told him so in an email.

In other words, I have always been candid with the man. I am not a toady.


Here are more reasons why you don't want to waste your time over there. Abusive trash.
What has been written about Meredith is horrifying and I would never repeat it. It is just pure sick.

Not the easiest read since where one starts and stops is not identifed. Pass over it if you chose:

Quote:
Anonymous said...
Margaret Ganong, Julia, Kathleen, Michael, Brian, Tara

As the wonderful supporters of Meredith, who keeps all focused on the fact that this trial shouldn't be about the people actually being tried but rather the victim of the crime.

You make sure that every rumor against them is kept alive as long as possible without proof while anything in their favor needs a proof that can never be attained.

You are doing god's work.

I have been to your wonderful site and I looked under the heading "Projects for Meredith" but I didn't see anything that fit that title.

Have you started a foundation or scholarship in her name?

Are you in contact with the family?

What have you done for them?
May 6, 2009 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...
now this just HAS to have been posted by Candace Dempsey & Family

May 6, 2009 11:04 AM


although just as likely Peg and CunPany
May 6, 2009 11:05 AM


Quote:
Anonymous said...
Unexpected humor ..... hard to top this one, even for Margaret Ganong

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.

FBN
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.

May 11, 2009 8:21 AM

Thanks for posting the fundraiser info. It's strange that Michael would reveal that MORE than 4 PMS-ers were spying on folks. And that Margaret Ganong would admit that one of her group, Prof. Snape was the one who spoke to Tanya Mosley and gave her this quote
But one couple, who decided to come to the fundraiser after following the Knox case, wanted to make a point.

"Just personal pride, that Seattle is not all just for Amanda," said Kathleen Jackson.

which one was stalking the ladies' room? that's what I want to know

May 11, 2009 8:46 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OMG this is classic!!! Who says Mondays are dull. The ALL CAPS make it even funnier.

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.

May 11, 2009 8:48

Anon Wrote:

"Thanks for posting the fundraiser info. It's strange that Michael would reveal that MORE than 4 PMS-ers were spying on folks.".

I never said they were PMF

Michael

Actually he did!!! It gets better and better, this Pinocchio thing

May 11, 2009 9:08 AM

Wow, Snape just admitted she entered the ladies room THREE TIMES and she went off on Amanda's little sisters ... and repoted on their private conversations

"yes, professor snape had to pee at the EXACT SECOND that Amanda's poor little sisters were crying in the ladies. I hope she washed her hands before she talked to Tonya".

====== BIG NEWS JUST IN !!! ======

NO!! For the record:

TWO times they went in AFTER Professor Snape WAS IN THE BATHROOM.

The THIRD time she entered THEY WERE ALREADY IN THERE.

Aside from dogging the festivities they were talking smack about people.
Very un-lady like I'd say.

I am sure if they saw Professor Snape they would surely remember her since they spent the evening in there talking crap about the guests and news reporters they hate. Have you even asked them or are you guys that lame?

Not Professor Snape's problem if they were misbehaving and bashing people just like their good old "Step-up-to-the-cesspool-plate" Dad and his buddies.

I think she is just calling it as she sees it and nothing more. No need to blow this one up, it's about as low as it gets.

Par with that disfunctional family.

Let's see if we got this now. Prof Snape went to pee THREE times, not the once reported by Peg. She was able to listen in on Amanda's little sisters and HATED what they said. She ALSO spoke on camera to Tonya Mosley. There were MORE than four people from PMF at the fundraiser. Tara, Peg, Walt and 3 mystery people. All of them have x-ray vision evidently or cobwebs in their heads or something that causes them to have visions and ears everywhere on stairs and everything .... I LOVE MONDAYS

May 11, 2009 11:32 AM
You've got it mostly wrong, but that's okay. Too bad you didn't see the group so you could report on the actions of each one at every moment in time. Maybe you could set up a website devoted to this incident. You could have a floor plan of Salty's, try and obtain photos of each alleged participant, reconstruct their movements, etc.

It would be fascinating.
Report back when you've finished and be sure you provide a link to your site. It will surely rank among the most visited of all time.

THE GIRLS ARE DOGS!!!!
No one in their right mind would WANT to stalk them!

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:33 pm   Post subject:    

DeathFish 2000 wrote:
I'm trying to think of a full screen reply to but out other peoples posts.
I think I am onto something, I'll cut and paste the middle section of war and peace.
Give us a couple of minutes.
Bye bye..


Dude, I did it for you. Only one thing....there is no peace when dealing with this circus.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:50 pm   Post subject:    

Also just watched "The View". Just amazing -- a little Macbeth-like. Are a lot of Americans so pro-American, or is this just an extreme television pose? I mean, it's beyond pro-American, it's like they can only conceive of America and the rest of the world -- some scary barbarous outpost. They actually refer to Rudy Guede as an African-American! Whatever the reason for that, even if it is instinctive avoidance of other terms considered more derogatory, I think it reveals an unconscious assumption that race issues "belong" to America, just as one perceives an assumption that "real justice" belongs to America and "hard work" belongs to America.

I wonder if Amanda arrived in Perugia with such a conviction of American superiority in her head? No wonder she would have been annoyed by finding out that Europeans often feel superior and rather contemptuous of Americans (often for quite wrong and irritating reasons). "I'll show them who's boss?" Well, who knows.

On this topic, I noticed a conversation a while back between Truth Seeker and Nicki about European men making passes at women in the street. I was most surprised by Nicki's reaction. In my experience, coming to Europe from the States is a total culture shock in this respect. A young woman walking down the street in America is very unlikely to be addressed by a man. In France or Italy, it is virtually impossible to walk down a street or take public transportation without it happening. Starting with mere appreciative whistles, calls of "sei bella" etc., these attentions move up through little, quiet "Want to have coffee with me?" invitations from men who will quietly accept a refusal and melt away to try their luck elsewhere, up to those who latch on and follow one down the street, or sit with one on the train and continue to beg, plead and hand over their phone number even after multiple refusals, explanations that one has four children, that one's husband is waiting for one, etc. And this kind of thing follows women well up through adulthood and middle age, although less and less frequently, thank goodness. (I think certain rather distinguished types of women inspire too much respect to get this treatment. Maybe Nicki is lucky this way.)

My mother at the age of well over 60 was in the metro in Paris when suddenly a handsome young black man sitting across from her leaned forward and said invitingly: "If you'll forget my race, I'll forget your age." She was so amazed that she gulped a few times before politely responding "No, thank you."

Sorry for rambling somewhat off topic. Michael, the video link indeed no longer words. Too bad. Still, while I'm writing, I wanted to mention something I noticed about the bloody footprint on the bathmat that bothered me a little bit. There was a photo of it in Kermit's powerpoint, and there is a photo of it now on Frank's blog (the comment section is a cesspit, I can't imagine why you still bother to post there, Michael). To me, those two photos look somewhat different. The more recent, Frank photo which was the one used in the police powerpoint presentation is redder, but more strangely, the shape of the big toe looks a bit different to me. In Kermit's presentation, that big toe pointed noticeably to the right, a characteristic of certain people's feet, but not Raffaele's according to his footprint. In the photo on Frank's blog, the toe seems to look more normal, although I think even then it doesn't have the same angle as Raffaele's toe. I think this is exactly what Frank is referring to with his funny remarks about the "hallux" (a word I didn't know) moving on the axis. But I wonder if the police didn't touch up the redness a little bit to do their measurements, or ignore this different toe angle. Does anyone else think the Kermit photo and the new photo look a bit different?

The Amanda print looks very like hers. There is something rare about her footprint, in that the connection between the ball of the foot and the big toe is entirely visible with no blank spot in between. That shows in the luminol print, too. (I think feet are interesting and footprint identification is a fascinating subject! Maybe I should change jobs...)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
Kent County lad wrote:
Just seen "The View" featuring Nancy Grace.
Woah! Thank the heavens that Mrs Grace would be liable to (at the very least) huge fines, should she have spouted off about a current trial in the UK.

Nancy Grace on The View at least seemed like a rational person. Maybe that reflects the people she was with. On HLN with Amanda's aunt and Anne Bremner they all seemed psychotic. Nancy was not allowed to suggest anything questionable about Amanda without enraging her guests and then she started shrieking and it all got out of hand very quickly and became useless. I never would have believed 18 mos. ago that a trial in Italy could inflame such high feelings.


I think you nailed it, Didi. The Nancy/FOA show was a bust because tempers and emotions flared immediately. Nancy got pissed off by the FOA-speak and stonewalling, and started cutting people off and cutting away to the next guest, who was just as off-topic, etc. It was frustrating to watch. Whoever had the brilliant idea of inviting Steve Shay should be fired from whatever job they have, though. He was utterly clueless.

As for the inflamed feelings this case has aroused, it is indeed unbelievable. I think it is partly due to the perceived and very aggressive interference into the judicial affairs of a sovereign state on the part of US interests. Without wanting to turn this into a political discussion, most of the world has still not digested the way in which the Americans built a bogus case against Saddam Hussein and invaded Iraq, blithely ignoring their allies.

I started reading Candace Dempsey's blog on this case in its early days, and was just amazed at the level of violence in the words exchanged. And I felt that Dempsey often fueled it, at times unwittingly. She had this rah-rah, America first tone that annoyed many people (and rightly so), not to mention an insistence on her own objectivity when she came under fire, which she constantly used to cut off genuine debate. And by playing the Italian American card, she personalized things in a way that offended lots of people. I'm not saying she is responsible for the inflamed atmosphere that prevails, just that the atmosphere has been highly charged since November 2007.

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

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: Frank's   

Michael wrote:
This evening, I took the evening off, relaxing, watching a film. So, I was quite surprised to then find that during my evening away from the computer I'd been posting on Frank's. Of course, it wasn't me but rather my troll shadows who love to post under my identity...usually saying all manner of ridiculous things, although they've now taken to copying old posts of mine,,,months, even more then a year old and posting them on Frank's out of context as me in the first person. It seems they've taken to doing this when I'm not even there. Normally, in the past, they've only tended to hijack my identity on those occasions when I decide to post on Frank's and start to demolish their flimsy arguments. It's the only weapon they have against me, as they don't have my personal data and photographs to expose and they certainly don't know where I live or work, so they can't stalk me or threaten to contact my employer, as they've done with certain others who post on PMF. Really, it emphasises the aggressive and unethical cyber bullying tactics of these people. Nothing is too low. 'These people' are a small group, made up primarily of DJ, Goofy and Chris Mellas (DJ has been posting on Frank's a lot tonight in fact).

A couple of days ago I created a Blogger ID, complete with my avatar, here is my Blogger ID number: 09945912155063316171

Here's the link to my profile (Note my Blogger ID number forms the final part of the url): http://www.blogger.com/profile/09945912155063316171

From two days ago onward, I will only ever post on Frank's under my Blogger ID. If you see a post using my identity and it isn't a signed in Blogger ID, then the post isn't mine. If you see a post under what 'appears' to be my Blogger ID (one can immitate another's profile and indeed, they did so with Dynamohum a few days ago) and it doesn't have that number, but a different one in the profile url, it isn't mine.

Cyber Bullies, indeed any kind of bully, love power. When you take away their weapons and therefore their power, they are impotent. They hate that.


Michael, I think Frank's blog has now imploded. It'll be left to the trolls and those who fit Frank/Candace's view of reality. May as well let it stew. I don't think it'll recover. Frank's taken his pieces of silver and that's that.


Paul (Dynamohum 8-)).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:03 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
Kent County lad wrote:
Just seen "The View" featuring Nancy Grace.
Woah! Thank the heavens that Mrs Grace would be liable to (at the very least) huge fines, should she have spouted off about a current trial in the UK.

Nancy Grace on The View at least seemed like a rational person. Maybe that reflects the people she was with. On HLN with Amanda's aunt and Anne Bremner they all seemed psychotic. Nancy was not allowed to suggest anything questionable about Amanda without enraging her guests and then she started shrieking and it all got out of hand very quickly and became useless. I never would have believed 18 mos. ago that a trial in Italy could inflame such high feelings.


I think you nailed it, Didi. The Nancy/FOA show was a bust because tempers and emotions flared immediately. Nancy got pissed off by the FOA-speak and stonewalling, and started cutting people off and cutting away to the next guest, who was just as off-topic, etc. It was frustrating to watch. Whoever had the brilliant idea of inviting Steve Shay should be fired from whatever job they have, though. He was utterly clueless.

As for the inflamed feelings this case has aroused, it is indeed unbelievable. I think it is partly due to the perceived and very aggressive interference into the judicial affairs of a sovereign state on the part of US interests. Without wanting to turn this into a political discussion, most of the world has still not digested the way in which the Americans built a bogus case against Saddam Hussein and invaded Iraq, blithely ignoring their allies.

I started reading Candace Dempsey's blog on this case in its early days, and was just amazed at the level of violence in the words exchanged. And I felt that Dempsey often fueled it, at times unwittingly. She had this rah-rah, America first tone that annoyed many people (and rightly so), not to mention an insistence on her own objectivity when she came under fire, which she constantly used to cut off genuine debate. And by playing the Italian American card, she personalized things in a way that offended lots of people. I'm not saying she is responsible for the inflamed atmosphere that prevails, just that the atmosphere has been highly charged since November 2007.


I'm starting to think the length of the trial is also adding to the inflammation. Fasten your ice packs, it's going to be a bumpy trial.


Last edited by Shirley on Thu May 14, 2009 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:04 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Also just watched "The View". Just amazing -- a little Macbeth-like. Are a lot of Americans so pro-American, or is this just an extreme television pose? I mean, it's beyond pro-American, it's like they can only conceive of America and the rest of the world -- some scary barbarous outpost. They actually refer to Rudy Guede as an African-American! Whatever the reason for that, even if it is instinctive avoidance of other terms considered more derogatory, I think it reveals an unconscious assumption that race issues "belong" to America, just as one perceives an assumption that "real justice" belongs to America and "hard work" belongs to America.


I was writing my post, which echoes yours in a way, as you were posting. My own experience -- which is only that, nothing more and nothing less -- is that Americans are generally more demonstratively nationalistic. We would call it patriotic probably. One of the things I had a hard time getting re-used to when I moved back to the US was seeing flags displayed at people's homes. Never once in 20+ years in France did I see the "tricolore" flag (also red-white and blue but not in that order: bleu blanc rouge) hanging from someone's house. Nor did I see the Chinese flag displayed in this way. But I know many Chinese people and French people who are deeply proud to be Chinese or French, as the case may be. Indeed, the Chinese sense of superiority is quite striking. Americans often do see the world as divided into us and the rest of them, probably hostile, maybe just jealous. It often feels born of ignorance about the rest of the world.

Did the gals on The View really refer to Rudy Guede as "African American" again? :oops: I truly think some people don't realize that Africans have migrated to other parts of the world, sometimes as slaves and sometimes not, than the US. Others have been told that they must refer to black people as "African Americans" or run the risk of not being politically correct.

_________________
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: Thu May 14, 2009 10:13 pm   Post subject:    

Dynamohum/JL/Paul wrote:

Quote:
Michael, I think Frank's blog has now imploded. It'll be left to the trolls and those who fit Frank/Candace's view of reality. May as well let it stew. I don't think it'll recover. Frank's taken his pieces of silver and that's that.


In fact, Frank wonders aloud why he should be the only one not making money as he rushes around town, solving the case.

I was curious about his reference to being paid by people who believe.... in what? Him? His cause? His project? I wonder if these people have a dog in the race, as Nancy said to Anne Bremner the other night on HLN.

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:20 pm   Post subject:    

They did! Funnily enough, it was the African-American young woman who said "Guede was African-American, wasn't he?" and Nancy replied "Yes, he was." Like the meaning of the word "American" inside "African-American" has been lost, which is odd considering that for patriotic reasons, it should be a precious word.

I agree that Americans are very patriotic and love flags, but that's rather nice really. As for this "us and them" attitude, I have barely ever personally encountered it amongst real flesh and blood Americans, who tend to be both interested in and often a bit complexed about Europe. That's why I was wondering if it was widespread.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: Frank's   

justlooking wrote:
Michael, I think Frank's blog has now imploded. It'll be left to the trolls and those who fit Frank/Candace's view of reality. May as well let it stew. I don't think it'll recover. Frank's taken his pieces of silver and that's that.


Paul (Dynamohum 8-)).



Hey Dynamohum

I think you seem to be right about Frank's blog. I can't understand the sudden collapse. Any ideas. Is it because Frank suddenly appeared and started deleting posts (finally). Or just some strange synchronicity...
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:24 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
They did! Funnily enough, it was the African-American young woman who said "Guede was African-American, wasn't he?" and Nancy replied "Yes, he was." Like the meaning of the word "American" inside "African-American" has been lost, which is odd considering that for patriotic reasons, it should be a precious word.


Funny too, that use of the past tense, as if Rudy WAS "African-American" because NOW he is Icelandic or something.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:25 pm   Post subject: Pieces of Silver.   

Paul wrote:
Michael, I think Frank's blog has now imploded. It'll be left to the trolls and those who fit Frank/Candace's view of reality. May as well let it stew. I don't think it'll recover. Frank's taken his pieces of silver and that's that.



Hi Paul. Oh, there's no doubt Frank's taken his pieces of silver, enough to make water flow uphill.

The real question is, 'where' has that silver come FROM? ;)

_________________
"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: Thu May 14, 2009 10:34 pm   Post subject:    

Shirley wrote:

Quote:
thoughtful wrote:
They did! Funnily enough, it was the African-American young woman who said "Guede was African-American, wasn't he?" and Nancy replied "Yes, he was." Like the meaning of the word "American" inside "African-American" has been lost, which is odd considering that for patriotic reasons, it should be a precious word.

Funny too, that use of the past tense, as if Rudy WAS "African-American" because NOW he is Icelandic or something.


We don't like convicted criminals over here. :)

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:44 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:

I agree that Americans are very patriotic and love flags, but that's rather nice really. As for this "us and them" attitude, I have barely ever personally encountered it amongst real flesh and blood Americans, who tend to be both interested in and often a bit complexed about Europe. That's why I was wondering if it was widespread.


I think a lot of that patriotism, apple pie, support our troops, xenophobia arises from the fact that the US is a young country and really doesn't have much in the way of traditions. We are a melting pot, so what traditions we do have are a mish mash of everything from around the world. The states have always focused on progress and capitalism and get rich quick, a country of opportunity. We have been too busy chasing the dollar to develop tradition. Yet I think Americans have a deep envy of old cultures with long traditions, which makes them turn against that and act out a kind of superiority--about family values and helping the weaker countries and aid and our military saving everyone. It's confusing. I couldn't believe how Michelle Obama was demonized for suggesting she hadn't always been proud of her country (a daughter of slave history). These feelings will always exist. I find the rapid change here to be very wearing.
Top Profile 

Offline Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:52 pm   Post subject:    

Whilst I like Americans in general, a significant amount of them, do seem to have an inherent ignorance, of what and/or where actually the 'rest of the world' is.

There has been much said in PMF about the parenting issues regarding Ms Knox, however, if one's mindset is that of a perceived superiority above others - particularly against those whose first language is not English (e.g; head and hand chopping Italy), then behavioural issues such as like Ms Knox and her rabid - if not - near racist slurs by her clan/fans,
really does not surprise most of us.

As stated earlier, Mrs Grace might cut a rather crude figure, however, she clearly is savvy enough to acknowledge the absurdity of the Knox protagonists.

I am a proponent of free speech, however, coupled with that, is the principle of responsibility.
In the UK, such 'true crimes' programmes involving any current criminal trials - where opinions or misinformation (as said by Mrs Grace in 'The View') which could be potentially be aired, is simply illegal.
The standard set, that a person is innocent until proven guilty, can become seriously eroded, once entertainment programmes under the guise of 'true crimes', pour influence upon a case that (perhaps unwittingly), could provide a claim for a miscarriage of justice (jurors do watch tv too). There does need to be a balancing act here.

Whilst Ms Knox may be an odious, clearly messed up and as yet unconvicted but probable killer, the more I see of the Italian judicial system in motion and the relatively strict guidelines for the media/entertainment channels in reporting this trial, the more respect and astuteness I see of it.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:28 pm   Post subject:    

Where do the FOA get their inspiration to write this?:lol:


"Imprisoned in a foreign land, a helpless and vulnerable young Anerican awaits her trial's end and the verdict that will determine her fate.

Some persecuting Amanda Knox want to martyr this girl from America...and they are determined to do this for a number of different reasons:

In a very real way, Amanda Knox is being sold into slavery by men and women who each do this for their own reasons, and their actions increase the odds of her being forced to endure the misery, slavery, and horror of a thirty year prison sentence resulting from the wrongful conviction they help to bring about for this poor innocent girl. Some of them persecute Amanda for money or in the hopes that her conviction will further their careers and elevate them in their profession. Others seek to have her convicted and imprisoned out of spite and jealousy because she's a beautiful young woman who's been an honor roll student and they wish to tear her down to their own level. Cheerleaders know all about this kind of attitude --- that because they are beautiful young women of accomplishment, they have enemies among other women who are jealous of them and among men who want to date them, but who are totally inappropriate men for them to date and become angry and resentful when turned down for dates and want to punish them for their rejection.

And then, some hate Amanda because she's an American and they hate Americans for reasons of their own. They want to punish Amanda because she loves the land of her birth, and she's proud to be an American. "
http://www.collieknight.com/

It goes on and on and of course at the end it recomends people to go the defense fund site.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:32 pm   Post subject: Skep   

In a recent post, Skep stated she was no 'toady'. There's no need for her to state that. Those of us who all know her know her integrity well.

When Steve Huff set up the TCWMB message board and appointed Skep Moderator right off the bat, he did so because he knew his stuff, he knew exactly who he wanted.. there's a reason for that, there was no better person he could have chosen. Skep is a natural moderator because she's a natural human being. This is why I agreed to work with her, why I 'wanted' to work with her. Integrity appears to be a rare asset these days, with many assigning no value to it. Many pretend to have it, but that pretence can only be kept up for a short time. So, when you see it truly, you respect it.

I remember on the TCWMB when Chris Mellas and Goofy joined the board and both together via PM at the same time, one playing good cop while the other played bad cop, tried to pressure Skep onside. They offered her the keys to the kingdom...Amanda's diary in full, access to court documents, a home viewing of crime scene videos, the lot. All Skep had to do was say 'yes' and swear not to divulge the offer and anything she'd been shown to the rest of the TCWMB membership. Skep said 'no', unless it was agreed that the information was available to the whole group. They harrased her to the point that after her telling them to leave her alone and wouldn't, she felt she had no choice but to post their continued assault on the board, in real time as it was actually happening. They finally gave up and went on to others to make their offers and we can guess just 'who' accepted them...but not Skep.

I can give many other examples.

Skep is a wonderful person of great character...and integrity. That is a virtue, but those who support Amanda are threatend by it to the point that they feel they have to undermine it somehow. That means any tactic to undermine her on Frank's..multiple petty and untrue comments about how she looks, what she weighs, her CV...I could go on. But the point is, none of those things are Skep or anything to do with her....they are all about smearing someone they see as a serious opponent. Were she not, they wouldn't mention her at all.

Skep is a brilliantl lady, in every sense of the word and I am proud to work with her on this projct, as I would would be to work with her on 'any' project. This case has shown me some terrible personalities...but I've met some wonderful people along the way :)

_________________
"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 Thu May 14, 2009 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:34 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
Also just watched "The View". Just amazing -- a little Macbeth-like. Are a lot of Americans so pro-American, or is this just an extreme television pose? I mean, it's beyond pro-American, it's like they can only conceive of America and the rest of the world -- some scary barbarous outpost. They actually refer to Rudy Guede as an African-American! Whatever the reason for that, even if it is instinctive avoidance of other terms considered more derogatory, I think it reveals an unconscious assumption that race issues "belong" to America, just as one perceives an assumption that "real justice" belongs to America and "hard work" belongs to America.

I wonder if Amanda arrived in Perugia with such a conviction of American superiority in her head? No wonder she would have been annoyed by finding out that Europeans often feel superior and rather contemptuous of Americans (often for quite wrong and irritating reasons). "I'll show them who's boss?" Well, who knows.

On this topic, I noticed a conversation a while back between Truth Seeker and Nicki about European men making passes at women in the street. I was most surprised by Nicki's reaction. In my experience, coming to Europe from the States is a total culture shock in this respect. A young woman walking down the street in America is very unlikely to be addressed by a man. In France or Italy, it is virtually impossible to walk down a street or take public transportation without it happening. Starting with mere appreciative whistles, calls of "sei bella" etc., these attentions move up through little, quiet "Want to have coffee with me?" invitations from men who will quietly accept a refusal and melt away to try their luck elsewhere, up to those who latch on and follow one down the street, or sit with one on the train and continue to beg, plead and hand over their phone number even after multiple refusals, explanations that one has four children, that one's husband is waiting for one, etc. And this kind of thing follows women well up through adulthood and middle age, although less and less frequently, thank goodness. (I think certain rather distinguished types of women inspire too much respect to get this treatment. Maybe Nicki is lucky this way.)

My mother at the age of well over 60 was in the metro in Paris when suddenly a handsome young black man sitting across from her leaned forward and said invitingly: "If you'll forget my race, I'll forget your age." She was so amazed that she gulped a few times before politely responding "No, thank you."

Sorry for rambling somewhat off topic. Michael, the video link indeed no longer words. Too bad. Still, while I'm writing, I wanted to mention something I noticed about the bloody footprint on the bathmat that bothered me a little bit. There was a photo of it in Kermit's powerpoint, and there is a photo of it now on Frank's blog (the comment section is a cesspit, I can't imagine why you still bother to post there, Michael). To me, those two photos look somewhat different. The more recent, Frank photo which was the one used in the police powerpoint presentation is redder, but more strangely, the shape of the big toe looks a bit different to me. In Kermit's presentation, that big toe pointed noticeably to the right, a characteristic of certain people's feet, but not Raffaele's according to his footprint. In the photo on Frank's blog, the toe seems to look more normal, although I think even then it doesn't have the same angle as Raffaele's toe. I think this is exactly what Frank is referring to with his funny remarks about the "hallux" (a word I didn't know) moving on the axis. But I wonder if the police didn't touch up the redness a little bit to do their measurements, or ignore this different toe angle. Does anyone else think the Kermit photo and the new photo look a bit different?

The Amanda print looks very like hers. There is something rare about her footprint, in that the connection between the ball of the foot and the big toe is entirely visible with no blank spot in between. That shows in the luminol print, too. (I think feet are interesting and footprint identification is a fascinating subject! Maybe I should change jobs...)


I have had and still have my share of appreciative looks and compliments. When I was living in Southern California, it was impossible to sit in a bar with a girlfriend trying to have a chat, without being continuously approached by men, and the degree of harrassment depended on the number of drinks they had had. Sitting in a bar in Italy or France proved to be almost " a disappointment", hardly any man would approach us. Perhaps what you are not considering in your description of Italy and France as countries where women cannot walk the street without being harrassed by men lusting after them 24/7, is the attitude of some women. A coarse, loud and and often drunk girl wearing shorts barely covering her crotch is more at risk of being bothered when walking down the street. And no, I am not "lucky", I just behave differently. I understand that Latin men appreciation of female beauty doesn't necessarily need the aid of alcohol here.

I find it irritating when people pretend know a country after a few weeks stay, often after many years have gone by. In the same way, I find it extremely irritating when European friends return from a holiday in the US with very firm ideas about the rudeness, ignorance, bad taste etc etc of a whole nation. I could write a post much longer than yours about comments that many Italians and other Europeans have made after visiting the US, but since those are mostly ill founded and based only on short visits I don't see the point. And besides that, I don't think it would be of any interest to anybody here.

Frankly, I am fed up with the current, constant bashing of Italy by most of the US media-the latest I've read it that we chop hand and heads off here-so I would really appreciate it if you could quit posting comments about issues that are not related to the case, and relate to stereotypes propagated by superficial knowledge of a first- world, modern and democratic nation. Perhaps FIAT take over of Chrysler -if it gets through-will help to change some of these attitudes? I hope so.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:55 pm   Post subject: About Frank's site...   

I hope you understand what I'm going to say here. It's very clear to me why both of you, Skep and Michael, are involved on Frank's board even though you are both defamed there in the most stupid, gross and childish ways. If it were me, I wouldn't be able to resist just the curiosity of reading it, not to mention a natural desire to contend with it, make your case, even try and find a solution. But the only solution, I believe, will be found by your simply boycotting the whole thing and not going there again. In doing that you would, ultimately, be ridding the world of all that ugliness, because they would die out.

Sorry to say this if it isn't welcome. And also, you may realize some other thing I don't that gives you reason to carry it on. But it needs to stop, I think.

I say this out of nothing but appreciation for both of you (and knowing it's not really my business too).
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 12:24 am   Post subject:    

Didi wrote:

Quote:
I hope you understand what I'm going to say here. It's very clear to me why both of you, Skep and Michael, are involved on Frank's board even though you are both defamed there in the most stupid, gross and childish ways. If it were me, I wouldn't be able to resist just the curiosity of reading it, not to mention a natural desire to contend with it, make your case, even try and find a solution. But the only solution, I believe, will be found by your simply boycotting the whole thing and not going there again. In doing that you would, ultimately, be ridding the world of all that ugliness, because they would die out.

Sorry to say this if it isn't welcome. And also, you may realize some other thing I don't that gives you reason to carry it on. But it needs to stop, I think.

I say this out of nothing but appreciation for both of you (and knowing it's not really my business too).


The last time "I" posted on Frank's, there was such a disgusting discussion of my photo (from my google blogger id) that I decided not to bother any more. Michael continued for awhile, and while I can't speak for him my understanding is that he stopped posting there a few days ago with no intention of returning. Since then, someone posting as Michael has left some posts, and others have copied and pasted posts of Michael's from elsewhere. My posts also get reposted. But rest assured, these posts have nothing to do with either of us.

I was checking in daily for the purpose of my complaint, but have now decided to leave that task to the IO. I don't want to spend even a minute reading the horrible comments about many different people, including Anne Bremner and Candace Dempsey. As a woman, I am appalled at these comments and appalled that they are allowed to stand. Frank only took action when people started posting about his physical appearance.

If it were up to me, everyone who cares about justice for Meredith and who has respect for women and civilized discussion would boycott Frank's blog. By his attitude, he has disgraced himself. I am not telling ANYONE what to do. EVERYONE is a free agent. I personally have reached the point of total disgust. E basta!

_________________
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: Fri May 15, 2009 12:42 am   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:
[quote="
Frankly, I am fed up with the current, constant bashing of Italy by most of the US media-the latest I've read it that we chop hand and heads off here-so I would really appreciate it if you could quit posting comments about issues that are not related to the case, and relate to stereotypes propagated by superficial knowledge of a first- world, modern and democratic nation. Perhaps FIAT take over of Chrysler -if it gets through-will help to change some of these attitudes? I hope so.


Nicki, no one here is saying that the Italian authorities "chop heads or hands off" (for punishment etc), however there are many Americans whom perceive that the Italian judiciary is wholly inferior to the US equivalent, thus slurs by Whoopi Goldberg (whom said the above term) via The View against the nation state of Italy, does unfortunately hold the waters of opinion in much of America.

Is it related to the AK trial? Yes.
Why? Because from almost day one of this tragedy, there have been clueless US judges, lawyers, private eyes, oh! and a cook, who hand in hand with a strange Washington State clan, have collectively and continually smeared the Italian judicial system, as some sort of brutal Victorian regime - all in the name of them having Ms Knox seen as a model American citizen.
The consequence of that, is a difficulty in getting the true facts of the trial to ordinary American folk, the B/S that was CBS 48hrs, and other American broadcasters refusing to relay facts - preferring mendacious hysteria about the legal system of a foreign nation.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 12:58 am   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Didi wrote:

Quote:
I hope you understand what I'm going to say here. It's very clear to me why both of you, Skep and Michael, are involved on Frank's board even though you are both defamed there in the most stupid, gross and childish ways. If it were me, I wouldn't be able to resist just the curiosity of reading it, not to mention a natural desire to contend with it, make your case, even try and find a solution. But the only solution, I believe, will be found by your simply boycotting the whole thing and not going there again. In doing that you would, ultimately, be ridding the world of all that ugliness, because they would die out.

Sorry to say this if it isn't welcome. And also, you may realize some other thing I don't that gives you reason to carry it on. But it needs to stop, I think.

I say this out of nothing but appreciation for both of you (and knowing it's not really my business too).



If it were up to me, everyone who cares about justice for Meredith and who has respect for women and civilized discussion would boycott Frank's blog. By his attitude, he has disgraced himself. I am not telling ANYONE what to do. EVERYONE is a free agent. I personally have reached the point of total disgust. E basta!


I'm really glad to hear you don't get into it anymore--I hate to see that kind of people have victory in any sort of sense in the world but I more hate the thought of you presented with that shit and being involved in that level of stupidity. I know ignoring them must hurt them the most--they are such pipsqueaks they crave attention. Be proud you threaten them so much.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:11 am   Post subject:    

Kent County lad wrote:
nicki wrote:
[quote="
Frankly, I am fed up with the current, constant bashing of Italy by most of the US media-the latest I've read it that we chop hand and heads off here-so I would really appreciate it if you could quit posting comments about issues that are not related to the case, and relate to stereotypes propagated by superficial knowledge of a first- world, modern and democratic nation. Perhaps FIAT take over of Chrysler -if it gets through-will help to change some of these attitudes? I hope so.


Nicki, no one here is saying that the Italian authorities "chop heads or hands off" (for punishment etc), however there are many Americans whom perceive that the Italian judiciary is wholly inferior to the US equivalent, thus slurs by Whoopi Goldberg (whom said the above term) via The View against the nation state of Italy, does unfortunately hold the waters of opinion in much of America.

Is it related to the AK trial? Yes.
Why? Because from almost day one of this tragedy, there have been clueless US judges, lawyers, private eyes, oh! and a cook, who hand in hand with a strange Washington State clan, have collectively and continually smeared the Italian judicial system, as some sort of brutal Victorian regime - all in the name of them having Ms Knox seen as a model American citizen.
The consequence of that, is a difficulty in getting the true facts of the trial to ordinary American folk, the B/S that was CBS 48hrs, and other American broadcasters refusing to relay facts - preferring mendacious hysteria about the legal system of a foreign nation.


I was referring to the totally unrelated comments-unreal-about women being constantly harrassed when walking down the streets in Italy and France. About the rest, Italians shrug off these comments as they would dismiss a spoiled child loud cry, the incoherent babbling of some ignoramuses from 6000 miles away is surely not going to affect the course of the trial. In one way, it's better for Knox that her "plight" is hardly acknowledged in Italy, except for the PS blog that nobody reads anyway... it would probably make things even worse for her. Nevertheless, I find the non-stop bashing very irritating-I really can't stand stupidity.


Last edited by nicki on Fri May 15, 2009 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:13 am   Post subject: Frank's   

Skep wrote:
All of these comments are unacceptable and should never have been tolerated. They stem from a deep anger toward women, especially women who voice their opinion. Why such hatred? Does Frank's tolerance for it reflect his own feelings toward women? Makes you wonder.



All the more unfortunate, when one considers Frank's blog was originally started in memory of Meredith as a tribute to her. Now, she's all but forgotten and it's all about Amanda. But then, maybe that's because Amanda's alive...always much more marketable then a dead girl. At least, that's the conclusion cynical thinkers may come to.

_________________
"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: Fri May 15, 2009 1:52 am   Post subject: Frank's   

Anon wrote:
Did Frank get some of his excellent information from the defense teams?

May 14, 2009 5:09 PM



PERUGIA SHOCK


Wrong question. Where'd he come by his money, not information, that's the right question. Who is sponsoring him?

_________________
"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 Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:56 am   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:



Perhaps what you are not considering in your description of Italy and France as countries where women cannot walk the street without being harrassed by men lusting after them 24/7, is the attitude of some women. A coarse, loud and and often drunk girl wearing shorts barely covering her crotch is more at risk of being bothered when walking down the street. And no, I am not "lucky", I just behave differently. I understand that Latin men appreciation of female beauty doesn't necessarily need the aid of alcohol here.

...

Frankly, I am fed up with the current, constant bashing of Italy by most of the US media-the latest I've read it that we chop hand and heads off here-so I would really appreciate it if you could quit posting comments about issues that are not related to the case, and relate to stereotypes propagated by superficial knowledge of a first- world, modern and democratic nation.


First, I hope you are not insinuating that I am a "coarse, loud and . . . often drunk girl wearing shorts barely covering her crotch" because that is absolutely not the case and is in fact laughable. Well, I *can* be loud at times. :) You can deny the cultural differences all you want but I will base my conclusions on my own firsthand experiences and on those of my close friends and family members.

Also, I've seen my fair share of stereotyping re: the U.S. on these boards, so your concerns about stereotyping should not be limited solely to Italy.

Anyway, back to the case . . . .

edited to add: I find it interesting that several travel guidebooks and websites provide tips for women in dealing with the culturally different attitude from men in Italy. If my experience was uniquely singular, it seems odd that such information would be included in these materials.

Italy is a gorgeous country, and if I could eat every meal there I would certainly do so - ;) - but I'm not going to censor my comments in order to make it out as some kind of utopia.


Last edited by Truth Seeker on Fri May 15, 2009 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:22 am   Post subject: Theft   

What I suggested might happen has happened, the following post on Frank's under a Google ID iis not by me, but is a created blogger ID using my name, but worse, using my personal photo...that's intellectual property theft:


Quote:
Michael said...
I might not always agree with you guys but I am beginning to see the point you are making about the prints. They do look odd in that I don't understand why the print on the right side looks not as wide.

I wish Kermit could take a look. If this is Rudy's print, then I bet he did do this by himself because there is no way they could clean up eveything and just leave his traces behind.

I hope I am wrong!

May 14, 2009 6:57 PM


The Blogger ID of this individual is: 06263089133800728251


PERUGIA SHOCK

I'm now going to report this person to Google. I may also take legal action. The problem is for them, whilst they can fake a Google ID, they can't fake the Google account, their account number and their IP number associated with that account would have been logged by Google for the last year. Unless they logged into Google under a proxy for all that time, theyre in trouble.

_________________
"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 Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:40 am   Post subject:    

I just checked out Frank's blog and it really does seem to have imploded in the last 24 hours. It will be interesting to see if it survives. Some of the comments there used to make me laugh, but when mean-spiritedness and copying of others' identities start to dominate, then it's not worth reading.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:48 am   Post subject: Re: Theft   

Michael wrote:
What I suggested might happen has happened, the following post on Frank's under a Google ID iis not by me, but is a created blogger ID using my name, but worse, using my personal photo...that's intellectual property theft:


Quote:
Michael said...
I might not always agree with you guys but I am beginning to see the point you are making about the prints. They do look odd in that I don't understand why the print on the right side looks not as wide.

I wish Kermit could take a look. If this is Rudy's print, then I bet he did do this by himself because there is no way they could clean up eveything and just leave his traces behind.

I hope I am wrong!

May 14, 2009 6:57 PM


The Blogger ID of this individual is: 06263089133800728251


PERUGIA SHOCK

I'm now going to report this person to Google. I may also take legal action. The problem is for them, whilst they can fake a Google ID, they can't fake the Google account, their account number and their IP number associated with that account would have been logged by Google for the last year. Unless they logged into Google under a proxy for all that time, theyre in trouble.



Fear not Michael, that is about the worse impression I've seen in a decade.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:33 am   Post subject: Goofy   

As evidence of 'who' is behind the theft, a member sent me the following link to Goofy's site...note my name on it and my avatar:

http://goofiesdoghous.blogspot.com/

#I have reported Goofy to Google for intellectual property infringement and demanded relief. I have also contacted Frank.

But to be honest, I've had enough of Frank enabling scumbags to use his site as a harrasment platform. People have complained and he's ignored it. Time to take action against Frank directly and take that cess pit of his offline.

If any of you wish to report abuse by or on Frank's blog, you can do so here:

http://help.blogger.com/bin/topic.py?hl=en&topic=12468

I urge members that have grounds for complaint against Perugia Shock to make them. The site is a travesty against decent conduct, ethics and has a blatant disregard for the law. Frank Sfarzo is directly responsible. If anyone would like to take legal action against Frank, please contact me privately.

_________________
"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 Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:44 am   Post subject:    

Whew! Been catching up on my reading here and the other blogs.

I kind of miss Oceania.

Why is this screen black when I log in?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:14 am   Post subject:    

Heh heh -- Nicki, your post is really funny! "Coarse, loud and drunk girls wearing shorts that barely cover their crotch!" "Ignorant people who have spent just a few weeks in the country!" "Italy-bashing!"

Well, I presume you were not referring to me -- the description would be too hilarious, given my age, looks and demeanor! (and over 20 years on each side of the Atlantic and one Italian, one American parent...)

Personally, I think this discussion about American attitudes towards Europeans and European attitudes towards America is very relevant to the case, both for understanding the attitude of the FOA and for understanding the possibly humiliating psychological experience Amanda underwent in Italy (finding, for instance, that Patrick was not impressed by her working style or her roommates by her habits).

And I do not consider ANY of the comments I or others have made on the forum, either about Americans' occasional ignorance about other countries or European attitudes to Americans or men's attitudes to women to be BASHING. They are not bashing -- they are observing!!! It is silly to deny them, because they all contain plenty of truth. Plus, there are also many positive comments about all the countries involved (although not on "The View". This said, let me defend Whoopi for one second; after watching the video again, her words appear to me to have been "they'll chop you in half" with a gesture across her chest, and I believe this was supposed to be figurative. At least she doesn't actually believe that Sharia law reigns in Italy.)
Top Profile 

Offline maybe she did it, maybe n


Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 6:45 am

Posts: 1

Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:14 am   Post subject:    

This is my first post, although I have been reading here for a while now. THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL YOUR GREAT WORK. I have enjoyed learning thre facts of the case and hope to start to be a active poster when I can, again thank you all for your fine work to see justice for this poor senseless killing of this beautiful young woman. Meridth rest i peace.
Top Profile 

Offline Shogun


Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:48 pm

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:20 am   Post subject:    

Like the person above me, this is also my first post. Being lurker is my main occupation on this forum as it seems.

I sincerely want to thank for everyone for their fantastic contributions to this case. I first came across this case on CNN website and for some reason, it just fascinated me to no end. I have no idea why but it just did.

I've been reading as much as I could on this case and was in awe on how dense it can be. I feel like I'm really out of my element since law/murder/psychology aren't my main thing, although I currently take intro psych class.

Due to my lack of knowledge of justice/foresenic science/criminal process, I'm not able to contribute very much to this forum, except I really hope that justice will prevail for Miss Meredith Kercher. I must be impressed with everyone's contributions for sure, except those whose chose to exploit Miss Kercher's death for wrong reasons.

Also, I find it fascinated how Italian law system works different from American and how balance it is. It's interesting concept to me because it is very different in some ways that is bit unfamiliar to me.

I read translated report of Judge Micheli's report and I have to be impressed with how Micheli managed to reconstruct whole crime scene. It's surrealistic to me because I don't think Judges here in America have done that before. But I may be mistaken since I'm not familiar with law.

It will be challenge for me to contribute something to this forum besides 'yeah, man, that's awesome' or 'man, that's whacked' or 'Kercher shall get the justice she deserve!' but I dunno.

Anyway, thanks to everybody for their superb works. I shall look foward to the day when jury toss out the verdict to Miss Knox and Mr Sollectio.

Btw, I have read so much on Guede and Knox but only so few on Sollectio. For this reason, I'm not really familiar what's up with Sollectio because he seems to be bit of a mysterious/engima to me. He is just..... I have no idea. It's as if he is just supporting actor in this case but I have no idea about him except that he is an ex of Knox, like Japanese anime/manga (which I'm big fan of), love knives, and is rich boy, but that's about it.

Apologies for rambling but keep up good work, everybody!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 12:56 pm   Post subject:    

Shogun wrote:
Like the person above me, this is also my first post. Being lurker is my main occupation on this forum as it seems.

I sincerely want to thank for everyone for their fantastic contributions to this case. I first came across this case on CNN website and for some reason, it just fascinated me to no end. I have no idea why but it just did.

I've been reading as much as I could on this case and was in awe on how dense it can be. I feel like I'm really out of my element since law/murder/psychology aren't my main thing, although I currently take intro psych class.

Due to my lack of knowledge of justice/foresenic science/criminal process, I'm not able to contribute very much to this forum, except I really hope that justice will prevail for Miss Meredith Kercher. I must be impressed with everyone's contributions for sure, except those whose chose to exploit Miss Kercher's death for wrong reasons.

I read translated report of Judge Micheli's report and I have to be impressed with how Micheli managed to reconstruct whole crime scene. It's surrealistic to me because I don't think Judges here in America have done that before. But I may be mistaken since I'm not familiar with law.

It will be challenge for me to contribute something to this forum besides 'yeah, man, that's awesome' or 'man, that's whacked' or 'Kercher shall get the justice she deserve!' but I dunno.



Hi there Maybe, and Shogun! Lovely to see new people! Don't worry about not knowing anything about law or psychology or forensics. It really isn't the point in some ways. The best thing about this forum I think is that it is a 'democratic community' in the fullest sense - i.e anyone can participate and bring whatever they have to the party. Besides I sometimes find the simplest questions to be the most profound. (Was it Richard Bach that said this in Illusions??) And it is these questions that sometimes spark off discussions that lead to those 'lightbulb' moments being discussed earlier... :idea:
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: Fri May 15, 2009 1:52 pm   Post subject:    

maybe she did it, maybe n and Shogun, welcome.

Shogun, even intro psych could be interesting, you never know.
It prompts me to ask, do you think, when people are saying one thing, say when they are telling a story, yet they keep on inserting incongruous things into it that tell another story (sort of like the subconscious contradicting the conscious by agreeing with it), is that like handing out a clue?
"Yes, there was a burglary (but it was a pretend one)." or: "There's a rock and broken glass" versus the rock is in the wrong spot, and so is the broken glass.

justlooking (see [link] Thu May 14, 2009 11:56 am) -
"left to the trolls"

Good phrase! This is the web way of saying "gone to the dogs", which, combined with


Skeptical Bystander (see [link] Thu May 14, 2009 12:13 pm )

- quoting the phrase "a dog in the race"

reminded me of a race last month which was won by Miss Bossy Boots, with some of the other greyhounds called Midnight Movie, Agreed Statement, Key Suspect, and poor old Wee Agree being scratched. How's that for coincidences?
(see [link] Richmond dogs, race 1, 13 April 2009)


Michael ([link] Thu May 14, 2009 1:32 pm):
"they are all about smearing someone they see as a serious opponent. Were she not, they wouldn't mention her at all."

Talking about dogs, it's probably fortunate, but if Bluto or Pluto or whoever did actually post a post (about me, say, so that I wouldn't feel left out), and I wasn't there to read it, would it make a sound as it fell to the forest floor?


Kent County lad [link] Thu May 14, 2009 2:42 pm
"clueless" ... "a model American citizen"

For a moment, the echo of the film title "clueless" made me think of "model" as the kind that required some batteries
(which had somehow got left behind at the airport, or somewhere), as in "batteries not included". :)


As for light bulb moments, none have occurred so far for me. More the opposite, in a way.
When you walk home at night along the street, you go with a friend for safety and companionship.
Statistically, if you are attacked inside your home, the chances of it being a complete
stranger are not as high as some other possibilities.

So the investigators try to find out where everyone at or from the cottage was on the night in question,
in order to build up a picture.
The two remaining in the picture are finding it an uphill battle in trying to remove themselves from it.
This sort of uphill is not the sort that water can run back up, at least not with money from the hand.
And from the clues left behind, some part of them may not want that water to flow back uphill in any case.
There's some kind of psychology going on in that, I think.


Last edited by Catnip on Fri May 15, 2009 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 1:53 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
Heh heh -- Nicki, your post is really funny! "Coarse, loud and drunk girls wearing shorts that barely cover their crotch!" "Ignorant people who have spent just a few weeks in the country!" "Italy-bashing!"

Well, I presume you were not referring to me -- the description would be too hilarious, given my age, looks and demeanor! (and over 20 years on each side of the Atlantic and one Italian, one American parent...)

Personally, I think this discussion about American attitudes towards Europeans and European attitudes towards America is very relevant to the case, both for understanding the attitude of the FOA and for understanding the possibly humiliating psychological experience Amanda underwent in Italy (finding, for instance, that Patrick was not impressed by her working style or her roommates by her habits).

And I do not consider ANY of the comments I or others have made on the forum, either about Americans' occasional ignorance about other countries or European attitudes to Americans or men's attitudes to women to be BASHING. They are not bashing -- they are observing!!! It is silly to deny them, because they all contain plenty of truth. Plus, there are also many positive comments about all the countries involved (although not on "The View". This said, let me defend Whoopi for one second; after watching the video again, her words appear to me to have been "they'll chop you in half" with a gesture across her chest, and I believe this was supposed to be figurative. At least she doesn't actually believe that Sharia law reigns in Italy.)


I was thinking about Whoopi Goldberg's "chopping" comment last night. It was certainly an irresponsible thing to say (because there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian legal system) and also an ironic thing to say (because it's the *U.S.* which, I'm sad to say, exercises the death penalty), but one must remember that Whoopi Goldberg IS A COMEDIENNE and her comments should be interpreted with that in mind.
Top Profile 

Offline budapesti


Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 1:51 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject:    

I am new too and would like to say thank you to those providing the information. I hope justice will be done for Meredith.

I saw the Porta a Porta video. I don't suppose there is a transcript anywhere in English? It looked interesting from the little I could understand of Italian anyway. Also, when are they next due in court? :)
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:02 pm   Post subject:    

For those discussing the shock blog. Personally I've had enough after Frank's last rant. I think the best action would be if we just ignore it from now on. It'll wither and die due to lack of manure (a polite way of saying bullshit).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip posted:
"And from the clues left behind, some part of them may not want that water to flow back uphill in any case.
There's some kind of psychology going on in that, I think."

That's an interesting angle.
One of the most obvious things the dynamic duo left un-'cleaned' was the footprint on the bathmat. Finn has suggested (at the Cook's) that maybe they thought it belonged to RG, which makes sense.
I think they were more overwhelmed with the task as opposed to anything else, but some kind of resignation to 'fate' is evidenced in the 'I can't keep this up anymore' (maybe not the exact words) spoken by AK and evesdropped by ILE. Maybe they were already, to an extent, resigned to their 'fate' prior to the discovery of the crime.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:10 pm   Post subject:    

Justlooking wrote:

Quote:
For those discussing the shock blog. Personally I've had enough after Frank's last rant. I think the best action would be if we just ignore it from now on. It'll wither and die due to lack of manure (a polite way of saying bullshit).


I'll never read or believe another word written by "Frank Sfarzo" after the lies he posted yesterday. If he's too damn lazy (or busy) to moderate the comments on his blog, then why should anyone bother reading them? We are known by the company we keep. "Frank" keeps bad company and enables unacceptable online behavior.

Let's not forget that "Frank" is a blogger, not a journalist. Last August, he told a Seattle Times reporter (who duly published it as fact, apparently without checking) that he is currently a film professor and this is not true. His claim to fame is that he lives in Perugia. Wow! Candace Dempsey "reported" that he rushed to Perugia from Florence when he heard about Meredith's murder. Other sources tell me he has lived in Perugia for years. Which is it? In any case, he set up his blog on November 2, 2007, the day her murder was discovered. That was quick!

Why the multiple and contradictory stories? Why the lack of transparency? Why the wild, angry and baseless claims about other people and other blogs/boards where this case is discussed? His one big "scoop" -- the so-called witness Christian, the guy who may have seen Rudy in his apartment but did not bother to file a police report at the time -- was rejected by Judge Micheli as unreliable.

His reports are not factual; they are fanciful and driven by a theory: that conservative old people are against "the youth" and its penchant for drugs, sex and rock and roll, and that this is why AK and RS are suspects. On the other side of the divide, we have hipsters like Frank, who love (even worship) youth and its excesses (more and more with each passing year?). Rigid authority versus reckless freedom; age versus youth. Pretty simple and unhelpful dichotomies for understanding the tragic death of Meredith Kercher, if you ask me. If you put his thesis in the simplest terms, here is what Frank is saying: if you think Amanda Knox might possibly have been involved in her roommate's death, or if you think that she might know more than she is telling, then you are quite simply "against the youth".

I'm sorry to be such a wet blanket, but I need a little more sustenance.

Welcome to our latest posters. This is a good time to look at what the board has to offer and our ongoing discussion. The trial resumes at the end of next week.

_________________
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: Fri May 15, 2009 3:14 pm   Post subject:    

Nowo wrtoe:

Quote:
Catnip posted:
"And from the clues left behind, some part of them may not want that water to flow back uphill in any case.
There's some kind of psychology going on in that, I think."

That's an interesting angle.
One of the most obvious things the dynamic duo left un-'cleaned' was the footprint on the bathmat. Finn has suggested (at the Cook's) that maybe they thought it belonged to RG, which makes sense.
I think they were more overwhelmed with the task as opposed to anything else, but some kind of resignation to 'fate' is evidenced in the 'I can't keep this up anymore' (maybe not the exact words) spoken by AK and evesdropped by ILE. Maybe they were already, to an extent, resigned to their 'fate' prior to the discovery of the crime.



Somewhere, and I don't know where, I think AK states that she used the bathmat to dry her feet. In her December session with Mignini, she states that she used the bathmat to shuffle between the bathroom and her room. If either of these statements is true, it is hard to understand how she could not have seen the footprint in a substance that can only have been blood.

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

Offline IM


Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:38 am

Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 pm   Post subject:    

just a passing observation
concerning the frank blog,
I noticed that as the hard evidencee
was presented,
the more absurd the frank blog became,
they didnt know what to say about
dna on bras, footprints and videos,
so they did the obvious, and
became as perverse as the situation itself.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:23 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:

Quote:
Talking about dogs, it's probably fortunate, but if Bluto or Pluto or whoever did actually post a post (about me, say, so that I wouldn't feel left out), and I wasn't there to read it, would it make a sound as it fell to the forest floor?


Whether you want to call the poster Bluto, Pluto, Goofy, Rodney, Snidely Viper or Showmeyoursources, he certainly is a huge STAR in his teeny universe!
And Herr Leibnitz was right to pose the question about a tree falling in an unpeopled forest. My answer this morning (it is morning here) is that I have not heard one tree fall in more than 24 hours and don't plan to be anywhere near a forest where trees are falling anytime soon. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, no one is there to feel the impact of its fall either. As a precaution, it is best to stay far away from falling trees because they do not always behave in predictable ways as they fall. And given the thickness of the average forest, trees will keep on falling and one will keep on hearing them for as long as one hangs around.

I hope Wee Agree!

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

Offline strano_cammino


Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:14 pm

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:37 pm   Post subject:    

Hello, another newcomer here. I have been lurking since November 2007 on the haloscan but never felt I had something useful to contribute. Nevertheless thank you everybody for your observations and ideas and for providing so much information. I feel like this forum is one of the few sources where I can find reliable information on this case.

I still don't feel like I have anything useful to share in terms of breakthrough ideas. I have only my personal experiences to share. In 2005, I spent 4 months living in Perugia, 3 of which I attended the Universita Per Stranieri to study Italian. I was 18 years old at the time. Before starting the language course, I could not even count to ten in Italian and after three months I was able to conduct reasonable conversations. I am curious to know which grade/level Amanda was in (had she studied the language before coming to Perugia?). In any case, I can tell you that for me and my classmates 3 months of level 1 does not provide you with a clear notion of the Italian subjunctive (sia, fosse, etc). I remember being taught about this form only in the last week or two last weeks before the end of the course, and it was by no means in-depth, maybe covering only 1 lesson just to give us some ideas of the many things there were still to learn. I still don't know how to use this form properly, even after studying more Italian in the 4 years after leaving Perugia and becoming more proficient in the language.

There is not a day when I don't think about Meredith. This case not only fascinates me because I knew Patrick, or because I also lived with an unhygienic American roommate in a small Perugian house, or because my beloved Perugia plays as a background to such a horrific story. Most of all, I am compelled by the beauty of Meredith and the utter uselessness of her death.

I did not know Meredith, but somehow feel that had we lived in Perugia at the same time, she could have been my friend. Scarier even, is to think that Meredith could have been me... That is to say, this could have happened to me...

Thinking of Amanda, I don't see how that could have been me, no matter how naive I was at the time (and I was!). And even if it had been me, and I would be innocent and found myself in a trial being accused of this horrific murder, I can only imagine myself crying at every trial session, grabbing any opportunity to beg and plead with the judges and everybody else present that I were innocent.

I am hoping for justice for Meredith and her family. Since her death, I have been able to live and study in different countries, and I have grown even a year older than her final age. Thinking of her every day, I hope to carry her with me in my life. She will never be forgotten by me and I think this counts as well for the thousands of other young students from all over the world who have had the priviledge to study in Perugia and who I am sure all feel for Meredith.
Top Profile 

Offline kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:37 pm   Post subject: American's nationalistic/ patriotic   

I am an American and I have seen some of these shows that have been discussed: Nancy Grace,...I pretty much am like minded to Nancy Grace. I must say that you have to be a moron to think RS and AK are innocent. I am somewhat patiotic, but that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in a murder trial. I look at the facts,... and decide. This case is easy. Both defendants are guilty, it makes no difference where they come from. I also think it is sad that RG is referred to as an African American. People who do that are just stupid. Very ignorant. As if All Africans are from America. They should refer to him as a person of African decent if they wish. These media people are supposedly intelligent. They really show themselves to be stupid. I think media people should report the facts, and not try to be on noe side or the other. What bothers me is I see many media people try to take the side of the defendants and I just don't get that. They seem to dismiss all evidence against them. I don't understand their thinking. Any REASONABLE person realizes the right people are on trial. If not, WHO then. That supposed Italian person Guede tangled with? Guede was the one person who could have really broken this case open. He may end up being the only person sent to jail for this. He'll probably say what happened someday, but his testimony at that point will be the testimony of the guilty killer. Does anyone have an Idea of what they think happened when MK walked in that house till she was murdered? Do you thik 3 people basically ambushed her and kept her prisoner,... and then someone stabbed her in the neck? How long was it Approximately from when MK got to her house till when they think she was dead. Is this whole thing about AK and Rs basically fulfilling sexual fantasies, or was there something else as well? In any event, AK and RS are some sick people. I hate to say it, but I wish them a very bad future.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:38 pm   Post subject:    

There is a parallel between where Frank is at with his blog (as per IM) and where AK is at with her stories (bathmat shuffle). Both have ended up with no ground to stand on, and both are swinging in the breeze.
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject:    

dear Skep -- didn't I read in an earlier post that the Schock blog accidentaly started before these events -- and its title refers to an other case? Just sheer curiousity from me -- I think I read it here somewhere -- a kind of perverted luck for him and sinchronicity --
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 3:42 pm   Post subject:    

I mean, 24 hours before this tragedy -- that Frank's blog's title refers to an other event, an other case --
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:06 pm   Post subject:    

strano_cammino wrote:
Thinking of her every day, I hope to carry her with me in my life. She will never be forgotten by me and I think this counts as well for the thousands of other young students from all over the world who have had the priviledge to study in Perugia and who I am sure all feel for Meredith.



Thank you for a very sincere and moving post strano_cammino. I think that is a lovely sentiment. I think we all carry Meredith in our hearts, and always will.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:08 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Nowo wrtoe:

Quote:
Catnip posted:
"And from the clues left behind, some part of them may not want that water to flow back uphill in any case.
There's some kind of psychology going on in that, I think."

That's an interesting angle.
One of the most obvious things the dynamic duo left un-'cleaned' was the footprint on the bathmat. Finn has suggested (at the Cook's) that maybe they thought it belonged to RG, which makes sense.
I think they were more overwhelmed with the task as opposed to anything else, but some kind of resignation to 'fate' is evidenced in the 'I can't keep this up anymore' (maybe not the exact words) spoken by AK and evesdropped by ILE. Maybe they were already, to an extent, resigned to their 'fate' prior to the discovery of the crime.



Somewhere, and I don't know where, I think AK states that she used the bathmat to dry her feet. In her December session with Mignini, she states that she used the bathmat to shuffle between the bathroom and her room. If either of these statements is true, it is hard to understand how she could not have seen the footprint in a substance that can only have been blood.


You know, that's a good point. She *admitted* that she saw blood in the bathroom but thought it was possibly the result of "menstrual issues." Yet she then uses that mat, with that stain on it, to shuffle to her bedroom??? She couldn't possibly think that that particular stain was from "menstrual issues" - without getting too graphic, it's not like menstrual blood gushes out like a fountain!

On an unrelated note, I truly don't think that the people on The View who used the term "African American" were being nation-centric. I really don't. I think it was nothing more than an automatic habit of using "African American" instead of "black" when referring to a person of a particular color. Some people here feel it's more politically correct to refer to black Americans as "African Americans." (Although based on conversations I've had with black people, it seems like it's an individual preference on their part - some are perfectly fine with the term "black" and some prefer "African American.") Some of the other comments by those View hosts were reprehensible, but on that particular point I'm cutting them some slack, because I suspect the mistake was the result of nothing more than automatic habit.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:13 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
On the other side of the divide, we have hipsters like Frank, who love (even worship) youth and its excesses (more and more with each passing year?).



:D He's no Spring Chicken himself! Does he like to think he is going to preserve his youth by mixing with them? Youth is for the young - they have a charm, and a guilelessness and a sexuality that is theirs and theirs alone. It is not for aging 'hipsters' to identify with them, they don't want it. He should act his age. He has no idea how teenagers regard aging hippies!!! (Yawn...)
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject:    

Skep:
Aren't all these meanspirited attacks and the various smear campaigns launched against you by some of the FOA just another clue in the big picture of guilt?

These are clues that clearly signal AWARENESS OF GUILT because those tactics only reveal desperation.

Who but a guilty person and his or her followers would feel so desperate to try to undermine someone (like you) who has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the gathering of evidence, and the eventual verdict.

A truly innocent accused person and their "team" would do EVERYTHING possible to preserve the accused's integrity and confirm that the accused's character is beyond reproach. Since we are all "known" by the company we keep, this pathetic nastiness they engage in is only hurting, not helping Amanda. Evidently, they just don't get it. Sad.

The discussions of Nancy Grace remind me of when I used to watch her on a somewhat regular basis on TV, some years back. It was in the days just after Laci Peterson's disappearance and later, the arrest of the husband Scott, for Laci's murder.

Say what you will about Nancy's abrasive style, smirks and sarcasm, she certainly uncovered Scott's BS VERY early on, and exposed his lies and inconsistencies.

Nancy Grace was a crime victim herself, having endured the murder of her own fiance, just before their wedding. Her life was shattered , and as a result of that, she changed her career direction from English professor to career prosecutor.

I recall watching at least one very heated exchange with Nancy and Scott Peterson's father, Lee Peterson, on live TV. Scott's father really lost his cool with her in a very ugly way, Not only did he accuse Nancy of hating his loving, wonderful son (the one who is on Death Row at the moment) But Lee Peterson lashed out at her with personal insults, calling her a "man-hater" and similar epithets.

Hurling ad hominem insults didn't advance his beloved son's case, one iota, did it?

Didn't do much to hurt Nancy, either did it? The "man-hater" went on to get her own show, she got married and had twins.

The moral of this story? Being called a barren, alcoholic shrew by people who seem threatened by the truth you reveal will not hurt you. You know that and we know that.

But it may erode any remaining goodwill and presumption of innocent of AK, if there is still any, held by the public.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:20 pm   Post subject:    

IM wrote:

[quotejust a passing observation
concerning the frank blog,
I noticed that as the hard evidencee
was presented,
the more absurd the frank blog became,
they didnt know what to say about
dna on bras, footprints and videos,
so they did the obvious, and
became as perverse as the situation itself.

[/quote]

I agree, IM. It seems that before the evidence came up in trial the FOA were saying "Where's the proof? Cartwheels and smiles do not equal murder." Now you have some evidence and they have nothing substantial to add to the discussion other than the conspiracy theories, ie the police are lying, the evidence is planted, the confession beaten out of her etc. And things do really heat up quite quickly over there anger-wise. Once that happens the bullies unleash all sorts of vile garbage.

Michael, I agree, that no one who reads the info supposedly authored by you actually believes it. They are not clever enough to convince anyone. And Skep - same goes - no one believes any of the garbage spewed about you or your family.

Catnip, I so enjoy reading your posts. I absolutely love how you turn a phrase and/or thought!
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:31 pm   Post subject:    

I have no idea of the reasons behind Skep's not having children because it is *absolutely* none of my business (and as an aside, I'll point out that I don't have children at this point, either - not sure yet if I want any or not and my clock is running out fast :shock: ). But I find it completely idiotic that the FOA would use "barren" as an insult, as if that's some kind of character flaw. It gives me yet another glimpse into their warped minds. :?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 4:54 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:

Quote:
I have no idea of the reasons behind Skep's not having children because it is *absolutely* none of my business (and as an aside, I'll point out that I don't have children at this point, either - not sure yet if I want any or not and my clock is running out fast ). But I find it completely idiotic that the FOA would use "barren" as an insult, as if that's some kind of character flaw. It gives me yet another glimpse into their warped minds.


The only reason it even came up is that "Goofy" (generic name for participants in online harassment campaign and authors of the most vile and idiotic posts to grace "Frank's" blog) visited my blogspot blog and read a post I wrote in which I noted that I don't have children. Nothing in my post suggested that I am "barren" or that I hate children (this is another claim they like to make about me). I really don't care, but I made the mistake of trying to set the record straight at Frank's only because I thought that the use of the term "barren shrew" was offensive to women in general, especially those who are not childless by choice. The use of the term by "Goofy" and the comments at "Frank's" about women speak volumes about their attitude towards women. It no longer surprises me when one of them makes a derogatory comment about Meredith Kercher, the victim. They loathe women. It is as simple as that.

_________________
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: Fri May 15, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject:    

I agree - it's an extremely offensive phrase. I've seen my sister go through the heartache of infertility and I would hate for her to hear that phrase being used to describe someone.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:01 pm   Post subject:    

The 411 wrote:

Say what you will about Nancy's abrasive style, smirks and sarcasm, she certainly uncovered Scott's BS VERY early on, and exposed his lies and inconsistencies.
Nancy Grace was a crime victim herself, having endured the murder of her own fiance, just before their wedding. Her life was shattered , and as a result of that, she changed her career direction from English professor to career prosecutor.


Thanks for this info 411. I was really put off by her abrasiveness on the HLN show--to the point I couldn't understand her popularity at all, not having watched her before. Of course even celebrities have bad nights or bad phases (I think David Letterman, for instance is really going through something now; he seems really detached, ready to leave even. I saw him with Beyonce and it was so uncomfortable--like he was a million miles away. He probably misses the high intensity of tormenting John Mc Cain or Joaquin Phoenix). (Sorry that's so OT, you may not watch Letterman at all...)

Also Strano-cammano: Thanks for such a lovely memorial to Meredith. I was wishing her family could read it as its obvious sincerity was really touching.

I'll be glad for more of the trial and evidence. What is coming up? Has Stewart abandoned us, does anyone know? I realize it must be a heavy obligation as he's already busy. In any case, PMF remains readable with secondary topics, even while waiting for trial news.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:08 pm   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
I'll be glad for more of the trial and evidence. What is coming up? Has Stewart abandoned us, does anyone know? I realize it must be a heavy obligation as he's already busy. In any case, PMF remains readable with secondary topics, even while waiting for trial news.


Stewart has told me that he is very busy with work obligations and not able to attend the trial at this time. I'm sure he'll check in soon to say hello. For trial news, we have several reliable published sources to look choose from.

_________________
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: Fri May 15, 2009 6:11 pm   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
The 411 wrote:


Say what you will about Nancy's abrasive style, smirks and sarcasm, she certainly uncovered Scott's BS VERY early on, and exposed his lies and inconsistencies.
Nancy Grace was a crime victim herself, having endured the murder of her own fiance, just before their wedding. Her life was shattered , and as a result of that, she changed her career direction from English professor to career prosecutor.



Thanks for this info 411. I was really put off by her abrasiveness on the HLN show--to the point I couldn't understand her popularity at all, not having watched her before. Of course even celebrities have bad nights or bad phases (I think David Letterman, for instance is really going through something now; he seems really detached, ready to leave even. I saw him with Beyonce and it was so uncomfortable--like he was a million miles away. He probably misses the high intensity of tormenting John Mc Cain or Joaquin Phoenix). (Sorry that's so OT, you may not watch Letterman at all...)


I read the discussion of Nancy Grace with interest because I can see both sides have merit. She is one of those polarizing people. But she is riveting in her own way and very sharp. She can be exasperating. I hardly ever watch television, though, which mostly takes care of the problem. If I am watching and someone really bugs me, I just leave the room.

_________________
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: Fri May 15, 2009 6:15 pm   Post subject:    

Strano_cammino wrote:

Quote:
Hello, another newcomer here. I have been lurking since November 2007 on the haloscan but never felt I had something useful to contribute. Nevertheless thank you everybody for your observations and ideas and for providing so much information. I feel like this forum is one of the few sources where I can find reliable information on this case.


Welcome, Strano, and thank you so much for your post about learning Italian and living in Perugia. Please stick around!

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

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:17 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The only reason it even came up is that "Goofy" (generic name for participants in online harassment campaign and authors of the most vile and idiotic posts to grace "Frank's" blog) visited my blogspot blog and read a post I wrote in which I noted that I don't have children. Nothing in my post suggested that I am "barren" or that I hate children (this is another claim they like to make about me). I really don't care, but I made the mistake of trying to set the record straight at Frank's only because I thought that the use of the term "barren shrew" was offensive to women in general, especially those who are not childless by choice. The use of the term by "Goofy" and the comments at "Frank's" about women speak volumes about their attitude towards women. It no longer surprises me when one of them makes a derogatory comment about Meredith Kercher, the victim. They loathe women. It is as simple as that.


Hi Skep! I thought I would beat the Shock Shack to their own buffoonery and RE-POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE and make fun of you because we all know THIS POST will end up over there so let's give it whirl shall we? 8-)

Unfortunately their education level was stifled by grade 3 so they can only take jabs at others on this extremely elementary level. Rewind to the playground. Four Square, Target Ball, the Rings, bullying and name calling. Hence, rather than attacking with any remotely significant concept or idea on a mature level we hear little boy name calling.

"Jaba da Hut” Oh, boy that hurt.

As if. "nobody would be her date" gave me an emotional setback in life.

Oh yes, and now for the insult: Was that a bottle of red wine you had in your shopping cart at the local Safeway??
I was standing just behind waiting for you to move so I could buy some myself. What a loser you are buying wine on a Thursday!! :roll:

Remember guys, it's not what you know, or who you know, but rather, what you know about who you know that is going to get you busted. Party on.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:29 pm   Post subject:    

Professor Snape wrote:

Quote:
Oh yes, and now for the insult: Was that a bottle of red wine you had in your shopping cart at the local Safeway??
I was standing just behind waiting for you to move so I could buy some myself. What a loser you are buying wine on a Thursday!!


If only it could be said that I buy just one bottle at a time! I usually go in for a six-pack, which is easier now that the stores provide the handy six-bottle totes and sometimes offer a 10% discount. As for the store, I try and mix it up so that store clerks don't realize just how quickly I work through the six-pack. You know how people love to gossip! :lol:

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

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:37 pm   Post subject:    

I didn't know it was considered bad to buy (or should that be drink?) wine on a Thursday! Is this some religious thing I don't know about? Everyone I know enjoys a glass of wine on any night. It's a European thing :).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 6:43 pm   Post subject:    

Just looking wrote:

Quote:
I didn't know it was considered bad to buy (or should that be drink?) wine on a Thursday! Is this some religious thing I don't know about? Everyone I know enjoys a glass of wine on any night. It's a European thing.


It must have to do with an obscure Puritanical streak that runs through the lunatic fringe of the FOA movement. My hubby drank a beer -- one beer! -- with Chris Mellas one Thursday night, and that qualified him for the status of alcoholic. My husband, that is. Chris Mellas's one beer was normal and customary.

It could be due to the lack of any real skeletons in my closet? If they only knew the "real" reason I fled Europe and returned clandestinely to the US. :lol:

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

Offline Blaise


Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:50 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:01 pm   Post subject:    

Hi, I've been following this for awhile, off and on, and I keep hearing a phrase here which I find very problematic, to say the least. For example, Truth Seeker wrote earlier today (and others at this site have agreed)

"there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian legal system".

With all respect, I just could not agree less. The justice system, a priori, demands doubt, due to its political and financial machinations; and it is because of this that so many restraints, for example 'innocent till proven guilty' have had to be put in. This mistrust has not been built overnight, but is the experience of a very long history of the unequal (or asymmetric) powers of the government verses and a single vulnerable person.

I have posted here a couple times that my sense is that the police departments, judges and prosecutor have done a very good job here (to try to make up for the faux-pas of 'the case is solved' after arresting PL ?); and at this point the level of evidence is so overwhelming that it seems it is only by inertia the case is continuing to be defended. In 'real-life', it is hard to imagine a defense being constructed in this manner, instead of a 'extenuating circumstances' plea.

But speaking as an American living in France, there is no end of judicial catastrophes and mishaps to choose from in both countries. As for Italy, there is no need to look farther than Adriano Sofri who is sitting in jail today. Or Caesare Battisti who is being granted refugee status in Brazil due to outrageously political prosecution and manufactured evidence. The list can go on and on. True, they are not Middle class American language students studying abroad, but the fact remains there is very good reason to mistrust the Italian justice system, as anyone who has followed it knows. And I personally have experiences with local sheriffs near Perugia, in fact, shaking down foreigners. I'm not saying it is any worse than the system in the US, which is notoriously vindictive and incompetent, but to say 'there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian justice system', verges on the preposterous ! On this issue, even the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi would happy side with me on this.

In this particular case, they seem to have done a most professional job - and the fact that it has held up under all the scrutiny speaks volumes. Even so, there is the high chance of the policeman testifying that he did not enter the room on discovering Meredith Kercher's corpse, seems in all probability rather dodgy.

All I can say is that when the Integity of the Italian Justice system is held as exemplary, Lord Help all us tax abiding citizens!
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:04 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
My hubby drank a beer -- one beer! -- with Chris Mellas...
Ha! That was his first mistake! :lol: :lol:

BTW - this morning I found myself making a cappuccino (well, latte to tell the truth) with some Starbuck's Extra Bold Ialian Roast while standing on my kitchen rug which has "Florence, Italy" written all over it. So there ya go, a small reflection of my appreciation for some great European culture in my own humble hut.

o-((

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:09 pm   Post subject:    

Blaise,

Although I'm an attorney here in the U.S., I admit that I am no expert BY ANY MEANS on the Italian legal system. I should have said, "There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian legal system in this particular case."

I'd also just make the point that no legal system is perfect, because they're all run by human beings who are all also imperfect. It's a sad inevitability that there will be some abuse of power and some convictions of innocent people (which is one of the big reasons I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty). But I would say that here at least, the system in general functions fairly well. (I'm saying "here at least" because it's only my own country's system that I am quite familiar with.)
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:28 pm   Post subject:    

I just wanted to say that one of the things I love about this board (as opposed to other web forums I frequent) is the diversity in terms of posters' nationalities and countries of residence, etc. We have posters of various nationalities and posters who have lived in and traveled to various countries other than their country of birth. I think it makes things really interesting. I've enjoyed learning more about how trials for serious crimes work in Italy, for example.

Anyway, just giving some props to the board. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:35 pm   Post subject:    

May the force be with you Snape!
Top Profile 

Offline Blaise


Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:50 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 7:55 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Truth Seeker,

Of course, fair enough about this case. Although I am not in the profession, I can only wonder how well many of our CSI investigations would stand up to such scrutiny ? How would you say their technical handing of the evidence was done, from what we know? (It seems impressive to me, when I compare it to certain high profile cases we have had in the US..... but then what do I know?) When I make a jibe about our justice system, it is because there is an endless series of high profile death row cases in the french papers, in which people seem to be routinely sentenced to death on only a fraction of the evidence say, than in this case. So, I'm curious as to your opinion.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:18 pm   Post subject:    

Blaise wrote:
Hi, I've been following this for awhile, off and on, and I keep hearing a phrase here which I find very problematic, to say the least. For example, Truth Seeker wrote earlier today (and others at this site have agreed)

"there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian legal system".

With all respect, I just could not agree less. The justice system, a priori, demands doubt, due to its political and financial machinations; and it is because of this that so many restraints, for example 'innocent till proven guilty' have had to be put in. This mistrust has not been built overnight, but is the experience of a very long history of the unequal (or asymmetric) powers of the government verses and a single vulnerable person.

I have posted here a couple times that my sense is that the police departments, judges and prosecutor have done a very good job here (to try to make up for the faux-pas of 'the case is solved' after arresting PL ?); and at this point the level of evidence is so overwhelming that it seems it is only by inertia the case is continuing to be defended. In 'real-life', it is hard to imagine a defense being constructed in this manner, instead of a 'extenuating circumstances' plea.

But speaking as an American living in France, there is no end of judicial catastrophes and mishaps to choose from in both countries. As for Italy, there is no need to look farther than Adriano Sofri who is sitting in jail today. Or Caesare Battisti who is being granted refugee status in Brazil due to outrageously political prosecution and manufactured evidence. The list can go on and on. True, they are not Middle class American language students studying abroad, but the fact remains there is very good reason to mistrust the Italian justice system, as anyone who has followed it knows. And I personally have experiences with local sheriffs near Perugia, in fact, shaking down foreigners. I'm not saying it is any worse than the system in the US, which is notoriously vindictive and incompetent, but to say 'there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian justice system', verges on the preposterous ! On this issue, even the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi would happy side with me on this.

In this particular case, they seem to have done a most professional job - and the fact that it has held up under all the scrutiny speaks volumes. Even so, there is the high chance of the policeman testifying that he did not enter the room on discovering Meredith Kercher's corpse, seems in all probability rather dodgy.

All I can say is that when the Integity of the Italian Justice system is held as exemplary, Lord Help all us tax abiding citizens!


Adriano Sofri was found gulty of ordering the murder of police commissioner Luigi Calabresi in 1972, Sofri was the founder of the party "Lotta Continua" a leftist armed revolutionary party that advocated the overthrow of the Italian government by force in order to establish a communist dictatorship. His party was also responsible of inspiring anti-government, anti-.capitalistic and anti- american violence, resulting in multiple attacks/ murders/bombings against institutional officers and moderate juornalists, during the infamous Italian "anni di piombo" ( years of gunfires) in the 70's

Cesare Battisti, another terrorist active in the 70's, was sentenced to life for the murder of four innocent people (two police, and two business people in 1979). He managed to evade jail two years later and escaped to France where he benefitted from the "Mitterand doctrine"and escaped again when Chirac granted extradition to Italy. He has been arrested in Brasil thanks to the joint efforts of the French and Italian police. Brasil so far has rejected the extradition. The EU parliament has requested Brasil to comply with the Italian request, Negotiations are ongoing and diplomatic relationships between Italy and Brasil are cold.

I am sure you can find many examples of miscarriages of Italian justice, but I am afraid these two are not the best ones.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:25 pm   Post subject:    

Blaise wrote:
Hi Truth Seeker,

Of course, fair enough about this case. Although I am not in the profession, I can only wonder how well many of our CSI investigations would stand up to such scrutiny ? How would you say their technical handing of the evidence was done, from what we know? (It seems impressive to me, when I compare it to certain high profile cases we have had in the US..... but then what do I know?) When I make a jibe about our justice system, it is because there is an endless series of high profile death row cases in the french papers, in which people seem to be routinely sentenced to death on only a fraction of the evidence say, than in this case. So, I'm curious as to your opinion.


I'm not sure I'm knowledgeable enough about the specific evidence-handling in this case to answer your question. I mean, I *have* been reading about the case but I don't know the ins and outs the way someone like Michael or The Machine does. But from what I've seen, things are fairly comparable to what would happen here. It's definitely troubling that the bra clasp wasn't retrieved for so long, but similar things have happened over here. And if the house was sealed in the interim, I don't see how the delay can really be the basis for a contamination argument.

I *will* say that I have seen murder convictions on less evidence than is present in this case. I've seen convictions in felony cases based only on one eyewitness, who allegedly witnessed the crime at night in a dark parking lot. (And there's loads of research indicating that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.)

Thankfully, I don't work in a death-penalty jurisdiction. I don't think I would be able to do so - too much stress. But I know what you mean re: hearing about death-penalty cases. Have you seen the movie "The Life of David Gale" with Kevin Spacey? Although it's a work of fiction, it's a sobering look at the death penalty and I always think that proponents of the death penalty should see that movie.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:44 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
I *will* say that I have seen murder convictions on less evidence than is present in this case.


On less evidence, sure. But also without comprehensible motive?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:50 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

I *will* say that I have seen murder convictions on less evidence than is present in this case.


On less evidence, sure. But also without comprehensible motive?


There are many murders for which no motive is ever uncovered. Life doesn't really imitate fiction, in this case your average whodunit, and fiction doesn't mirror life.

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:54 pm   Post subject:    

Blaise wrote:
Hi, I've been following this for awhile, off and on, and I keep hearing a phrase here which I find very problematic, to say the least. For example, Truth Seeker wrote earlier today (and others at this site have agreed) "there is no reason to doubt the integrity of the Italian legal system".

But speaking as an American living in France, there is no end of judicial catastrophes and mishaps to choose from in both countries.
All I can say is that when the Integity of the Italian Justice system is held as exemplary, Lord Help all us tax abiding citizens!


Blaise,

You are absolutely right in general that we should all of us all over the world doubt to some extent our legal systems and our governments because as citizens we have to question and keep them honest.

And specifically in this case we should doubt, because we've been given reason to doubt. We've seen some (mild) incompetence, the wrong man was held for 2 weeks, it is known that the first investigating officer did step into the bedroom murder scene (not such a big deal I think).

However, why this phrase you criticize keeps coming up is because a contingent of people in the U.S. think the police and the investigation and the prosecution are all in conspiracy and lying and setting things up to convict Amanda Knox (and less so, Sollecito).

THIS isn't true.

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:55 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I *will* say that I have seen murder convictions on less evidence than is present in this case.


On less evidence, sure. But also without comprehensible motive?


Well, I guess my answer to that would be that, at least in my jurisdiction, motive is not a necessary element of the crime of murder. It can be a *piece* of evidence that ties in with everything else and makes the prosecution's case stronger, but the absence of it will not be fatal to the prosecution's case.

I'm trying to think about cases I know of where there was no discernable motive. I'll think about it some more and make a post if I end up recalling something significant.

But if the evidence of the crime itself is there, motive really doesn't *have* to be proven.

I *will* say that, in my jurisdiction at least, the prosecution would be hard-pressed to convict Amanda of first-degree (i.e., premeditated) murder, given the facts that I know of at the moment. She would more likely be convicted of second-degree murder but still given a lengthy sentence. (In my jurisdiction, first-degree murder carries a sentence of life in prison with no possibility of parole; if convicted of second-degree murder you can still be sentenced to life, but would be at least *eligible* for parole at some point.)


Last edited by Truth Seeker on Fri May 15, 2009 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 8:58 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
There are many murders for which no motive is ever uncovered. Life doesn't really imitate fiction, in this case your average whodunit, and fiction doesn't mirror life.


it's just that no motive and little evidence don't make a good combination for a murder conviction.

if you have got a strong motive, you can get away with little evidence. but if you don't have a comprehensible motive, then evidence like there is a bit strange here and there is a bit strange there probably won't do.

and in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:00 pm   Post subject:    

Skep, I see you beat me to the punch on the "motive doesn't have to be proven" issue. I made my post before seeing yours. :D

Didi, that's a good way of putting it, re: the Italian legal system.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:05 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm trying to think about cases I know of where there was no discernable motive. I'll think about it some more and make a post if I end up recalling something significant.


That would be nice, thanks!
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:05 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
There are many murders for which no motive is ever uncovered. Life doesn't really imitate fiction, in this case your average whodunit, and fiction doesn't mirror life.


it's just that no motive and little evidence don't make a good combination for a murder conviction.

if you have got a strong motive, you can get away with little evidence. but if you don't have a comprehensible motive, then evidence like there is a bit strange here and there is a bit strange there probably won't do.

and in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction. ;)


Yes, that's true - if there is a strong motive then a conviction could occur with less "other" evidence. It seems like in this case there is enough "other" evidence, though, when everything is viewed together.

I think it might all come down to the bra clasp . . . .
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:06 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
...in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction.


So it doesn't have anything to do with if they are guilty or not?
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:08 pm   Post subject:    

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
...in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction.


So it doesn't have anything to do with if they are guilty or not?


I don't understand you :?:
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:10 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
...in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction.


So it doesn't have anything to do with if they are guilty or not?


I don't understand you :?:


Taking the knife away makes them innocent by default?
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:18 pm   Post subject:    

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
...in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction.


So it doesn't have anything to do with if they are guilty or not?


I think he or she is just saying that, in his or her opinion, the knife will be the crucial piece of evidence for the jurors in deciding whether to convict.

Another note on the premediation thing: I don't mean to say that Amanda definitely would not be convicted of first-degree murder here. There could be an argument made that, given the number of and nature of the wounds, the attackers *must* have formed an intent to kill before or during the attack. (There's no requirement that the "premeditation" intent be formed a certain length of time before the actual killing.) I'm just saying that it would be a harder case to prove.


Last edited by Truth Seeker on Fri May 15, 2009 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:19 pm   Post subject:    

Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Fly by Night wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
...in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction.


So it doesn't have anything to do with if they are guilty or not?


I don't understand you :?:


Taking the knife away makes them innocent by default?



The knife is the most important piece of evidence, of course. The bra clasp is interesting too, as was the footprint that was attributed to RS. I am not sure if the prosecution has enough evidence if the knife were taken away.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:23 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:

There are many murders for which no motive is ever uncovered. Life doesn't really imitate fiction, in this case your average whodunit, and fiction doesn't mirror life.


it's just that no motive and little evidence don't make a good combination for a murder conviction.

if you have got a strong motive, you can get away with little evidence. but if you don't have a comprehensible motive, then evidence like there is a bit strange here and there is a bit strange there probably won't do.

and in this case it will all depend on the knife. that's my prediction.



I don't agree with your contention that strong motive can overcome weak evidence, and I don't agree with your characterization of the evidence ("a bit strange here and there") in this case. There is a body of forensic evidence, including but not only the knife, a lot of circumstantial evidence, a couple of witnesses who contradict the tesimony and alibis of the suspects.... etc.

To return to the question of motive, this ruling on an appeal filed with the North Carolina Court of Appeals offers a succinct summary of the issue. In this case, the basis of the appeal was that the judge failed to instruct the jury with regard to the issue of absence of motive. The SC ruled that motive, and absence thereof, are subordinate features of a first-degree murder case:

Quote:
The trial court is required to instruct the jury on all substantial features of a case. In the absence of a special request the trial judge is not required to instruct the jury on subordinate features of a case. Motive is not an element of first-degree murder, nor is its absence a defense. The presence or absence of motive is merely a circumstance which may be considered in determining guilt or innocence in a criminal case. We conclude that absence of motive is a subordinate feature of a first-degree murder case. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on motive in the absence of a request from defendant.

_________________
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: Fri May 15, 2009 9:29 pm   Post subject:    

Skep, I don't agree with Lancelotti's characterization of the evidence as being weak in this case, either. However, I *do* agree with his point that if a strong motive is shown, then a conviction could occur with less "other" evidence than in a case without a discernable motive. It all comes down to a balancing of the available evidence, of which motive may or may not be a part.

edited to add: There must, of course, always be at least SUFFICIENT evidence concerning each necessary element of the crime (a killing occurred, the defendant perpetrated the killing, the defendant had the intent to kill, etc.). But the trier of fact may decide that less "other" evidence is sufficient to satisfy these elements if there is ALSO evidence of a strong motive.


Last edited by Truth Seeker on Fri May 15, 2009 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Blaise


Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:50 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:32 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Nicki, I knew someone was going to bite on this !!

Well, not to descend into a long argument, but I suggest two books: Carlo Ginzburg's Il giudice e lo storico, for the Adriano Sofri case, and Fred Vargas' la Vérité sur Cesare battisti, two writers of impeccable credentials. And if you wish to talk about it, would be happy and, it goes without saying, open minded.

But as I understand both cases, they are based on not a scintilla of evidence- or rather the physical evidence exonerates them, but rather political testimony of super grasses, who are pardoned for it.

I understand there has been a large misunderstanding between France and Italy on this issue, and with Antonio Negri. Basically the Italians seem to say that the French don't understand the 'anni di piombo' ; the french say, no we understand terrorism perfectly well, and it too has had more than its share, and well into the '80s.....but what they don't understand is how putting innocent people in prison, while letting admittedly guilty ones go free helps anyone. Especially when the suspects are instrumentalized for political reasons.

Which, for Battisti, the reason why the French spirited him to Brazil and why the Brazilian courts looking at the record, only sees a political refugee being harassed for political, not criminal reasons. Coming back to the point, it is because many countries do not recognize the legitimacy of many of the so called terrorist convictions in the 70s and 80s. But then neither would many of these Guantanamo trials be seen as legitimate either, if they occur, based on secret testimony and all that.

Also that only 'left wing terrorists' were prosecuted, and that the Piazza Fontana bombing was used politically to attack the left, when it was bombing by the right, didn't help Italy's reputation in the world. Basically Italian justice in those years seemed terribly compromised politically from the beginning; which as I wrote, even Berlusconi would agree! (in the opposite direction.) Anyway, it is an interesting subject that I'd be happy to learn more about from someone in Italy. I already told you the position of the french and even its government !
Top Profile 

Offline Blaise


Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:50 pm

Posts: 88

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 9:52 pm   Post subject:    

I'm glad the topic of motives has come up again ! If anything, it seems to me that the 'motive' ( a loaded word) is becoming more clear over time. I wouldn't say there is a 'motive' as in AK wanted to kill MK to get the 'insurance money'.

But looking at Michael's new timeline at True Justice today, the timing is very very revealing. PL fires AK, hires MK. AK walks away. Next night, AK texts MK all night 'wanting to hang out', MK mostly avoids her. Next night is the night MK was murdered. So, well, lots of good creepy sex drugs, crystal meth, certain club extacy type stuff, a desire for revenge (we'll get her!), and she eggs on her boys, and things go badly and voila!

Not hard to imagine at all. Besides, as Stories Mother didn't tell, points out rather well that it is clearly not a premeditated murder. Also, notice there was even more jealousy in MK getting the guy downstairs AK wanted. And now the Job ! That Bitch!! We'll show her......etc. etc.

Basically, the pro AK side, seems to rely on the psychological syllogism of, A) Nice girls don't rape and kill their roommates, B) AK is a nice girl, therefore C) AK couldn't have killed her roommate.

But whenever people point out, and who cannot? that AK is not a 'Nice girl', and quite possibly less so with 'women friends', and less so with 'women friends' who take her love interest and Job, and even less nice if she were under bad creepy sex drugs and boys with knives......then what would you consider the motive to be?

Besides, with evidence like this, there doesn't need much of an examination of motive- the evidence speaks for itself. The two had no alibi, and lied repeatedly to make one up. Now one says she was with RS all night, and he says, no she was gone for those special hours. Now one couldn't cover for the other if they even wanted to! And then we can move onto the DNA evidence, and the fake breaking and entering, and why is it someone would want to stage this? This is not circumstanctial evidence, but way beyond.

Let's admit that AK is, or has been, a nice girl, why not? But in no way would that exclude the scene the prosecution is imagining. They aren't going after AK because she is a nice girl, or a 'bad girl' (they had no idea how bad she was when they first arrested her! ), but because of the evidence. The AK crowd seems to be mixing apples and oranges. Yes, ok, she has been a nice girl, and clearly she is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice at the very least. By all accounts.

The AK crowd seems to have very singular ideas about human nature, it seems.
Top Profile 

Offline teacher


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:53 am

Posts: 45

Location: California, US

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:01 pm   Post subject:    

Very well put, Blaise!
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:04 pm   Post subject:    

Blaise wrote:
Hi Nicki, I knew someone was going to bite on this !!

Well, not to descend into a long argument, but I suggest two books: Carlo Ginzburg's Il giudice e lo storico, for the Adriano Sofri case, and Fred Vargas' la Vérité sur Cesare battisti, two writers of impeccable credentials. And if you wish to talk about it, would be happy and, it goes without saying, open minded.

But as I understand both cases, they are based on not a scintilla of evidence- or rather the physical evidence exonerates them, but rather political testimony of super grasses, who are pardoned for it.

I understand there has been a large misunderstanding between France and Italy on this issue, and with Antonio Negri. Basically the Italians seem to say that the French don't understand the 'anni di piombo' ; the french say, no we understand terrorism perfectly well, and it too has had more than its share, and well into the '80s.....but what they don't understand is how putting innocent people in prison, while letting admittedly guilty ones go free helps anyone. Especially when the suspects are instrumentalized for political reasons.

Which, for Battisti, the reason why the French spirited him to Brazil and why the Brazilian courts looking at the record, only sees a political refugee being harassed for political, not criminal reasons. Coming back to the point, it is because many countries do not recognize the legitimacy of many of the so called terrorist convictions in the 70s and 80s. But then neither would many of these Guantanamo trials be seen as legitimate either, if they occur, based on secret testimony and all that.

Also that only 'left wing terrorists' were prosecuted, and that the Piazza Fontana bombing was used politically to attack the left, when it was bombing by the right, didn't help Italy's reputation in the world. Basically Italian justice in those years seemed terribly compromised politically from the beginning; which as I wrote, even Berlusconi would agree! (in the opposite direction.) Anyway, it is an interesting subject that I'd be happy to learn more about from someone in Italy. I already told you the position of the french and even its government !


Hi Blaise,

it is a very intricated subject, and it regards a time during the cold war when Italy had the largest communist party in Europe and was plagued by terrorism-incited by people like Sofri, Negri and many others. Battisti was a member of the association "Armed Proletarians", responsible of many murders and armed attacks to citizens and the institutions. The reason why many Italian terrorists sought refugee status in France was because they managed to benefit from the "Mitterand Doctrine" than is no longer used. Left wing and right wing terrorism both existed in the 60's and 70's but Sofri and Battisti are truly criminals, not innocents who were framed. I'll be happy to continue this conversation if you like, but I think it would be better to do so via PM as it is not relevant to the case. :)
Top Profile 

Offline Paula


Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:12 pm

Posts: 29

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:10 pm   Post subject:    

Hi everyone,

I've always been very curious about the clothes that were supposedly being washed on the morning after the murder, wondering if they would be able to be tested for bloodstains. I came across this very interesting study which clearly shows that washing bloodstained clothing in a washing machine does not stop luminol and other reagents from detecting it, even after multiple washings and dryings.

http://www.iabpa.org/December%202005%20News.pdf

Has anyone ever heard anything more about these clothes? I'm sure they would have been tested and I guess if blood were found we'll hear about it in the trial evidence.

I also came across other research indicating that interference effects of bleach on the detection of bloodstains is completely dissipated after about 8 hours. I think this would shoot down all the FOA who consistently say lately that it is the footprints reacting with regular floor cleaner/bleach in the cottage and not blood that the luminol detected. The cleaning was definitely done 8 hours before the police testing.

"Tiles covered with either wet or dry blood were tested, and either water or sodium hypochlorite solution (bleach) was used to clean the tiles. As expected, the chemiluminescence intensity produced when luminol was applied generally decreased with the number of times that a tile was cleaned with water, until the chemiluminescence was neither visible nor detectable. However, when the tiles were cleaned with bleach there was an initial drop in chemiluminescence intensity, followed by a rise to a consistently high value, visibly indistinguishable from that of blood. Examination of bleach drying time suggested that any interfering effect becomes negligible after 8 h."

"The authors noted that luminol is highly sensitive, capable of detecting nanogram traces of blood. While their experiments were conducted on nonporous ceramic tiles, they observed that interference from bleach dissipated after approximately eight hours."

Anyway, I thought this was interesting.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:18 pm   Post subject:    

Paula wrote:
Hi everyone,

I've always been very curious about the clothes that were supposedly being washed on the morning after the murder, wondering if they would be able to be tested for bloodstains. I came across this very interesting study which clearly shows that washing bloodstained clothing in a washing machine does not stop luminol and other reagents from detecting it, even after multiple washings and dryings.

http://www.iabpa.org/December%202005%20News.pdf

Has anyone ever heard anything more about these clothes? I'm sure they would have been tested and I guess if blood were found we'll hear about it in the trial evidence.

I also came across other research indicating that interference effects of bleach on the detection of bloodstains is completely dissipated after about 8 hours. I think this would shoot down all the FOA who consistently say lately that it is the footprints reacting with regular floor cleaner/bleach in the cottage and not blood that the luminol detected. The cleaning was definitely done 8 hours before the police testing.

"Tiles covered with either wet or dry blood were tested, and either water or sodium hypochlorite solution (bleach) was used to clean the tiles. As expected, the chemiluminescence intensity produced when luminol was applied generally decreased with the number of times that a tile was cleaned with water, until the chemiluminescence was neither visible nor detectable. However, when the tiles were cleaned with bleach there was an initial drop in chemiluminescence intensity, followed by a rise to a consistently high value, visibly indistinguishable from that of blood. Examination of bleach drying time suggested that any interfering effect becomes negligible after 8 h."

"The authors noted that luminol is highly sensitive, capable of detecting nanogram traces of blood. While their experiments were conducted on nonporous ceramic tiles, they observed that interference from bleach dissipated after approximately eight hours."

Anyway, I thought this was interesting.


Thank you for posting this Paula, it is very interesting and I remember reading the same thing a long time ago. I don't think the bleach cross-reaction is a valid argument at all, defense will have to look for something else.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:39 pm   Post subject: Amanda's Dec 17th Interrogations   

FYI, those of you who requested transcripts of Amanda's Dec 17 interrogation by Mignini can now find some excerpts in the EXCERPTS FROM AMANDA KNOX’S INTERROGATION - DECEMBER 17, 2007 post, in Amanda's thread in the 'In Their Own Words Forum'. The requested portions of the transcript relating to Mignini's questioning as to why Amanda named Patrick are not there at present, but I shall add them as soon as I'm able to dig them out.

In the meantime, welcome to all new first time posters, it's great to read you 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 The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:53 pm   Post subject:    

Professor Snape wrote:

"Jaba da Hut” Oh, boy that hurt.

As if. "nobody would be her date" gave me an emotional setback in life.

Oh yes, and now for the insult: Was that a bottle of red wine you had in your shopping cart at the local Safeway??
I was standing just behind waiting for you to move so I could buy some myself. What a loser you are buying wine on a Thursday!!.



Just catchin' up. (((hug))) to Snape and Skep. Just *******g ignore them! You're so cool, both of you. You're amazing and inspirational and unique, and I don't CARE if they quote me and take the p***. Let them. I LOVE this post by Snape! :lol: And look at Skep's board! Thriving, with so many new posters here today!! It' s great to see new people with new perspectives. So interesting to read. Stuff Frank. We're here for Meredith. Keep up the good work.

Keep it up for Meredith.

Bard x

p.s still in shock about MP's expenses scandal over here in the UK. All sightings of integrity deeply moving....!
Top Profile 

Offline Paula


Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:12 pm

Posts: 29

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 10:59 pm   Post subject:    

There's such an obvious lie in that excerpt "In the washbasin when she took her earrings out."

Amanda had recent multiple piercings. You would never remove earrings from new piercings until weeks after and by then they are pretty much healed. This appears to me to be a really shrewd and calculating statement, designed to covertly acknowledge the fact that her blood may be found in the sink and give a reason for why it might be found before they even ask her.

Anyway, piercings barely ever bleed. My teenage daughter has multiple ear piercings and even a long "industrial" going from one side of her lobe to another. I have yet to ever find even small bloodstains on her pillow case.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:02 pm   Post subject: Health & Safety   

I have been contemplating Skep's and my legal position as Admins of PMF. It has occured to me that our members, on being encouraged to research the case from multiple different sources, on a range of sites, especially those such as certain US media sites, Frank's Blog, FOA sites and the Cook's Smog etc, may have Health & Safety implications. Therefore, PMF shall be providing its members with appropriate safety equipment. One set per member, for which you'll have to sign a chit when collecting them from the PMF quatermaster. Please look after you saftety equipment and it will look after you:


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:17 pm   Post subject: Re: Health & Safety   

Michael wrote:
I have been contemplating Skep's and my legal position as Admins of PMF. It has occured to me that our members, on being encouraged to research the case from multiple different sources, on a range of sites, especially those such as certain US media sites, Frank's Blog, FOA sites and the Cook's Smog etc, may have Health & Safety implications. Therefore, PMF shall be providing its members with appropriate safety equipment. One set per member, for which you'll have to sign a chit when collecting them from the PMF quatermaster. Please look after you saftety equipment and it will look after you:


HOLY COW!!! TM, is that YOU?!!!! heehee!

b-((

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Fri May 15, 2009 11:49 pm   Post subject:    

I find the question of motive interesting too. I don't hold that there actually has to be a motive as such for any crime. We've all seen or read about crimes that just seemed completely senseless. However, I was struck by the comments of the Kercher's attorney Francesco Maresca made at end of one of the trial days. This quote is from Newsweek.

Maresca says that while he is sure the accused did not go into Kercher’s room with the intent to kill her, there is ample evidence proving that what started as a game ended in her tragic murder. “Kids this age are all into quick thrills. What started as a threat or a game to scare Mez escalated to violence and ended in murder.”

Now, I'm not sure whether this was his off the cuff remark made at the time or whether it was formed as part of his discussions with Meredith's family, but it rings more true to me than any argument that says it was a deliberate attempt to kill Meredith. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the ultimate crime where the pre-meditation was initially not there (if any lawyers are reading this - please excuse my abuse of mens rea). If this was the case then the original motive can be as Maresca states - either a game gone badly wrong, or an attempt to 'teach Meredith a lesson'. I wonder if Meredith's mother may have some light to shine on this when she takes the witness stand. Meredith called her pretty much every night so no doubt told her about how she was getting along with her housemates etc.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Bess


Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm

Posts: 69

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:01 am   Post subject:    

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander

..."Goofy" (generic name for participants in online harassment campaign and authors of the most vile and idiotic posts to grace "Frank's" blog)


Frank's Goof Troop

Goofy=

Gross
Outrageous
Opprobrious
Foul...and...
Yucky!!!

;)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:57 am   Post subject:    

justlooking wrote:
I find the question of motive interesting too. I don't hold that there actually has to be a motive as such for any crime. We've all seen or read about crimes that just seemed completely senseless. However, I was struck by the comments of the Kercher's attorney Francesco Maresca made at end of one of the trial days. This quote is from Newsweek.

Maresca says that while he is sure the accused did not go into Kercher’s room with the intent to kill her, there is ample evidence proving that what started as a game ended in her tragic murder. “Kids this age are all into quick thrills. What started as a threat or a game to scare Mez escalated to violence and ended in murder.”

Now, I'm not sure whether this was his off the cuff remark made at the time or whether it was formed as part of his discussions with Meredith's family, but it rings more true to me than any argument that says it was a deliberate attempt to kill Meredith. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the ultimate crime where the pre-meditation was initially not there (if any lawyers are reading this - please excuse my abuse of mens rea). If this was the case then the original motive can be as Maresca states - either a game gone badly wrong, or an attempt to 'teach Meredith a lesson'. I wonder if Meredith's mother may have some light to shine on this when she takes the witness stand. Meredith called her pretty much every night so no doubt told her about how she was getting along with her housemates etc.


That's a really good point and one that escaped me during the earlier discussions about motive. It may be that there was simply an initial motive to do SOMETHING (scare, intimidate, harass) but not murder, and that things escalated.

I've always wondered if a plausible scenario was that the knife was simply brought over for cutting mushrooms and that an argument/fight started over money when Meredith got home, things got out of hand, knives were produced, and RG took advantage of the situation to sexually assault Meredith. In that case there would be no motive in the traditional sense but instead a terrible escalation of a fight.

There are certain things that could be indications of preplanning (the knife being brought over, the calls to Meredith on the prior evening, the cellphones being turned off), but they're not conclusive, at least for me, personally.
Top Profile 

Offline 2catsintheyard


User avatar


Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:52 am

Posts: 17

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 2:50 am   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
Speaking of "lightbulb" moments, was there any piece of information in this case that kind of "broke the camel's back" for you? Information that caused you to once and for all believe that Amanda is, in all likelihood, guilty? I think for me it was reading that "two-page note" that Amanda wrote in prison. It is so utterly nonsensical and evasive. I just can't imagine an innocent person penning that note.


My "lightbulb" moment came from Amanda Knox's email titled "Bundestag disaster" (available on this forum in "their own words" section)---she describes having this great job in the "incredibly important" Bundestag, arranged by her uncle. She finds it boring, goes home sick the second day (because she had a cold THE PREVIOUS WEEK) and never goes back, instead staying in an apartment (also arranged by her uncle) for free, touring Berlin, drinking wine in parks, and fearing no consequences for her irresponsible actions. Indeed, she just cries and "freaks out a little" when confronted by her uncle, who, being the nicest guy in the world, makes everything "all right" again. This sounds like a young woman who has never been held accountable for her actions, who has been coddled by her family, and who grew up with no sense of right and wrong. This gave me a chilling sense that she could indeed be capable of participating in a crime with the thought that she would be above all blame.
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 2:55 am   Post subject:    

Paula wrote:

‘Amanda had recent multiple piercings. You would never remove earrings from new piercings until weeks after and by then they are pretty much healed. This appears to me to be a really shrewd and calculating statement, designed to covertly acknowledge the fact that her blood may be found in the sink and give a reason for why it might be found before they even ask her.’

I think the earring removal and the bathmat shuffle are details that emerged when Amanda met with Mignini on Dec. 17th, 2007. I believe this meeting was by her request and occurred about 6 weeks after her arrest. Her lawyer must have known by then that they found Amanda blood in the bathroom, and possibly knew that they found some footprints of hers also. Sporadic footprints that weren’t continuous. So Amanda needed a possible way to explain the presence of her blood (she wasn’t going to say she got conked on the nose, or had a mishap around her neck, or got hit by flying glass). She also had a convenient, but a far fetched excuse for getting blood on her feet along with some missing footprints via the bathmat shuffle. I’m not sure if Amanda came up with these ideas on her own, or she had some help. But she certainly sounds like she had some time to think about it.
Top Profile 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 4:35 am   Post subject:    

What I don't get is if Patrick fired Amanda before the murder why did he text her that night saying the bar was empty and he didnpt need her to come in to work?
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 16, 2009 5:34 am   Post subject:    

satorimoon wrote:
What I don't get is if Patrick fired Amanda before the murder why did he text her that night saying the bar was empty and he didnpt need her to come in to work?


Hi SatoriMoon, welcome!

On the economic front, I think Amanda was demoted from waitress to handing-out-flyers, rather than being fired completely (at least at that stage).

More significantly, for people who cannot read emotion in others, while Amanda was waitressing, and spending more than enough time talking to the boys rather than actually doing waitressing stuff, Patrick, as her boss and club manager, asked her to stop flirting and get on with her job. From her silence and the stare that resulted, this request must have been taken by her as the most extremely rude and presumptuous and unfounded reprimand by a boss ever, and would certainly be deserving of swift and just retribution (maybe including as collateral damage anyone associated with him as well, like Meredith?).

There was no emotional filter in place that would have produced a "Yeah, OK. Sorry." response.

Pure speculation:
If Meredith could be "persuaded" not to take up Patrick's offer (he "wanted" her, in this sense) as a
waitress - and obvious replacement for Amanda - then Patrick would be "snookered" and would
have to keep Amanda on. Game won! (by the rules of (some) logic).
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 16, 2009 5:38 am   Post subject:    

Amanda gets a sideways look-in in one Italian op-ed piece.

Nicola Sapone has an opinion piece in La Voce about the seriousness of some journalists: “Everyone is not equal before the news”

In essence, the thesis is that media outlets select the news based on bar gossip and household chatter.

The piece starts off with remembering the huge media blow-up of “the war of the procurators” between Salerno and Catanzaro, involving abuses of power, invasion of the personal dignity of judicial officers, pecuniary damages sought, and a multitude of absurdities from political and journalistic commentators.

There were calls for the overhaul and reform of the entire justice system, but one surprised senator said: “I don’t see what all the fuss is about over such a common practice”.

Sapone suggests that maybe the media frenzy came about not from the subject matter so much as because of the personages involved – even given that everyone is equal before the law, choosing what to report as news is done on another planet and is sliding ever more towards bar gossip and lounge room chatter. (And a large part of it seems to revolve around Christina’s generous decolletè on Big Brother.)

In any case, says, Sapone,
Quote:
I’ve learned to laugh now at those programs where quoted professionals debate each other on ridiculous topics. Like for example? This morning I watched a debate on the reason why Amanda Knox smiled in court! Instead of producing some healthy and constructive information, they had a discussion about why the fascinating American would have smiled! Obviously, the emeritus opinion-holders let loose a flood of psychological commentary alluding to aspects of personality, speaking a sea of falsehoods, but what if Amanda smiled only in response to a greeting or salutation?

[Voce d’Italia] Nicola Sapone, 14/5/2009



Note: Battisti and Brazil must be in the air.
By web coincidence, Sapone, after citing some examples of overcrowding in prison (Torino, Monza) and questioning how prisoner dignity should be any different to that of a judicial officer, asks: “If the degree of civilisation of a place is evidenced by the conditions of its prisons, perhaps it’s understandable why the Brazilian Minister of Justice has denied the extradition request relating to Cesare Battisti.”
Top Profile 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:49 am   Post subject: Catnip   

So you think the night of the murder Amanda was supposed to hand out fliers in the evening rather than waitress? Also, I think I remember hearing Patrick's cell phone was pinging in the area near Amanda house at around the time he sent the meaasge. Did he say why he was in the area?
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:16 am   Post subject:    

people! people!....just skimmed through the latest which are in response to the crapfest that Frank has been posting....all i can say is "GET A GRIP"....are you really stooping to the level of that slime?? i can imagine they are distressing and hurtful, but that's all he's got little bullying, mean-spirited hurtful remarks which have absolutely no bearing on this case or anything else for that matter.

i continue to ask myself, "why are we wasting time discussing the moronic rants of this idiot and his sidekick candass?"....it's really like feeding the troll. sure, go to the police - respond to the posts but please, let's not waste time on this guy.
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 16, 2009 12:12 pm   Post subject:    

There was a bit of a maintenance period there.

Mojo,
Agree. Who?

On the other hand, the attempt at running interference (via unethical gameplay) ought to be
documented for various reasons, perhaps hived off into a different thread (in a "Others Speak for Them" sub-thread, perhaps?)

On the third hand, the reaction of the ones that they have been trying to smooch up to (is that the right word?)
- the media outlets, that is - has yet to play out fully as they (the media) come to realise that they have been fed a line.


SartoriMoon,
The phone cell tower footprint is, from memory, large enough to cover the club and the cottage at the same time.
Or the same thing in different words: Perugia is such a tiny hill-top town, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone
was pinging the same cell(s), depending on the load, all the time every day.

Have a look through previous posts (start with bolint, kermit, The Machine) for details about cell coverage,
aound about the time of the Postal Police evidence.
It's the end of the day for me (in Australia), so perhaps others could help?
I'll scan through the posts offline, though.


Yummi,
Thanks for all the linguistics info.
And strano_cammino, too.

I think, one day, I shall have to learn some proper Italian (the official sort, Canzoniere, Manzoni, and all).
But tra il dire e il fare, between the doing and the saying, there's such a wide sea!


Jodyodyo,
Thanks for the encouragement.
"I dips me lid to 'ee!" (I take my hat off to you), as they used to say.
If I knew which bits were so entrancing, I might do more of them -
or maybe do less of them, and so be more tantalising. :)

Actually, lawyers are like taxi cabs (or should be): each one should be able to do as good a job
as the others. Take Maresca, for example. He would be able to make as good a case as
Mignini and Comodi if he were prosecuting, as good as Ghirga and the others if he were
defending, as good as Massei if he were presiding, and as good as Micheli if he were
Preliminary Hearing Magistrate.

With Bongiorno, I cannot tell, not as well, anyway: there's a touch too much PR in her "spontaneous declaration"
press speeches for me to get a clear idea of the lawyer in her, and her Monday-Thursday political day job
may or may not be getting in the way of her devoting 100% of her attention to young Sollecito.
On the other hand, he chose her, and also there shouldn't be all that much needed to defend
a young student accused of murder, assault, theft, and faking a buglary, so maybe it's OK for her, after all.
Anyway, that's a matter for her and him.

I've got other things to do.


A presto!
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 12:17 pm   Post subject:    

I'd like to echo Mojo. I don't post very often, I usually come to these boards for more indepth information and discussion that doesn't appear in the mainstream press. I have visited the Shock site a couple of times and quickly went away. Like Dempsey he is stuck in spin cycle for whatever selfish reasons. As he doesn't come up with any insights or genuinely new information now (if he ever did) there is less and less reason to go there. There's no profit in disputing with the trolls there, they will be chanting ''There's no evidence, prosecutor setup'' way beyond probable conviction and appeal and are not open to evidence or reason. The worse things get the nastier they will be in response. By constantly referring to them you generate the interest that otherwise would quickly dry up to nothing. So why not just let them swim around in the sewer of their own making until the tide flushes them out to sea? For eighteen months the attempts to get a 'Free Amanda' media and political bandwagon going have foundered in the mud. Now the wheels have come off and they are sinking ever deeper. Time to walk by the wreck and let them drown in the slime.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 2:43 pm   Post subject:    

Mutley wrote:

Quote:
I'd like to echo Mojo. I don't post very often, I usually come to these boards for more indepth information and discussion that doesn't appear in the mainstream press. I have visited the Shock site a couple of times and quickly went away. Like Dempsey he is stuck in spin cycle for whatever selfish reasons. As he doesn't come up with any insights or genuinely new information now (if he ever did) there is less and less reason to go there. There's no profit in disputing with the trolls there, they will be chanting ''There's no evidence, prosecutor setup'' way beyond probable conviction and appeal and are not open to evidence or reason. The worse things get the nastier they will be in response. By constantly referring to them you generate the interest that otherwise would quickly dry up to nothing. So why not just let them swim around in the sewer of their own making until the tide flushes them out to sea? For eighteen months the attempts to get a 'Free Amanda' media and political bandwagon going have foundered in the mud. Now the wheels have come off and they are sinking ever deeper. Time to walk by the wreck and let them drown in the slime.


It looks like people are coming to that conclusion. Since I live in Seattle and am one of the favorite targets, I understand the need on the part of other targeted posters here to work it out of their system. But you are absolutely right: debating with trolls who populate an unmoderated board that allows anonymous posts serves no purpose. It is like getting into a mud fight with a pig. Both parties emerge looking dirty, but the pig actually enjoys it.

Lots of people from Seattle, the State of Washington, the US and many other countries read this board and appreciate the indepth information and respectful tone of the give and take that it provides thanks to its posters.

The trial resumes in a week's time. In the meantime, it is time to walk by the wreck. It isn't going anywhere.

_________________
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 16, 2009 2:48 pm   Post subject:    

Mojo wrote:

Quote:
people! people!....just skimmed through the latest which are in response to the crapfest that Frank has been posting....all i can say is "GET A GRIP"....are you really stooping to the level of that slime?? i can imagine they are distressing and hurtful, but that's all he's got little bullying, mean-spirited hurtful remarks which have absolutely no bearing on this case or anything else for that matter.

i continue to ask myself, "why are we wasting time discussing the moronic rants of this idiot and his sidekick candass?"....it's really like feeding the troll. sure, go to the police - respond to the posts but please, let's not waste time on this guy.


I don't think the people who posted above are stooping. One thing to remember: they live in Seattle and have been targeted by local fruitcakes. It ain't right! On the other hand, why feed it? Candace and Frank are just bloggers, for goodness sake. Their followers are just anonymous posters united behind a cause.

_________________
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 16, 2009 2:52 pm   Post subject:    

2catsintheyard wrote:

Quote:
My "lightbulb" moment came from Amanda Knox's email titled "Bundestag disaster" (available on this forum in "their own words" section)---she describes having this great job in the "incredibly important" Bundestag, arranged by her uncle. She finds it boring, goes home sick the second day (because she had a cold THE PREVIOUS WEEK) and never goes back, instead staying in an apartment (also arranged by her uncle) for free, touring Berlin, drinking wine in parks, and fearing no consequences for her irresponsible actions. Indeed, she just cries and "freaks out a little" when confronted by her uncle, who, being the nicest guy in the world, makes everything "all right" again. This sounds like a young woman who has never been held accountable for her actions, who has been coddled by her family, and who grew up with no sense of right and wrong. This gave me a chilling sense that she could indeed be capable of participating in a crime with the thought that she would be above all blame.



Catnip wrote:

Quote:
More significantly, for people who cannot read emotion in others, while Amanda was waitressing, and spending more than enough time talking to the boys rather than actually doing waitressing stuff, Patrick, as her boss and club manager, asked her to stop flirting and get on with her job. From her silence and the stare that resulted, this request must have been taken by her as the most extremely rude and presumptuous and unfounded reprimand by a boss ever, and would certainly be deserving of swift and just retribution (maybe including as collateral damage anyone associated with him as well, like Meredith?).


Your posts brought home for me the irony of Knox walking out on a prestigious internship with the Bundestaag arranged by an uncle only to find herself failing in the much less prestigious job of waitress at a local bar. How dare Patrick reprimand an honor student from the US who had landed and then rejected an internship in German government!

_________________
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: Sat May 16, 2009 3:03 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
justlooking wrote:
I find the question of motive interesting too. I don't hold that there actually has to be a motive as such for any crime. We've all seen or read about crimes that just seemed completely senseless. However, I was struck by the comments of the Kercher's attorney Francesco Maresca made at end of one of the trial days. This quote is from Newsweek.

Maresca says that while he is sure the accused did not go into Kercher’s room with the intent to kill her, there is ample evidence proving that what started as a game ended in her tragic murder. “Kids this age are all into quick thrills. What started as a threat or a game to scare Mez escalated to violence and ended in murder.”

Now, I'm not sure whether this was his off the cuff remark made at the time or whether it was formed as part of his discussions with Meredith's family, but it rings more true to me than any argument that says it was a deliberate attempt to kill Meredith. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of the ultimate crime where the pre-meditation was initially not there (if any lawyers are reading this - please excuse my abuse of mens rea). If this was the case then the original motive can be as Maresca states - either a game gone badly wrong, or an attempt to 'teach Meredith a lesson'. I wonder if Meredith's mother may have some light to shine on this when she takes the witness stand. Meredith called her pretty much every night so no doubt told her about how she was getting along with her housemates etc.


That's a really good point and one that escaped me during the earlier discussions about motive. It may be that there was simply an initial motive to do SOMETHING (scare, intimidate, harass) but not murder, and that things escalated.

I've always wondered if a plausible scenario was that the knife was simply brought over for cutting mushrooms and that an argument/fight started over money when Meredith got home, things got out of hand, knives were produced, and RG took advantage of the situation to sexually assault Meredith. In that case there would be no motive in the traditional sense but instead a terrible escalation of a fight.

There are certain things that could be indications of preplanning (the knife being brought over, the calls to Meredith on the prior evening, the cellphones being turned off), but they're not conclusive, at least for me, personally.


Just adding to my thoughts on this. It could be that during the course of this theorized argument/fight, the defendants *did* develop a premeditated intent to kill and also a motive (extreme anger) for the killing. This is what I was getting at earlier in talking about the premeditation's possibly occuring within only minutes of the ultimate crime. "Premeditation," at least in my legal jurisdiction, only requires a short time for a so-called "second look" and a subsequent plan and deliberate intent to kill.

But, it's also possible that the only true "motive" was related to scaring, harassing, intimidating, etc., and that the escalation to killing occurred so quickly that there was no time for a so-called "second look" and therefore no premeditation and no true motive for murder but only the earlier, "milder" motive. Under this scenario the defendants would probably be convicted of second-degree murder, in terms of U.S. law. I'm not sure how the different "degrees" of murder work in Italy.

I still tend to think that over here, the defendants would most likely be convicted of second-degree murder over first-degree murder. I think even O.J. Simpson was only charged with second-degree murder. (Although I'm not familiar with the California penal code, so I'm not entirely clear of what the specific differences in California are between first-degree and second-degree murder. Each jurisdiction can have little nuanced differences in how crimes are defined.)

This case is so fascinating because of all the different angles! (the publicity campaigns, the possible motives, the different interpretations of the evidence, the personalities involved, the different nationalities involved, the discussions of different legal systems)


Last edited by Truth Seeker on Sat May 16, 2009 3:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 3:12 pm   Post subject:    

Speaking of the weird "bashing" of certain PMF members by certain FOA types (which seems to have switched recently from Frank's blog to Candace's blog), I can see both sides. I can see how it would be best to just ignore their idiocy into oblivion, but I can also completely understand a person's desire to raise counterpoints when someone is making unfounded and possibly hurtful comments about him or her. Sometimes it's best to "let the water roll off your back," so to speak, but it's also human nature to want to stand up to unjust accusations.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 3:30 pm   Post subject:    

Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
Speaking of the weird "bashing" of certain PMF members by certain FOA types (which seems to have switched recently from Frank's blog to Candace's blog), I can see both sides. I can see how it would be best to just ignore their idiocy into oblivion, but I can also completely understand a person's desire to raise counterpoints when someone is making unfounded and possibly hurtful comments about him or her. Sometimes it's best to "let the water roll off your back," so to speak, but it's also human nature to want to stand up to unjust accusations.


Well, Frank finally said he didn't want to see certain names on his blog any more.

I just want to make one last remark on this subject. Each individual who is targeted is free to take the actions he or she deems appropriate. In my case, I have filed a complaint and have asked one of our posters to copy and send me comments that may be applicable to my case. I got a copy of the exchange at Candace's and have thanked Charlie Wilkes for trying -- unsuccessfully, I think -- to set the record straight.

Naturally, everyone is free to spend time watching the cesspit/train that is Frank's or to avoid it. I am avoiding it. That's my choice. If you do go, I would ask just one thing. If you see derogatory comments about the victim, please send an email to Frank asking that they be removed. There were two comments yesterday (sent to me by the poster who is monitoring for me) that were offensive beyond belief, made by someone who knows or pretends to know the world of prostitution and porn quite intimately. These comments were allowed to stand and were attributed to our board (!), until our poster (and probably others) asked Frank to remove them. I won't post them here out of respect for Meredith, her family and her friends. But believe me, they were vile. So please, if you drive by for a look at the wreck and see such comments, please take a few seconds to demand their removal.

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

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 4:10 pm   Post subject: Reasons   

For those who aren’t interested in the Seattle “True Justice/PMF” and FOA discussion, please scroll on by!

For those who wonder why us Seattle folk take an interest in what is said about us on the other blogs, read on.

As we all know, Skep and her husband have been lambasted and lied about all over the place in articles and blogs about the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Professor Snape and I have been the side dish to their entrée level status.

Many of the members here are miles and continents away from our city of Seattle. These people who insist on attacking the Seattle group live just a few miles from each of us. What would you do?

Where is the integrity of our fine city of Seattle? Although my personal details of losing my daughter, employment status and glaucoma struggles were posted by someone from Newfoundland from a very private and personal email, who knows? These people are in the business of technology. They’re adept at hiding who and where they are. It was distressing to see that information posted numerous times for all to see.

Think about it. How would you feel? What would you do? There is really nothing to do except acknowledge and clarify the issues “outed” about one’s personal details! Which I did. Skep has filed a complaint with the police because of the threatening nature of these Seattle area lowlifes. Her husband kindly met Chris Mellas (the backstabber) to discuss putting a stop to this nonsense! Who knows if these Knox/Mellas/FOA people are harmless or not, but they are definitely unsettling and unintelligent individuals. More often than not, they get worse if they don’t get the attention they crave! It’s as if they don’t even care about the case details – they need their attention fix!

I can’t really explain the feeling here. The few of us following this case, who have had personal information posted are the only ones who know what it feels like – I’m just asking that you think about how you would feel and how you would deal with it. One minute it runs off your back, and the next it’s amusing! Sometimes, their behavior is just plain creepy and unethical leaving one perplexed as to why?

Why these people keep harping on about the Salty’s fundraiser is beyond me. It was a public place and nobody was there to “crash” their efforts. In fact, they should be really proud of their publicity efforts as every television station in Seattle was in attendance!

It appears that Frank’s is the “Dead Zone” for comments. That’s a really good thing. It looks like he’s suddenly trying to moderate – a little too late I’m afraid!

Have a nice weekend everyone! 8-)

Tara
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 16, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: Reasons   

Tara wrote:
These people are in the business of technology. They’re adept at hiding who and where they are. It was distressing to see that information posted numerous times for all to see.



Not as adept as they think.

_________________
"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: Sat May 16, 2009 5:07 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
That's a really good point and one that escaped me during the earlier discussions about motive.
It may be that there was simply an initial motive to do SOMETHING (scare, intimidate, harass) but not murder, and that things escalated.


Like father, like daughter.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:37 pm   Post subject: Amanda's clothes   

Catnip wrote:
satorimoon wrote:
What I don't get is if Patrick fired Amanda before the murder why did he text her that night saying the bar was empty and he didnpt need her to come in to work?


Hi SatoriMoon, welcome!
On the economic front, I think Amanda was demoted from waitress to handing-out-flyers, rather than being fired completely (at least at that stage).


SatoriMoon/Catnip,

This is also one of the "incomplete/unexplained" details about Amanda that has bothered me. I don't think Patrick had fired her yet. It was just so obviously in the air that there was no ignoring it. I can't think he would have written the SMS in those words about distributing fliers. If Le Chic wasn't busy that wouldn't have affected that--but it would the need for serving.

Combining this with what was just discussed about her casually walking out on the Bundestaag internship, perhaps that didn't have to do with boredom so much as, again, her feeling "unappreciated." I think she had (has) a huge anti-authoritarian complex--which is also why she went wild after escaping the authority of home.

When Amanda got the SMS saying she "wasn't needed," I think the rage began to burn. (I know we've all discussed this before.) Amanda in some ways doesn't fit the anti-authoritarian mold (no body piercing, tattoos, politics, particular argumentativeness), so it doesn't stand out. She tended to express that more by her self-centered social behaviours, e.g., guitar during TV. Her possible fury was beginning to wind up until her jealousy of Meredith collided with her resentment of Patrick. Meredith was the good girl who did her work first and Patrick was her boss. Authority out to get her. And yet she is actually accomplished herself, which is why all the Amanda supporters just can't see that other side of her personality.

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:39 pm   Post subject:    

OT.

Roberto Spaccino sentenced to life by the Perugia Court of Assizes presided by Giancarlo Massei. Roberto Spaccino killed his 8 months pregnant wife, hitting her and then suffocating her with a pillow.

We were talking earlier in the week about many coincidences with Sollecito/Knox trial.

Consultant Carlo Torre (also Amanda Knox consultant) didn't convinced Massei and the other judges with his theory.
Top Profile 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 6:53 pm   Post subject:    

I just reread an article describing Patricks side of the story back in Nov 25 2007. He is quoted as saying he fired Amanda on Oct 30 (except for handing out fliers), saw her partying at his bar on the 31st (Halloween) without RS, then saw Meredith at another club, and after that he did not have any contact with either again until he heard of the murder and called Amanda. I guess he forgot about firing Amanda and/or forgot he texted her about not needing her?? Just seems strange that he didnt acknowledge the fact of the SMS.

Also, does anyone know the timeline Amanda and RS activities the night of Oct 31? Does anyone know where RS went and what he dressed up as?
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:07 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Truth Seeker,

I don't think the double DNA knife was taken to the cottage on Via della Pergola to cut some mushrooms. There were two sets of cutlery at the cottage. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were at Sollecito's apartment, why would they go the cottage to eat when it would have been far more convenient to stay where they were?

I don't believe that Meredith's murder was a prank that went too far or a game that went wrong. I also don't believe that they just wanted to scare her and things escalated. Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured and then had a knife plunged through her neck. She wasn't accidentally stabbed by her friends who were just fooling around.

I've seen the infamous Telenorba video and some of the autopsy photographs. Meredith's last hour was beyond hell on earth. The people who killed her are maniacs. They are not normal people who got a bit carried away. If they were capable of sexually assaulting, torturing and butchering Meredith, then they are capable of planning it. There isn't a limit to the evil they are capable of.

Preliminary judge Claudia Matteini stated the following:

"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.
"

Meredith was given no chance of survival after she had been stabbed. Her killers took her mobile phones off her and locked her in her room. They ran away from the cottage and one of them attempted to throw the mobile phones into a ravine.

Knox and Sollecito went back to the cottage after Meredith had been killed. The police and prosecution believe they stripped off to avoid getting Meredith's blood on their clothes as the carried out the clean up and tampered with the crime scene. They walked around barefoot in Meredith's blood. Amanda Knox admitted having a shower in a blood spattered bathroom.

Knox's and Sollecito's behaviour in the days following Meredith's murder was indicative of two disturbed individuals. Former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt said it was "higly-telling". Whilst everyone else was traumatised at the police station; crying and comforting each other, Knox and Sollecito were joking and laughing, and French kissing each other. Knox was also pulling silly faces, turing cartwheels, and hitting herself on the head. Their behaviour was the exact opposite of what you would expect of people whose friend had been brutally murdered.

The police and Meredith's friends were struck by the fact that Knox and Sollecto didn't show any signs of sadness or shock, but glee. As Claudia Matteini pointed out they seem to have derived some strange enjoyment from Meredith's suffering. Meredith's friend, Amy Frost, testified that she thought Amanda Knox was "crazy" after watching her antics at the police station. Incidentally, Knox and Sollecito started kissing each other moments after Meredith's body had been discovered.


Last edited by The Machine on Sat May 16, 2009 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:14 pm   Post subject: Oct 31   

satorimoon wrote:
I just reread an article describing Patricks side of the story back in Nov 25 2007. He is quoted as saying he fired Amanda on Oct 30 (except for handing out fliers), saw her partying at his bar on the 31st (Halloween) without RS, then saw Meredith at another club, and after that he did not have any contact with either again until he heard of the murder and called Amanda. I guess he forgot about firing Amanda and/or forgot he texted her about not needing her?? Just seems strange that he didnt acknowledge the fact of the SMS.

Also, does anyone know the timeline Amanda and RS activities the night of Oct 31? Does anyone know where RS went and what he dressed up as?



Hi Satorimoon. Actually, it's interesting that you ask. This from Raffaele's prison diary:


Raffaele wrote:
I write to you the reconstruction of the facts. We leave
from 31 October, day in which I went to the graduation of Francisco
(...) and stayed at Paolo's house (...) and subsequently I met with
Amanda. I passed the day with her having supper and then she went
downtown with her face painted like a cat. I went out subsequently
painting my face making an abstract figure. I took a stroll downtown
and after I met again with Amanda. From there we returned home right
away and we passed the night watching a film.



RAFFAELE'S PRISON DIARY


Note here that Raffaele claims to have spent the evening with Amanda at his apartment, watching a film together. Yet, we know Amanda was in Le Chic (per Patrick) that evening drinking with other guys. Strange.

_________________
"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 16, 2009 7:27 pm   Post subject:    

TM

You keep hammering this home to us:

The people who killed her are maniacs. They are not normal people who got a bit carried away. If they were capable of sexually assaulting, torturing and butchering Meredith, then they are capable of planning it. There isn't a limit to the evil they are capable of.

I believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of involvement in Meredith's murder because of the evidence, both forensic and behavioural, that is known against them. But I still have a hard time envisioning either of them as maniacs, plotting it, based on their histories and personalities. It's just hard to imagine. But I know that's been said about psychopaths before. That, however, is the reason for most people's moving toward the "escalation" scenario--it's so hard to connect two students who watch Amelie, go to music concerts, love Harry Potter, have lots of friends and loving families, doing THAT, out of nowhere. It's hard for me to understand everytime it comes up, yet I favor the guilty verdict.

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:35 pm   Post subject:    

Did anyone say what type of mushroom was found in Meredith and was that type of mushroom also found in RS refigerator?
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 7:37 pm   Post subject:    

What I mean by the above is that all of us have darker sides to our psyches we keep under control. It is possible that something could trigger a criminal type behaviour at some point out of this suppressed material. That is a different and more normal character than the one who focuses, possibly obsesses, on carrying out an evil act and does it.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 8:14 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
TM

You keep hammering this home to us:

The people who killed her are maniacs. They are not normal people who got a bit carried away. If they were capable of sexually assaulting, torturing and butchering Meredith, then they are capable of planning it. There isn't a limit to the evil they are capable of.

I believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of involvement in Meredith's murder because of the evidence, both forensic and behavioural, that is known against them. But I still have a hard time envisioning either of them as maniacs, plotting it, based on their histories and personalities. It's just hard to imagine. But I know that's been said about psychopaths before. That, however, is the reason for most people's moving toward the "escalation" scenario--it's so hard to connect two students who watch Amelie, go to music concerts, love Harry Potter, have lots of friends and loving families, doing THAT, out of nowhere. It's hard for me to understand everytime it comes up, yet I favor the guilty verdict.

Didi


Hi Didi,

I don't get your point. Adolf Hitler was an artist, a vegetarian who loved animals, he liked classical music and enjoyed the occasional glass of champagne with Eva Braun. It didn't mean that he wasn't a maniac. Many of the SS soldiers were apparently loving husbands and fathers.

I don't know whether Meredith's murder was premeditated or not. However, I wouldn't exclude the possibility either just because it's more palatable.

We don't actually know how loving Amanda Knox's and Raffaele Sollecito's families are.

Amanda Knox is the product of a broken home and Edda Mellas had to take Curt Knox to court on a number of occasions to collect child support from him. I'm not sure Chris Mellas can be described as an ideal step-father either. He has described Amanda and Deanna Knox as "shitheads" and is notoriously bad-tempered.

I think it's quite clear that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are both psychologically disturbed. You have completely turned a blind eye to this. Several judges who have been involved in the case have remarked upon their mental instability. There is evidence that Knox and Sollecito had psychological problems before Meredith's murder.

Newsweek journalist Barbie Nadeau found Amanda Knox's writings "disturbing". She wrote the following in the Daily Beast:

Her online profile has done little to correct the misinterpretation. Since Knox’s arrest 16 months ago, YouTube drunk-girl-at-a-party videos, copies of her MySpace postings, and personal letters she wrote to family and friends have surfaced, painting a picture of a disturbed young woman with family issues. These clues have been dissected and analyzed, almost always with the same outcome: Innocent or guilty, she is a peculiar girl.

Among the most damaging items is a short story she wrote about rape, titled “Baby Brother,” which includes this dialogue :

"A thing you have to know about chicks is that they don't know what they want, ” she wrote.

Kyle winked his eye. "You have to show it to them. Trust me. In any case." He cocked his eyebrows up and one side of his mouth rose into a grin.

"I think we both know hard A is hardly a drug
."

Raffaele Sollecito was known to local police for his drug use and according to Knox, had experimented with hard drugs. I certainly wouldn't describe him as normal. Not many men have a hard core pornographic DVD featuring bestiality or name a notorious Italian serial killer as someone they admire. He also read violent Manga comics which featured murder and rape. The police found Halloween-themed Manga comics in his bedroom and one of the pictures bore some striking similarities to the scene that they found in Meredith's bedroom.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:20 pm   Post subject:    

TM,

I don't believe they fall into the "normal" category because it's more palatible to me, but just because I've known people who've done all those things (probably even having a small amount of bestiality porno stashed somewhere, just due to curiosity...) who would be called normal. In hindsight, meaning now that they're ID'd and in jail awaiting trial for the murder, it's easier to see their past as possibly indicating sociopathic tendencies.

Actually, I'm not so much arguing with you anyway, just saying I can't visualize it, knowing what I do know of them.

Except this part:

The Machine wrote:
....or name a notorious Italian serial killer as someone they admire.....


I hadn't heard that. Who is the serial killer?

dd
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:36 pm   Post subject:    

Uff, i was away a loooong time. Much to read....

I was astounded that Raffaele is the first of the two who lost the game! The footprints, the bra DNA and the knife (including his prick story) plus the circumstances is enough to convict him! I'm not surprised that Franks people show signs of a nervous breakdown: Amanda goes down with him...

btw: I did a little research for the case: I fell heavely in love with a young woman last week :D (for a purely scientific reason, of course)! I can only speak for myself, but since Raffaele is about my age, i think the same was true for him:

a) I'm as smart as Spongebob right now!
b) I don't need drugs to feel extraordinary well. Taking drugs wouldn't be my idea.
c) I know every minute of our first week together, and
d) there are not too many things I wouldn't do for her!

for d): That doesn't mean i would torture and kill an Erasmus student!
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:45 pm   Post subject:    

Interesting article in the Independent today!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 84373.html

Perhaps this puts the 'satanic' stuff into context a little...

I was not brought up in a religious way at all, so I find this a little disturbing

_________________
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:16 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
I hadn't heard that. Who is the serial killer?


The Monster of Foligno, Luigi Chiatti.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Hi Truth Seeker,

I don't think the double DNA knife was taken to the cottage on Via della Pergola to cut some mushrooms. There were two sets of cutlery at the cottage. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were at Sollecito's apartment, why would they go the cottage to eat when it would have been far more convenient to stay where they were?

I don't believe that Meredith's murder was a prank that went too far or a game that went wrong. I also don't believe that they just wanted to scare her and things escalated. Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured and then had a knife plunged through her neck. She wasn't accidentally stabbed by her friends who were just fooling around.

I've seen the infamous Telenorba video and some of the autopsy photographs. Meredith's last hour was beyond hell on earth. The people who killed her are maniacs. They are not normal people who got a bit carried away. If they were capable of sexually assaulting, torturing and butchering Meredith, then they are capable of planning it. There isn't a limit to the evil they are capable of.

Preliminary judge Claudia Matteini stated the following:

"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.
"

Meredith was given no chance of survival after she had been stabbed. Her killers took her mobile phones off her and locked her in her room. They ran away from the cottage and one of them attempted to throw the mobile phones into a ravine.

Knox and Sollecito went back to the cottage after Meredith had been killed. The police and prosecution believe they stripped off to avoid getting Meredith's blood on their clothes as the carried out the clean up and tampered with the crime scene. They walked around barefoot in Meredith's blood. Amanda Knox admitted having a shower in a blood spattered bathroom.

Knox's and Sollecito's behaviour in the days following Meredith's murder was indicative of two disturbed individuals. Former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt said it was "higly-telling". Whilst everyone else was traumatised at the police station; crying and comforting each other, Knox and Sollecito were joking and laughing, and French kissing each other. Knox was also pulling silly faces, turing cartwheels, and hitting herself on the head. Their behaviour was the exact opposite of what you would expect of people whose friend had been brutally murdered.

The police and Meredith's friends were struck by the fact that Knox and Sollecto didn't show any signs of sadness or shock, but glee. As Claudia Matteini pointed out they seem to have derived some strange enjoyment from Meredith's suffering. Meredith's friend, Amy Frost, testified that she thought Amanda Knox was "crazy" after watching her antics at the police station. Incidentally, Knox and Sollecito started kissing each other moments after Meredith's body had been discovered.



Hi TM. I'm not saying that a premeditated, planned killing absolutely did not occur - I'm just saying that the evidence has not proved that scenario to me.

And I think you might be missing my point when you talk about all the wounds not being accidental. I realize that fact. What I'm theorizing is that what STARTED as a fight ESCALATED to a vicious, purposeful murder, possibly stirred on by extreme anger, with the defendants possibly or possibly not "pausing" for a sufficient time for things to meet the legal definition of "premeditation."

As far as the mushrooms: Who knows why they might have gone to the cottage to eat them? Maybe they were meeting RG and RS didn't feel comfortable having him over at his apartment, for whatever reason. And I myself have carried my favorite cutlery with me occasionally when I've brought certain appetizers, etc., to dinner parties. I believe there was an unexplained mushroom found in Meredith's esophagus.

Also, regarding the behavior after the fact: This could just as easily correspond with the "escalation" theory as with the "preplanned" theory. After all, "normal" people don't murder and stab someone when an argument/fight gets out of hand.

Again, don't get me wrong - I'm not making the argument that the killing was DEFINITELY unplanned. But for me, personally, the evidence has not convinced me of a planned murder.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:53 pm   Post subject:    

petafly wrote:
Uff, i was away a loooong time. Much to read....

I was astounded that Raffaele is the first of the two who lost the game! The footprints, the bra DNA and the knife (including his prick story) plus the circumstances is enough to convict him! I'm not surprised that Franks people show signs of a nervous breakdown: Amanda goes down with him...

btw: I did a little research for the case: I fell heavely in love with a young woman last week :D (for a purely scientific reason, of course)! I can only speak for myself, but since Raffaele is about my age, i think the same was true for him:

a) I'm as smart as Spongebob right now!
b) I don't need drugs to feel extraordinary well. Taking drugs wouldn't be my idea.
c) I know every minute of our first week together, and
d) there are not too many things I wouldn't do for her!

for d): That doesn't mean i would torture and kill an Erasmus student!


Awww, how sweet for you. rel )) Not much in life can compare to those first few weeks of a new love affair. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
TM,

I don't believe they fall into the "normal" category because it's more palatible to me, but just because I've known people who've done all those things (probably even having a small amount of bestiality porno stashed somewhere, just due to curiosity...) who would be called normal. In hindsight, meaning now that they're ID'd and in jail awaiting trial for the murder, it's easier to see their past as possibly indicating sociopathic tendencies.

Actually, I'm not so much arguing with you anyway, just saying I can't visualize it, knowing what I do know of them.





Yeah, I don't see Amanda's "peculiarities" as pointing to a sociopath either. About the rape story: It's creative writing! As Didi says, it retrospect it's easy to visualize how that ties in with everything, but the mere fact that someone wrote a creative-writing story about rape does not seem particularly significant to me.

I'm basing my feelings of guilt mostly on the forensic evidence and on the defendants' statements after the murder.
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:20 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
The Machine wrote:
Hi Truth Seeker,

I don't think the double DNA knife was taken to the cottage on Via della Pergola to cut some mushrooms.


Hi TM. I'm not saying that a premeditated, planned killing absolutely did not occur - I'm just saying that the evidence has not proved that scenario to me.


The knife sort of proves some degree of premeditation because it was transported for some reason, but it wouldn't logically be for food prep because it's a dagger style knife, if I'm not wrong, rather than a chopping style which you would use for mushrooms. (Although someone--Truth Seeker?--had said it might have been already with the mushroom supply they brought....but it's really too large to make that logical either.)

So, TM, you do see the two of them actually tactically making a murder plan together? I can't see the "game" scenario--I really feel very few people think like that, "Oh let's get Meredith involved in a sex game...!" But the knife, the phones shut off, the flurry of sudden messages to Meredith--so many things--indicate a plan. I just don't think it was for murder. They didn't even seem to have planned that rationally--as they seemingly had no plan for the body. What else it may have been for, I don't know.

But then again, they probably weren't too rational. As Miss Represented said, disorganized.

dd
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:29 pm   Post subject:    

Yeah, that's a good point about the style of knife. Maybe there *was* a plan to scare/intimidate/etc. and it wasn't just a spur-of-the-moment escalation of a fight. Hmmmmm. So many unknowns! I wonder if we'll ever really get the true story of that night.
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 12:55 am   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
disinterested wrote:
TM,

I don't believe they fall into the "normal" category because it's more palatible to me, but just because I've known people who've done all those things (probably even having a small amount of bestiality porno stashed somewhere, just due to curiosity...) who would be called normal. In hindsight, meaning now that they're ID'd and in jail awaiting trial for the murder, it's easier to see their past as possibly indicating sociopathic tendencies.

Actually, I'm not so much arguing with you anyway, just saying I can't visualize it, knowing what I do know of them.





Yeah, I don't see Amanda's "peculiarities" as pointing to a sociopath either. About the rape story: It's creative writing! As Didi says, it retrospect it's easy to visualize how that ties in with everything, but the mere fact that someone wrote a creative-writing story about rape does not seem particularly significant to me.

I'm basing my feelings of guilt mostly on the forensic evidence and on the defendants' statements after the murder.


Hmmmm...I tend to agree with The Machine with this one. No evidence of Amanda being a sociopath, you say?
I think you are being a bit naive in this assessment, or perhaps you're simply not that familiar with personality disorders.
Also, at what point in time does one become "officially sociopathic?" At birth? Only, in hindsight, after the first murder? I think most psychiatric experts would say sociopathy is being "in-the-making" kind of thing.

Thinking of Amanda made me suddenly remember the story of another "gifted" attractive young person who was a "sociopath in the making" the notorious young American killer, Andrew Cunanan.
There are many interesting parallels with him and Amanda (although, of course it's obvious there are differences.)
But even on page one of this long but fascinating article, Cunanan is described as having "surface normality" but "underneath, waiting to explode, hell smoldered."

Cunanan had good looks, was charming and popular (considered a "happy clown" type), had a Catholic educational background and was FLUENT IN SEVEN LANGUAGES. (remind you of anyone else you know???) :shock:

Writer Gary Indiana in "Three Month Fever" comments "Interestingly, Cunanan didn't experience the early traumas or manifest the egregious childhood behavior that experts tag as typical of the serial killer. More interestingly, in adult life, he did have enough of a screw loose that plenty of people noticed it, and often found it amusing." [/i]Is THIS sounding familiar?[i]

"Andrew's early years were not domestically happy, but not bloated with the usual bad-life, sociopathic elements of other to-be killers."

So....my question to you...was Andrew a sociopath before he became a spree killer or before????? Discuss amongst yourselves!
According to one other article I read quickly, Cunanan's true descent into madness developed in a short period of time (a six month period or less). But people seemed to notice he did have something off, a screw loose.

Interesting criminal profile, albeit disturbing.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... dex_1.html
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 1:14 am   Post subject:    

The 411 wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
disinterested wrote:
TM,

I don't believe they fall into the "normal" category because it's more palatible to me, but just because I've known people who've done all those things (probably even having a small amount of bestiality porno stashed somewhere, just due to curiosity...) who would be called normal. In hindsight, meaning now that they're ID'd and in jail awaiting trial for the murder, it's easier to see their past as possibly indicating sociopathic tendencies.

Actually, I'm not so much arguing with you anyway, just saying I can't visualize it, knowing what I do know of them.





Yeah, I don't see Amanda's "peculiarities" as pointing to a sociopath either. About the rape story: It's creative writing! As Didi says, it retrospect it's easy to visualize how that ties in with everything, but the mere fact that someone wrote a creative-writing story about rape does not seem particularly significant to me.

I'm basing my feelings of guilt mostly on the forensic evidence and on the defendants' statements after the murder.


Hmmmm...I tend to agree with The Machine with this one. No evidence of Amanda being a sociopath, you say?
I think you are being a bit naive in this assessment, or perhaps you're simply not that familiar with personality disorders.
Also, at what point in time does one become "officially sociopathic?" At birth? Only, in hindsight, after the first murder? I think most psychiatric experts would say sociopathy is being "in-the-making" kind of thing.

Thinking of Amanda made me suddenly remember the story of another "gifted" attractive young person who was a "sociopath in the making" the notorious young American killer, Andrew Cunanan.
There are many interesting parallels with him and Amanda (although, of course it's obvious there are differences.)
But even on page one of this long but fascinating article, Cunanan is described as having "surface normality" but "underneath, waiting to explode, hell smoldered."

Cunanan had good looks, was charming and popular (considered a "happy clown" type), had a Catholic educational background and was FLUENT IN SEVEN LANGUAGES. (remind you of anyone else you know???) :shock:

Writer Gary Indiana in "Three Month Fever" comments "Interestingly, Cunanan didn't experience the early traumas or manifest the egregious childhood behavior that experts tag as typical of the serial killer. More interestingly, in adult life, he did have enough of a screw loose that plenty of people noticed it, and often found it amusing." [/i]Is THIS sounding familiar?[i]

"Andrew's early years were not domestically happy, but not bloated with the usual bad-life, sociopathic elements of other to-be killers."

So....my question to you...was Andrew a sociopath before he became a spree killer or before????? Discuss amongst yourselves!
According to one other article I read quickly, Cunanan's true descent into madness developed in a short period of time (a six month period or less). But people seemed to notice he did have something off, a screw loose.

Interesting criminal profile, albeit disturbing.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... dex_1.html


I think what I was trying to say was taken a bit in another direction, but I can see how that could happen. Yes, I do think Amanda Knox showed signs of being a disturbed individual. However, something about the complete picture I have of her doesn't include cooly sitting down and planning a murder with an accomplice.

So, 411--do you see Amanda being a serial killer? Or is there just no way to know?

dd
Top Profile 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 1:34 am   Post subject:    

Thanks for the response Catnip, Didi and Michael. Can anyone tell me what Amanda's version of where she was on the 31st? Has anyone ever posted pictures of AK or RS on Halloween?
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 2:04 am   Post subject:    

411,

Although I took several psychology courses in college, I'm no expert in sociopathy. All I'm saying is that I don't particularly agree that Amanda's pre-murder behavior showed strong indications that she would subsequently murder someone or that she was sociopathic. I think it was *also* consistent with merely being a peculiar individual who danced to the beat of her own drum. I'm expressing no opinion regarding whether she was or is, in fact, a sociopath. At this point I think she may be one or she may not be one.

Maybe she is one, and she feels no pangs of conscience whatsoever over what she did, whether it was "preplanned" or not. That's certainly a possibility. But maybe she's not one and she secretly feels sick and guilty over the escalation of a fight/game/scare tactic or whatever.

I think my only point is that I, personally, do not see her pre-murder behavior as necessarily indicating sociopathic tendencies.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 3:11 am   Post subject: Re: Oct 31   

Michael wrote:


Raffaele wrote:
I write to you the reconstruction of the facts. We leave
from 31 October, day in which I went to the graduation of Francisco
(...) and stayed at Paolo's house (...) and subsequently I met with
Amanda. I passed the day with her having supper and then she went
downtown with her face painted like a cat. I went out subsequently
painting my face making an abstract figure. I took a stroll downtown
and after I met again with Amanda. From there we returned home right
away and we passed the night watching a film
.



RAFFAELE'S PRISON DIARY


Note here that Raffaele claims to have spent the evening with Amanda at his apartment, watching a film together. Yet, we know Amanda was in Le Chic (per Patrick) that evening drinking with other guys. Strange.


Oh yeah, like who would spend the evening making up their costume including theatrical makeup just to watch a home video? Sha right!!

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:52 am   Post subject:    

I read Amanda's short story on MySpace a while ago. I have to say that to be fair, the much quoted "Chicks don't know what they want, you have to show them" are words placed in the mouth of the bad character which horrify the good character. In fact, the story is about two brothers in which the older one has always treasured his baby brother but as the younger one gets older he becomes obnoxious (as per the words quoted above) and the story ends with the older brother rejecting the younger one -- I can't remember whether he throws his brother out of the house or himself walks out of the house forever) in spite of his love for him. In fact, it's a very moral story, and one with compassion (although frankly no work of art). So these words really cannot be used to show that Amanda believes the above remark.

About the message above wondering if Amanda is secretly sick at heart and feeling guilty, I wish that were true. In fact, it should be true even if she were innocent of the murder! I have always hoped to see any sign of such feelings, but have come to the conclusion that it just is not true. Her words during that oral statement she made in court (all her oral statements, in fact) and her demeanor bely it utterly and repeatedly. Very sad.

Following the discussion of the past few days about Europeans versus Americans, I have become more and more convinced that what Amanda was feeling was humiliation. I think she actually encountered a little contempt everywhere she turned (Patrick, Meredith, the roommates, maybe the men she slept with too easily). Also, I have been wondering about her 'friends'. One hears regularly that she went out to 'meet friends' at Le Chic. But did she have any friends at all or were those just guys to flirt with? A person can be very lonely in a foreign country with lots of parties but no actual friends. No friends from Perugia are going to testify about her mood previous to the murder, are they? I have come to the conclusion that these feelings made her latch onto Raffaele like a lifesaver even though he was something of a loser, and I think that festering loneliness and humiliation may well constitute a motivation for violence, if not exactly a motive.
Top Profile 

Offline The Bard


User avatar


Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:46 pm

Posts: 2486

Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:14 am   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:

Following the discussion of the past few days about Europeans versus Americans, I have become more and more convinced that what Amanda was feeling was humiliation. I think she actually encountered a little contempt everywhere she turned (Patrick, Meredith, the roommates, maybe the men she slept with too easily).



I think you're spot on here thoughtful. I think she is quite a sad figure with this in mind, certainly seeming to lack a sense of her own value, and just not really able to work out how to gain people's respect. To meet someone like Meredith, who sounds so self-possessed and put together, serious about her life, but still able to have fun without trashing herself...it must have been like a living judgement in some ways. She tried to be one of the boys, which had always worked when pre-pubescent - she gained respect for her physical ability, football, climbing, being the '(tom) boy' for her father, gaining approval. But when she became aware of what else she was wanted for she just handed it out, expecting the same approval. I doubt she got it. Meredith is symbolic of people who have the respect of others without having to betray themselves. Just a theory. I just think the comment is spot on. She was thrashing around a bit, as I see it. Trying to find the edges, of herself and the world. Kids brought up without boundaries find the world quite a frightening place as they lack the ability to create internal structure for themselves. They don't know how to pull themselves back...
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 1:50 pm   Post subject:    

AMANDA'S BIG LIE TO HER PARENTS which they insist on repeating to the US media and in turn is continuously repeated by them to the American public:

She told her parents she only broke down and "admitted" to hiding in the kitchen with her hands over her ears whilst Patrick killed Meredith, after a 14 hour interrogation during which time she was hit and refused food and drink.

Quote:
TIMELINE:

2215 After having dinner, Amanda and Raffaele arrive at the police station

2230 Raffaele, being questioned at this point, breaks and begins to change his story

2239 Amanda is on the phone to Filomena, asking her if they are still going to live together

2300 Amanda, still in the police waiting area is told off by a senior police officer for inappropriate behaviour - splits, cartwheels and back bends

2400 Beginning of Amanda's questioning, which begins informaly as Amanda's official status is one of 'Witness', in the waiting area (Michael: later migrating at some point to an interview room?)


Tuesday 6th Nov, 2007

0145 Whilst Raffaele is still being questioned in a room elsewhere, Amanda changes her story and accuses Patrick Lumumba. At this point, all questioning is halted and Amanda is informed of her new status as 'Suspect'. The statements from this session could not be used against Amanda, as she was a 'Witness', but could be used against others. This signed statement is one page long.


MIGNINI IS CALLED IN FROM HIS BED

0330 At Amanda's request, questioning is resumed (the 'sponateous statement'), this time under the officiial status of 'Suspect' and in the presence of Prosecutor Mignini who has been called in, as there is no lawyer present for Amanda. Here, Amanda repeats her accusation of Patrick Lumumba, but this time with a full story and details. The High Court would later rule that this statement could be used neither against Amanda or others, as she was a 'suspect' and no lawyer was present. This statement is five pages long

0545 Amanda's questioning is halted and her statement signed. She is formaly under arrest at this point. At some point shortly after this time, Amanda is taken for breakfast, after which she is retained in custody, as is Raffaele

Early Morning Patrick Lumumba is arrested and taken into custody as a 'Suspect' on the back of the testimonies provided by Raffaele and Amanda


Daytime Amanda requests a paper and pen, where she writes and signs a two page statement confirming her previous statements, although here she phrases it as a 'vision'. This is handed in to police officers as a "gift". This statement is legally defined as 'Spontaneous' (voluntary), reffered to as the 'Memoir', 'Memorial' or 'Two Page Note' and can be used against both Amanda and others. This document has been ruled admissible in the trial. Amanda and Raffaele are later transfered to Capanne prison to await their hearing to confirm their legal 'Suspect' status


I'll leave alone the question of whether Amanda was hit as this "could be portrayed" as her word against theirs, although I'm inclined to believe the prosecutors as they are the ones who want this evidence in court. It is Amanda's team who have had it disallowed.

BUT IT IS PROVEN THAT AMANDA LIED TO HER PARENTS when she told them she made that statement after being subjected to a 14 hour interrogation.

Both Raffaele and Amanda agree that they had a meal in the evening before Raffaele went to the police to keep his appointment. Everyone agrees they arrived at the police station just after 10:15pm, well fed and watered.

Amanda's phone call to Filomena at 10:30pm is a fixed fact. Amanda told her she was sitting in the waiting room and Raffaele had gone in for his interview. They also discussed future living arrangements and the rent they had paid for the cottage.

Some time later, the still waiting Amanda was told off for doing her excercises and cartwheels and Raffaele was retracting his original statement and stating that instead of remaining with him the evening of the murder, Amanda had in fact gone out.

The start of Amanda's interview isn't precise but probably began around 11:30pm in the waiting room before moving to an interview sometime around midnight.

By 1:45am AManda has blamed Patrick, the interview has been stopped and Mignini has been called.

Amanda blamed Patrick after a 2 hour interview which took place only two or three hours after her last meal.

Even if her parents don't believe the police version of the events from midnight until around 5:45am it becomes a moot point because her words resulted in Patrick being arrested in a dawn raid.



Where is the 14 hours?

Amanda has told a lie to her parents.

Her family repeat that lie to the media even after it has been demonstrated as exactly that.

How does this reflect on the honesty of the Knox family?

How does this reflect of the truthfullness of Amanda when she speaks to her parents about the death of Meredith Kercher?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 4:09 pm   Post subject: LMT   

After many months of working on a case, unmuddying the waters and generally getting rid of the silly rumours, you from time to time get a Johny come lately indivividual come blundering in like a bull in a china shop and muddying everything up again. LMT is one of those. His post on Frank's I'll repsond to here:


LMT wrote:
"Anonymous said...
Guede also carried out another break-in at the offices of a local lawyer in Perugia and at the end of October he was arrested in Milan after breaking into a school.

There he was found in possession of a laptop and mobile stolen in the burglaries as well as a large flick knife, but he was freed and made his way back to Perugia where he met Meredi

May 14, 2009 6:47 PM


Anonymous said...
I read somewhere that the laptop was stolen from the law offices of what became his lawyer in this case - could have misread it or it could have been in error -

May 14, 2009 6:54 PM"

Rudy started with strange behavior before Meredith was murdered. I am bothered by some of the facts of his behavior.

1. Why did he feel it was necessary to flee to Milan and why did he have a knife to protect himself?

2. Was Rudy a drug dealer for someone who owned the laptop computer and the transactions were recorded on that computer?

3. Did Rudy get scared and flee?

4. Did the law firm claim that Rudy stole their property in order to get the computer back?

5. Did Meredith have the computer because it was being returned to Rudy via the law firm? Is that the reason why Meredith had Filomena's cellphone? Rudy was going to call to come pick it up.

6. Did Rudy take off with the computer again to take it to Germany? Did the real computer stay in Germany?

7. If there is such a computer with drug evidence, then that is Rudy's ace in the hole.

There is a photo of two scientific police looking at two items near the edge of the house. One of them looks like a cellphone and the other one is small and rectangular. If that is the cellphone that Rudy had and his i-pod that he lost running away, then that cellphone could be Kokomani's. They may have gotten Rudy's finger prints from the i-pod/cellphone instead of the palm print which is on cloth. They may only told Kokomani that his cellphone was in the dumpster. There was a dumpster at the location where his car was parked. If they knew from witnesses that Kokomani's car was at the dumpster area, then that is a better cover for the cellphone to be in the dumpster than to tell him that it was with Rudy's i-pod.

This is hypothetical because it is very difficult to see exactly what these two items are.



It wouldn't need to be nearly so hypthetical if he'd actually really bothered to study up on the case BEFORE going off on such hypotheticals.

It has NOT been established, ever, that Guede carried out a break-in at any law office. There 'was' a break-in and Guede was found in possession of a laptop and mobile phone that had been stolen from the law office. Guede claimed to have bought them from someone. Whether that's true or not, we do not know and there was certainly no evidence at the burglary to link it to Guede....which doesn't sound like Guede to me at all, considering the amount of forensic evidnce he left at the cottage on the night of the murder. Neither does Guede have any history of burglary. The items were confiscated from Guede as they were stolen property and since that time he had no laptop or phone. Guede was given a ticket for possession of stolen goods. Neither were they stolen from Guede's lawyer. Guede did not take the computer or phone to Germany, they had been confiscated many days before by the police when he was found in the kindergarten. Neither has any evidence of drug dealing reported to have been found on the laptop . He slept in the kindergarten with a knife which he'd got from the kindergarten kitchen because he believed the kindergarten was being used as a squat and therefore was a dangerous place. He wanted some protection as he slept. On the occasion he was found in the kindergarten, he had not 'fled' to Milan, he had gone to Milan to visit relatives. No cell phone has been found in any dumpster.

There was NO ipod or phone found near the house. The only electronic items found were meredith's phones quite a long distance away in Sr. Elisabeta's garden. Filomena had lent Meredith her phone in order to use for making calls within Italy. She used her English phone for speaking to her mother/father in England. Meredith did not have Guede's computer or anybody elses, she had her own computer for her studies and it is nothing to do with this case, aside from the fact that it was left behind in her room in the supposed 'burglary' that never was.

_________________
"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: Sun May 17, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S. wrote:

BUT IT IS PROVEN THAT AMANDA LIED TO HER PARENTS when she told them she made that statement after being subjected to a 14 hour interrogation.


did she mean 14 hours in all? do you know when they were questioned before?

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:00 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Brian S. wrote:

BUT IT IS PROVEN THAT AMANDA LIED TO HER PARENTS when she told them she made that statement after being subjected to a 14 hour interrogation.



did she mean 14 hours in all? do you know when they were questioned before?

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?


There are plenty of verbatim statements made by AK's parents (from television and press interviews) that make it clear they are claiming she broke down after 14 hours of questioning, without access to food, water or breaks to go the the restroom, that no interpreters were available, etc. The part about no interpreters is false and the police issued an immediate denial (you can read it on CNN) after Edda Mellas made this statement in February 2008 on the ABC 20/20 program. The FOA and family continue to claim it was a 14-hour interrogation session (at first it was a 9-hour session) with not food or water, even though abundant court testimont to the contrary exists and is part of the record now.

People who follow this board have spent a lot of time getting to the bottom of this claim and their work is available -- on this board and its predecessor. I suggest that during this lull leading up to the trial, you read what they have provided based on research and the available on-the-record statements so you can see how Brian and others (myself included) have arrived at this conclusion. You might want to look at the actual body of on-the-record statements made by FOA and family. Note that Knox herself does not allude to any 14-hour session in her written statement of Nov 6.

As for whether or not this had to take place in the middle of the night, my understanding is that as Sollecito was being heard as a witness, he had some say in "when" the interview of Nov 5 started. It looks like he wanted to go after dinner. Remember that Knox was not even asked to be there. She went along with Sollecito of her own volition.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2308

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:02 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
did she mean 14 hours in all? do you know when they were questioned before?

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?


Amanda Knox's family and some people in the media have repeatedly stated that she was interrogated all night. The original claim was that her questioning lasted 9 hours. However, the 9 hours later became 14 hours:

Jon Follain in The Times proclaimed: “On November 6, five days after Meredith’s murder, Knox was interrogated by police for nine hours until she signed a statement at 5.45am.”

Juju Chang claimed it was “an all night interrogation” on ABC News.

Jan Goodwin stated in her article in Marie Claire magazine that:"After her arrest, Amanda was detained by the police and interrogated for 14 hours.”

Curt Knox repeated the claim that Amanda’s interrogation last all night, and that it lasted 14 hours, on a recent Seattle TV station King5 interview.

Lexie Krell wrote in The UW Daily on 16 January 2009 that: “The Italian Supreme Court has already thrown out Knox’s original statement on the basis that she was denied a lawyer during her initial 14-hour interrogation.”

It's an indisputable fact that Amanda Knox wasn't questioned for 14 hours.

The only person who could have told Curt Knox and Edda Mellas that she was interrogated for 14 hours is Amanda Knox herself. Amanda Knox did not only lie about the length of the questioning, but other details too. She claimed she was given nothing to eat and drink, that there was no interpreter present , she was hit by a police officer, and that she was asked to envision what might have happened. All her claims have been flatly contradicted by six witnesses, including three interpreters.

Due to the seriousness of Amanda Knox's allegations, the questioning lasted until 1.45am. She was asked whether she wanted to make a statement and she said that she did. She could have waited until the morning.
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 17, 2009 6:24 pm   Post subject: 14 Hours   

Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:

BUT IT IS PROVEN THAT AMANDA LIED TO HER PARENTS when she told them she made that statement after being subjected to a 14 hour interrogation.


did she mean 14 hours in all? do you know when they were questioned before?

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?



This was not only her claim to the media/public via her family members (which was then parroted with monotonous repetition by all her supporters and indeed is still repeated), but it was also Amanda's claim directly, via her lawyers, to Judge Claudia Matteini in her appeal for house arrest. Only. in Frank's original write up on the content of that hearing, Amanda's claim of a 14 hour interrogation had a caveat of 'with only a half an hour break'. At some later point, Frank edited his piece to remove the half hour break referrence altogether. What is certain, is Amanda made the claim of a 14 hour long interrogation without food.

It is interesting to note that later, when Amanda stood in front of Judge Micheli and made a spontaneous statement about why she accused Patrick (I reposted it here very recently), all mention of any non-stop 14 hour interrogation is absent from her declaration and neither has it surfaced again as yet in the main trial. Despite that and the fact that we've repeatedly demonstrated that not even a 9 hour, let alone 14 hour, interrogation was even remotely possible, her family members have again been claiming it to the media.

There is no reason it had to take place in the middle of the night. Amanda shouldn't have even been there, it was only Raffaele they wanted at that point and he got there a little after 10. There was probably only two or three questions they wanted him to answer and had he have answered them satisfactorily, he no doubt could have been out of there within an hour. But when they 'did' start to ask Amanda questions, likewise, they may well have done with her within the same time limit has she answered her questions to their satisfaction. Also, Raffaele changed his story which changed everything. Moreover, it's my guess that Raffaele didn't have a strict time appointment in any case. My guess is they'd ask him if he could come in that day and he'd told them he couldn't as he was at college all day. Therefore, being reasonable, it makes sense that they'd have told him to come along in the evening as that was the case and Raffaele simply sauntered in at the time that was convenient to him...Amanda in tow.

_________________
"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: Sun May 17, 2009 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: 14 Hours   

Michael wrote:
This was not only her calim to the media/public via her family members (which was then parroted with monotonous repetition by all her supporters and indeed is still repeated), but it was also Amanda's claim directly, via her lawyers, to Judge Claudia Matteini in her appeal for house arrest.


so the lawyers didn't know when and for how long their client was interrogated? couldn't they ask somebody, somebody other than amanda? did they really have to rely on her? oh dear!

i wonder where amanda got the 9 (later 14) hours from. did she start counting some days earlier?
Top Profile 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 9 of 10 [ 2401 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,421,658 Views