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: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:58 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:58 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

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 6:51 pm   Post subject: Re: 14 Hours   

Lancelotti wrote:
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?



Well, there has never been any evidence that Amanda ever directly claimed a 9 hour figure for the duration, only direct evidence of her claim for a 14 hour duration (as per her claim via her lawyers to Judge Matteini). As for what the hell her lawyers thought they were playing at, who can guess. They, like Amanda, have never mentioned it publicly or in court again though.

_________________
"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: Sun May 17, 2009 6:59 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:
and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?



Isn't the reason for the all night questioning the fact that the first hours after a crime are the most important due to fear of the flight of the perpetrator and need to round up all suspects as soon as possible? I've always heard that's the #1 requirement of a police investigation--fast action. That's supposedly what screwed up the JonBenet Ramsey investigation and many more.

They must have been already worried at that point about not having any leads and that's why they jumped on the Patrick accusation.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:11 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?



Isn't the reason for the all night questioning the fact that the first hours after a crime are the most important due to fear of the flight of the perpetrator and need to round up all suspects as soon as possible? I've always heard that's the #1 requirement of a police investigation--fast action.


Yes, sure!

The interrogation took place Nov.5/6th. We know she was questioned on Nov 2nd. And the days in between too? Perhaps that equals 14 hours then. ;)
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:58 pm   Post subject:    

Roma, 17 mag. (Apcom) - "The DNA of the alleged Meredith Kercher on the blade of the knife found in the house of Raffaele urge is shown by a test that is not Orthodox. The survey that was done is absolutely inefficient and useless even in a case of paternity" . Patumi Valter, medico legal, geneticist, consultant for the defense of Amanda Knox in Perugia for the murder of the girl English, relies on "People", in newsstands Monday May 18, his considerations on the scientific findings presented by prosecutor during the hearing."

The forensics specialist Patrizia Stefanoni for the prosecution will be testifying next weekend in the court on the DNA and blood analysis. She’ll do her talking in the courtroom. The defense team along with their ‘DNA‘ expert feel they need to get a head start, and talking to the press so they will carry their side of the story. The same press who they claim maligned Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject:    

DLW wrote:
Roma, 17 mag. (Apcom) - "The DNA of the alleged Meredith Kercher on the blade of the knife found in the house of Raffaele urge is shown by a test that is not Orthodox. The survey that was done is absolutely inefficient and useless even in a case of paternity" . Patumi Valter, medico legal, geneticist, consultant for the defense of Amanda Knox in Perugia for the murder of the girl English, relies on "People", in newsstands Monday May 18, his considerations on the scientific findings presented by prosecutor during the hearing."

The forensics specialist Patrizia Stefanoni for the prosecution will be testifying next weekend in the court on the DNA and blood analysis. She’ll do her talking in the courtroom. The defense team along with their ‘DNA‘ expert feel they need to get a head start, and talking to the press so they will carry their side of the story. The same press who they claim maligned Amanda.


Hi DLW,
Ive read it and without further elements all I can say is that it smells of desperation. Choosing "Gente" for these revelations is quite odd too. It's like giving exclusives to "the Sun" or similar."Gente" is the kind of magazine one picks up at the hairdresser, often presenting sensational "reports" about issues such as the "Filipino healers", UFOs, plus gossips about starlets pregnacies etc. :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 10:08 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

Quote:
disinterested wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?



Isn't the reason for the all night questioning the fact that the first hours after a crime are the most important due to fear of the flight of the perpetrator and need to round up all suspects as soon as possible? I've always heard that's the #1 requirement of a police investigation--fast action.


Yes, sure!

The interrogation took place Nov.5/6th. We know she was questioned on Nov 2nd. And the days in between too? Perhaps that equals 14 hours then.


Yes, why not, if that is the only fallback position left. However, this is not at all how the claim was presented, as a cumulative total over several days. In fact, if this is true then the only person responsible for deprivation of water, food and potty breaks would be Knox herself, since she was not in custody from the afternoon of Nov 2 to the late evening of Nov 5, let's say around 11 pm.

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 10:36 pm   Post subject: Re: 14 Hours   

Lancelotti wrote:
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!


At the stage of Amanda's appeal to Matteini for house arrest, the investigation was still very much ongoing. No charge had been laid and the police(just as in the US) were not required to provide every detail of the investigation to the defense.

They had to give Matteini good reason to hold her. They had to provide some detail of the evidence which made her a suspect. Her DNA on the knife is one I recall. I believe they had a list of about five and one was the fact that she continuously changed her story to fit the circumstances in which she found herself. They also said seriousness of the crime (she was suspected of murder) meant there was a risk of her flight back to the US.


Quote:
i wonder where amanda got the 9 (later 14) hours from. did she start counting some days earlier?


Do you think she hadn't eaten for days? No, this was her defense response to explain her change of story on the night of 5/6Nov and given as the reason she came to blame Patrick. Her lawyers KNEW she had given that evidence without a lawyer present(for obvious reasons) and asked for it to be disallowed. As we know, Matteini agreed with them that it should but then went on to describe Amanda as a manipulative liar. But of course, Matteini was privy to the full details of events that night.

But, Amanda's lawyers were relying on her version of events that night and how those statements were obtained. They weren't given the full details of the evidence against Amanda until June 2008 when the charges against her were officially laid and the 10,000 pages of evidence which represented the prosecution case were collected from Mignini's Office.

The 9/14 hour interrogation is a proven lie told by Amanda to her family AND her lawyers. Where else do you think they got it from????

Her lawyers haven't attempted to use the 9/14 hour argument since they were presented with the 10,000 pages. For the record, they have also explicitly stated that Amanda wasn't hit. (although she appears to disagree with her own defense team).

It's this proven lie itself which is the defense weakness, not the detail about Patrick. (That's just a slander against him, as is the "hit claim" in danger of becoming a slander against the police.)

However, these lies have all become a plank of the prosecution case. Amanda lied about Patrick, she lied about the circumstances in which that statement was made. She lied about the length of her questioning.

They'll ask the court why it should believe what she says now.


Last edited by Brian S. on Mon May 18, 2009 12:51 am, edited 5 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 10:49 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
So, TM, you do see the two of them actually tactically making a murder plan together?


Hi Didi,

Amanda Knox received a text from Diya Lumumba 8.18 pm, telling her she wasn't needed at Le Chic. Shortly afterwards, Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones at approximately the same time and around the same time the double DNA knife was taken from the kitchen and later that evening it is used to stab Meredith.

I believe that Diya Lumumba's text message was the catalyst for the attack on Meredith. Knox knew that Diya Lumuba had offered Meredith a job at Le Chic and he had demoted Knox to handing out flyers. There were already several points of friction between the two of them: Amanda Knox bringing home strange men and her general uncleaniness.

Meredith had also complained to her family and friends that she found Amanda Knox strange. The very first time they met, Knox showed Meredith her vibrator, which she kept in a transparent toilet bag in the bathroom they shared and this also annoyed Meredith.

I think Amanda Knox was insanely jealous of Meredith. They both liked the same man, Giacomo Silenzi, who became Meredith's boyfriend. Meredith made Knox feel inferior: she was popular and made friends easily; she was enrolled on a serious academic course in Perugia; she was going out with the man that Knox liked and she had got a job at Le Chic at Knox's expense.

I believe Diya Lumumba's text message telling Knox that she wasn't needed was the final straw. The conversation between Raffaele Sollecito from 8.18 to around 8.40pm would have catastrophic consequences and some plan to harm Meredith was made. I think Raffaele Sollecito made some "macho" comment about harming Meredith or even killing her to teach her a lesson. He may have referred to the story in his Manga comic that Mignini believed inspired him. It's important to note Sollecito's threat to drive over the head of a female police officer whilst he was in prison. Is that how he reacts when a woman annoys him?

At that moment in time Amanda Knox hated Meredith with a vengeance and she went along with Sollecito's suggestion. Knox's supporters demand a clear cut motive for Meredith's murder. They've probably read too many Agatha Christie novels about means, motive and opportunity. As Miss Represented has repeatedly pointed out, it is far more complex than that. Knox and Sollecito are both psychologically disturbed and were probably under the influence of a dangerous drug like meth, which they could have taken at Sollecito's apartment or after they had met up with Guede.

In Amanda Knox's handwritten note to the police in which she admits she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed, she claims she met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana and they went back to the cottage because Diya Lumumba wanted Meredith. I think there is an element of truth in her statement. I think she had already arranged to meet Rudy Guede, not Lumumba, there at around 9pm, possibly to buy drugs.

I'm not sure that Knox even intended to go to work that evening after she had been smoking cannabis. It wouldn't have been the first time she didn't turn up for work. She didn't go to work in Berlin because she didn't feel like it.

Knox knew that Rudy Guede liked Meredith and probably suggested to Guede they go back to the cottage because Meredith was there alone and none of the Italian housemates or the boys downstairs would disturb them. Like Laurie Ann Swank in the Janet Chandler case, I believe that Knox wanted her enemy to be sexually assaulted in order to humiliate her.

The above scenario is one that I think is probaly the most likely. However, I wouldn't exclude the possibilty that Rudy Guede took part in the planning of the attack on Meredith either. Why hasn't he come clean and told the truth about what happened that night? Pehaps, he can't because the truth is too horrific.

I believe there was a sinister motive behind Knox's flurry of text messages to Meredith on 31 October. Is it a coincidence that Meredith was killed on the Day of the Dead? Is it a coincidence that Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede both have a very keen interest in Manga? Sometimes, I have a horrible feeling that Meredith's murder may have been even crueller and more depraved than any of us have imagined.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 11:25 pm   Post subject:    

Lancelotti wrote:

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?



No, but that entire situation was created by AK and RS.


They both had classes on Nov 5th and so it was arranged that Raffaele would go to the police station during the evening to clear up some discrepancies in what he had earlier told the police.

I don't believe there was any fixed hour and Amanda's presence was never asked for.

You could better ask why it was that Raffaele didn't go on his own earlier in the evening while Amanda stayed at home and made a meal for his return.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 12:37 am   Post subject:    

Brian S. wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:

and is there any reason why this had to take place in the middle of the night?



No, but that entire situation was created by AK and RS.


They both had classes on Nov 5th and so it was arranged that Raffaele would go to the police station during the evening to clear up some discrepancies in what he had earlier told the police.

I don't believe there was any fixed hour and Amanda's presence was never asked for.

You could better ask why it was that Raffaele didn't go on his own earlier in the evening while Amanda stayed at home and made a meal for his return.


Or another question would be why it was that Raffaele didn't go on his own earlier in the evening while Amanda attended the candlelight vigil scheduled at 8:00pm for her "good friend" and flatmate, Meredith Kercher?

I remember reading in early news reports that even the police found it odd that Knox and Sollecito were always together - even when asked to come in for questioning. They were never apart.
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 1:58 am   Post subject:    

Even Scott Peterson went to the candlelight vigil for his wife Laci and unborn son Connor. Of course he talked the entire time on the phone to his girlfriend. He did make an effort though. :twisted:
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:53 am   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
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.


Hi thoughtful,

I missed this meaning somewhere; is this straight from Amanda? I would appreciate hearing where the author is quoted, was it on her MS page?
Very creative.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 7:52 am   Post subject:    

Amanda's story "Baby Brother" together with another story and the accounts of her travel to Italy, search for an apartment and the disastrous Bundestag internship story, catastrophic spelling and all, are on her MySpace page. You can still read them, it's quite interesting I find; one gets a bit more of a feel for Amanda.

http://www.thedeadkidsofmyspace.com/fox ... blogs.html

But now that I think of it, the entire page is also in the Amanda Knox part of this forum's "In their own words" section.

One little lightbulb moment for me was when I read that she saw something in the toilet and instead of flushing it at once, as anyone would, she left it there. No matter what her personal habits were -- no way! It reeks of being done on purpose for a specific reason. And I bet she really was worried and scared when she thought "it" had gone -- not because she thought someone was in the apartment with her, but she probably thought it had eventually leaked away and destroyed a key piece of identifying evidence.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:11 am   Post subject:    

Dear Machine,
I notice you often quote as fact things that as far as I know were not substantiated in court, at least from articles and Stewart Home's reports. I am not referring to aspects that have not yet been discussed in court (have we seen the mop analysis, for instance?) but those that have been presented in full. In the interest of distinguishing fact from rumo(u)r, can I ask whether there are any actual sources (written statements) confirming the following frequently quoted details:

1) The washing machine was warm or spinning
2) Patrick Lumumba demoted Amanda to handing out flyers
3) Lumumba offered Amanda's job to Meredith

I have heard these things again and again, but I am still not sure whether they are actually true.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:52 am   Post subject:    

Hi thoughtful, look in 'In their own words' - 'Witnesses' - 'Patrick on Amanda Knox'
It's a bit tabloid, but quotes him directly.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:42 am   Post subject:    

You're right, nowo, my questions are answered in there (I had read that but sort of discounted it because as you say, it's tabloid!) Many things have come up in tabloids and then been either confirmed or not in court, and none of this was confirmed. It could so easily just be the journalist exaggerating to create some kind of motive. In court, if I remember rightly, Patrick said nothing of any of this. Also, the newspaper account is confusing. Patrick seemed to offer Meredith a one-time stint, then tells Amanda that he has offered to hire her, then later offers to hire her. Odd. Also, he says he saw Amanda in his bar on Halloween (this answers someone's recent question about what she was doing on Halloween, I guess) and then had no more contact with her, whereas we know he sent her an SMS on November 1st. So the tabloid doesn't seem very trustworthy. I wish there was more confirmation about this. Maybe some details will come out in his lawsuit against Amanda.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:06 am   Post subject:    

Hi thoughtful, it's not literature that's for sure! On the washing machine, I think Filomena testified that it was 'warm' when she arrived at the cottage. There was media talk that the machine was 'spinning down' when the Postals arrived, but that didn't come up when they testified. If I'm wrong on these points, I'm sure someone will come along and correct me!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Dear Machine,
I notice you often quote as fact things that as far as I know were not substantiated in court, at least from articles and Stewart Home's reports. I am not referring to aspects that have not yet been discussed in court (have we seen the mop analysis, for instance?) but those that have been presented in full. In the interest of distinguishing fact from rumo(u)r, can I ask whether there are any actual sources (written statements) confirming the following frequently quoted details:

1) The washing machine was warm or spinning
2) Patrick Lumumba demoted Amanda to handing out flyers
3) Lumumba offered Amanda's job to Meredith

I have heard these things again and again, but I am still not sure whether they are actually true.


Here is an excerpt from Andrea Vogt's report, filed after Lumumba testified in the current trial. (April 3, 2009/Seattle PI):

Quote:
On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.

The night of the killing he sent her a text message telling her she didn't need to come to work, to which she replied in Italian, "We'll see you later. Good night."

Lumumba said the two did not have an appointment to see one another, but rather, he interpreted the message as the American salutation "see you later," which can also mean"bye."

After he was cleared, the pub's business never picked back up, however, and his financial trouble worsened.

"Everything fell apart. When the pub was sequestered for three months. When it re-opened, well, who would go to a pub run by someone who had been arrested for murder? Of course they go somewhere else. I lost everything."

Lumumba said the episode also re-awoke terrible childhood memories about the night his politically active father was kidnapped back in Congo (and never seen again). He wakes up in the night worrying about the safety of his toddler son, said Lumumba, who an Italian court recently awarded 8,000 euros for false imprisonment.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: An Anon   

The following was posted on Frank's and I wanted to respond to it here:


Anon wrote:
Ah, my posts, and the underlying purpose of having some persepective, about trying not to fall into the trap of stereotypes is now being warped into "its a pr campaign". Nope, Just finally trying to post something to get people to think and get a little perspective after all the vitriole going on, on this site.

Amanda was slagged from the get go, do I think the PR move was a mistake for the Knox camp..yeah, I think its done more harm then good, but I also see it as a reaction to all the stuff that was posted in the main stream media for months. I also see the anti Amanda camps had already created elaborate theories, and a presumption (more like a jihad) of guilt prior to a PR effort being attempted.

I normally don't follow trials like this, but the ensuing drama, and the pure fanatacism being influenced by certain camps, would make a fascinating case study on vigilantism, group think, and bigotry, whether its on a sex, race and nationality.

May 18, 2009 6:47 AM



Anyone who has watched and listened to the FOA and Amanda's family over the past many months would not see it as anything other then a PR campaign and it's been quite blatantly one. To argue that it's 'justified', does not change the fact that it is indeed a PR campaign. A justified, or otherweise, PR campaign is still exactly that...a PR campaign.

As for the media, they simply reported on the case as it emerged, just as they do with many other cases.

The so called 'anti-Amanda camps' as you call them , which actually don't exist and never have have...but are called such simply because we don't think the 'right' way as prescribed by people like yourself...that Amanda is innocent. 'If' we are any camp, it is simply pro-justice, pro-victim. And whilst here you are attempting to do your best here to hold 'us' in large part responsible for the 'need' for Amanda's friends and family to run a PR campaign which included amongst other things, public attempts to trash the Italian legal system, smear the prosecutor along with several past judges involved in the case, deny the existence of evidence that exists whilst also telling outright lies to the public about numerous other pieces of evidence whilst also putting out spin that involved making up lame excuses for evidence and behaviour attributed to Amanda that even she has not offered, your accusation just won't fly.

There was no particular site where any pro-justice camp held domain, except on Haloscan on Sreve Huff's True Crime. It was tucked away on an Internet backwater and most members of the public didn't even know it existed. Even for those few who heard it's mention on one of the more general sites, they then struggled to find it. It had no Internet footprint and no influence on the public. The same can be said for for the True Crime Weblog Message Board, the successor to Haloscan. Indeed, it wasn't until we moved on to PMF that we deliberately became more public. This was not the 'cause' of Amanda Knox's PR campaign., but rather as a direct response 'to' it, a PR campaign that had already been long underway. PMF and TJMK were the backlash reaped by that PR campaign and we make no apologies for that, for there would never have been a need for that had the FOA and Amanda's family played honest and fair in their campaign. Instead, we saw people being smeared where the justification did not exist and the public being lied to on a jaw dropping scale. No longer would we stand idly by. Justice for Meredith and her family was our primary concern and that would be achieved through no other medium then due process in the courts and eventually a full trial itself where the evidence could be heard and scrutinised. Amanda's PR campaign was instituted to deliberately undermine that process and in a most dishonourable way, thereby also seeking to rob Meredith of her justice.

However, there certainly was one 'camp' in operation from the very beginning, formulating complex theories...theories firstly on how it was Patrick and Patrick alone that committed the murder (although sometimes Patrick with some accomlplice 'other' then those currently standing trial, even after his release). And that site, once it became clearly apparent it wasn't Patrick, switched to ellaborate theories instead of how it was Rudy Guede and Guede alone along with even more ellaborate theories still of a corrupt and incompetent Italian legal system that was out to frame poor Amanda because she was American, or because she was beautiful...or whatever. That was Candace Dempseys blog and a very high profile one that because of it's host, always came top in Google searches on the case. Indeed, that was a PR campaign in itself, almost existing from day one. When you also throw into the mix an American media that almost from the beginning has either been absent in regard to reporting on this case, or highly sympathetic to Knox, your claims are similar to Amanda Knox's defence...built on qucksand.

Please, do not seek to lecture us on the score regarding how this whole thing panned out...we were 'there' and have been from the very beginning. Attempts to revise history with us won't work.

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


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

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
Amanda's story "Baby Brother" together with another story and the accounts of her travel to Italy, search for an apartment and the disastrous Bundestag internship story, catastrophic spelling and all, are on her MySpace page. You can still read them, it's quite interesting I find; one gets a bit more of a feel for Amanda.

http://www.thedeadkidsofmyspace.com/fox ... blogs.html

But now that I think of it, the entire page is also in the Amanda Knox part of this forum's "In their own words" section.

One little lightbulb moment for me was when I read that she saw something in the toilet and instead of flushing it at once, as anyone would, she left it there. No matter what her personal habits were -- no way! It reeks of being done on purpose for a specific reason. And I bet she really was worried and scared when she thought "it" had gone -- not because she thought someone was in the apartment with her, but she probably thought it had eventually leaked away and destroyed a key piece of identifying evidence.


Thanks, I do recall seeing her MySP and only had one impression: what a toxic loser. She is really gross, too, just like her family.

For me, the lightbulb moment occured as soon as she opened her mouth. No, seriously, it nailed it for me when her family launched their PR campaign.
What the FOAK? A truly spellbinding group of disfunctional clowns without any sense of shame. "Shame? What is this "shame?"

Somebody wake me up when we get to talk about Meredith.

_________________
"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: Mon May 18, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:


On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.



This is such a pivotal point, I wish the facts were clearer. The whole SMS thing has been a piece of evidence and Amanda's probable angry reaction to it, her possible "trigger point", is so significant, it would be nice to know if she'd already been fired or if the "you don't need to come" message was a final straw for her in Patrick's evident "rejection of her for Meredith" scenario. In the Daily Mail article he says he had fired her by then and reduced her to flyering, but why would he say "don't come in" in regard to flyering?

Maybe it was just ambivalent at that point. That Daily Mail article also has all the bit about police brutality and racial stereotyping that Patrick supposedly retracted later. I think what happens is that the press has big holes in their information too and they just make up some of it to fill in the gaps. The truth is hard to find!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Flyer   

disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.



This is such a pivotal point, I wish the facts were clearer. The whole SMS thing has been a piece of evidence and Amanda's probable angry reaction to it, her possible "trigger point", is so significant, it would be nice to know if she'd already been fired or if the "you don't need to come" message was a final straw for her in Patrick's evident "rejection of her for Meredith" scenario. In the Daily Mail article he says he had fired her by then and reduced her to flyering, but why would he say "don't come in" in regard to flyering?

Maybe it was just ambivalent at that point. That Daily Mail article also has all the bit about police brutality and racial stereotyping that Patrick supposedly retracted later. The truth is hard to find!



Because there was a good reason the pub was dead. Perugia was dead...there was hardly anyone around because the day was an Italian holiday. Most of the Italian students had gone home for the holiday and most of the native Perugians would have been also spending the evening with their familes. Very family oriented is Italy. It's pointless having someone working to give out flyers if the crowds are not there to give them out 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 disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: Flyer   

Michael wrote:

Because there was a good reason the pub was dead. Perugia was dead...there was hardly anyone around because the day was an Italian holiday. Most of the Italian students had gone home for the holiday and most of the native Perugians would have been also spending the evening with their familes. Very family oriented is Italy. It's pointless having someone working to give out flyers if the crowds are not there to give them out to.



Ah ha! (I've had an aha moment.) Thank you. That's actually logical!
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:22 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
Dear Machine,
I notice you often quote as fact things that as far as I know were not substantiated in court, at least from articles and Stewart Home's reports. I am not referring to aspects that have not yet been discussed in court (have we seen the mop analysis, for instance?) but those that have been presented in full. In the interest of distinguishing fact from rumo(u)r, can I ask whether there are any actual sources (written statements) confirming the following frequently quoted details:

1) The washing machine was warm or spinning


You've asked me about the washing machine before and I provided a source for the claim that the washing machine was still warm on PMF on 27 April:

Barbe Nadeau wrote the following in Newsweek:

"The prosecution had also introduced evidence about the washing machine in the villa where the murder took place. Filomena Romanelli, the Italian from whom Knox and Kercher sublet rooms in the villa, testified that the washing machine was warm when she arrived on the scene. She later identified the contents of the washing machine as Kercher's even though the Briton had been dead for at least 10 hours before her body was found, implying that someone else started the laundry
".

thoughtful wrote:
2) Patrick Lumumba demoted Amanda to handing out flyers


"On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

thoughtful wrote:
3) Lumumba offered Amanda's job to Meredith


"I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory."

By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar.

"She looked at me blankly and walked away," he says. "The club was busy and I didn't see her again that evening."

The next day Amanda attended a Hallowe'en party at the club, knocking back the free red wine. "She was all over two American boys," Patrick says. "There was no sign of Sollecito and I didn't see her leave."

At 3am he locked up and went on to another club, where he bumped into Meredith. "I mentioned the idea of her working for me again," he says.

"She smiled sweetly and said she couldn't wait, and she'd bring all her friends back to my club for me." That was the last he heard of either girl, until 6pm on Saturday November 3, when a couple of friends walked into his club
. (London Evening Standard)
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:35 pm   Post subject:    

Disinterested wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.




This is such a pivotal point, I wish the facts were clearer. The whole SMS thing has been a piece of evidence and Amanda's probable angry reaction to it, her possible "trigger point", is so significant, it would be nice to know if she'd already been fired or if the "you don't need to come" message was a final straw for her in Patrick's evident "rejection of her for Meredith" scenario. In the Daily Mail article he says he had fired her by then and reduced her to flyering, but why would he say "don't come in" in regard to flyering?

Maybe it was just ambivalent at that point. That Daily Mail article also has all the bit about police brutality and racial stereotyping that Patrick supposedly retracted later. I think what happens is that the press has big holes in their information too and they just make up some of it to fill in the gaps. The truth is hard to find!


I don't think the truth is all that hard to find. I would set aside the Daily Mail article and use reports from non-tabloid sources. PL has retracted what was published in the Daily Mail publicly - on Italian television. He described his treatment by police under oath, which is much better, and has told other sources that he was treated in a manner consistent with the crime he was taken into custody in connection with.

We know from his testimony that AK had been "demoted" to the status of handing out flyers for the pub.

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

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:45 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
For me, the lightbulb moment occured as soon as she opened her mouth. No, seriously, it nailed it for me when her family launched their PR campaign.
What the FOAK? A truly spellbinding group of disfunctional clowns without any sense of shame. "Shame? What is this "shame?"

The moment i realized that the "day of the dead" was not a normal day at all, that was my lightbulb moment! The first and only day the two girls were alone in the house, and the next day one of them is dead. Combined with bad lies and a poor fake break-in - my brain literally pinged!
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:03 pm   Post subject:    

Just from the last few posts above, you can come up with this:

"I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory.

By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar.”

Wednesday, October 31 (Halloween). Unusual flurry of texts from AK to MK

Thursday, November 1. Day of the Dead. Flatmates and guys downstairs away for the holiday. Text from PL to AK. MK murdered.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:15 pm   Post subject:    

nowo wrote:
Just from the last few posts above, you can come up with this:

"I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory.

By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar.”

Wednesday, October 31 (Halloween). Unusual flurry of texts from AK to MK

Thursday, November 1. Day of the Dead. Flatmates and guys downstairs away for the holiday. Text from PL to AK. MK murdered.


Text message from Diya Lumumba to Amanda Knox, telling her she wasn't needed at Le Chic that evening at 8.18pm.

Around 20 minutes later Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito turn their mobiles off at approximately the same time.

The double DNA knife from Sollecito's apartment was taken to the cottage and used to stab Meredith some time after the mobiles phones had been turned off, probably around 9.10pm.

Meredith attacked some time after 9.30pm. 23 separate pieces of forensic evidence place Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede at the cottage on the night of the murder. Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede both admitted they were at the cottage when Meredith was killed.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:20 pm   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.



This is such a pivotal point, I wish the facts were clearer. The whole SMS thing has been a piece of evidence and Amanda's probable angry reaction to it, her possible "trigger point", is so significant, it would be nice to know if she'd already been fired or if the "you don't need to come" message was a final straw for her in Patrick's evident "rejection of her for Meredith" scenario. In the Daily Mail article he says he had fired her by then and reduced her to flyering, but why would he say "don't come in" in regard to flyering?

Maybe it was just ambivalent at that point. That Daily Mail article also has all the bit about police brutality and racial stereotyping that Patrick supposedly retracted later. I think what happens is that the press has big holes in their information too and they just make up some of it to fill in the gaps. The truth is hard to find!


Patrik did not "supposedly" rectracted "his" statement, rather pubblicy stated several times that police was not brutal ,and that he hadn't fired Amanda nor hired Meredith:

- there hasn't been any abuse by the police
-he hadn't hired Meredith, only asked her to work for one night
-he didn't like Amanda as an employee because she was a poor performer at work, but he hadn't fired her yet

All the talk shows are available on the internet. If you understand Italian, you can check Matrix and Bianco e Nero to start with. But there's many more sources available.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject:    

justlooking wrote:
Quote:
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'.


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.



Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Quote:
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!



Professor Snape wrote:
Quote:
Like father, like daughter.



Spent some time thinking about the motive to kill Meredith and the modus operandi of knox’s family. It seems she has had no consequences for personal decisions or actions along the way (Bundestaag is just one example), and importantly, no concern about the people she affected, whether they were her uncle, her sister while on the train, etc. I don’t think we can chalk these actions up to “youthful exuberance” or joie de vivre as some of her supporters have. I think it sets the tone of how we come to see knox justifying her attitudes/actions. And no one in her close circle is holding her accountable or perhaps even teaching her how to be responsible. What does a young person do while on their own for the first time in their lives? (Yes, she spent some time at the U of Wash, but in Italy came the true test.) You fall back on the unconscious, learned behaviors of your past. And I agree with Snape, she learned by watching her family, and it seems to me her actions have mirrored mellas. The threatening (playfully???!! with a knife????!!), the intimidation of Meredith (via the sexual assault), and eventual uncontrollable anger (or sense of power over her rival) would all seem somewhat familiar to her even if acted out in the extreme. It does flesh out the possible thinking of knox and a possible motive in my opinion. Styles of parenting aside, children will always learn and absorb from their constant environment. (I remember the old parenting advice I got early on: Do as you want the children to do. In other words, you’ve got to live your life as an example for them.)
Top Profile 

Offline 23pixiep


Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:45 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:01 pm   Post subject: thinking out loud   

Hey everyone! Interesting post as usual. I was just thinking about the pre-meditation thing and the thing that stands out for me is if they weren't planning on killing her how did they excpect the situation to play? I mean how much could you scare/intimidate someone without them going to someone about it? It is hard for me to imagine a senerio where they think of pulling a knife on someone and even if they didn't hurt them with it having that person just be okay with it and not tell anyone? I guess in sense how could they at any point thought that what they were going to do to Meredith wouldn't come back to bite them in the butt if she lived to testify?

This leads me to think it HAD to have been slightly pre-meditated because at some point say when Rudy was sexually assaulting MK that they new that they would be introuble if they left her to survive. Also I really agree with the poster who mentioned a while back that the motives of all three are probably different which makes numurous situations possible. I do not think they where all there for the same reason and i do think that group menality had a hand in this.

Just some thoughts......
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:25 pm   Post subject:    

TM: I saw these three items posted above and I have to admit I'm a bit confused. In number 3) on October 31st to November 1st PL discusses Meredith working for PL and then PL goes on to say that he didn't hear anything from or about the girls until November 3rd. Was this the first time he had talked to MK about working at the bar? If it is, then when did number 1) occur, where he (I assume this is PL talking) brings MK working at the bar up to AK presumably after talking to MK.

Just wondering.

1) "I told her I'd asked Meredith to come and work for me and her face dropped and there was a big silence. Then she said, 'Fine,' and stropped off. I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith. She obviously thought she was invading her territory."

2) By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar. "She looked at me blankly and walked away," he says. "The club was busy and I didn't see her again that evening."

3) The next day Amanda attended a Hallowe'en party at the club, knocking back the free red wine. "She was all over two American boys," Patrick says. "There was no sign of Sollecito and I didn't see her leave."

At 3am he locked up and went on to another club, where he bumped into Meredith. "I mentioned the idea of her working for me again," he says.

"She smiled sweetly and said she couldn't wait, and she'd bring all her friends back to my club for me." That was the last he heard of either girl, until 6pm on Saturday November 3, when a couple of friends walked into his club. (London Evening Standard).

Best Regards,
Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: thinking out loud   

23pixiep wrote:
Hey everyone! Interesting post as usual. I was just thinking about the pre-meditation thing and the thing that stands out for me is if they weren't planning on killing her how did they excpect the situation to play? I mean how much could you scare/intimidate someone without them going to someone about it? It is hard for me to imagine a senerio where they think of pulling a knife on someone and even if they didn't hurt them with it having that person just be okay with it and not tell anyone? I guess in sense how could they at any point thought that what they were going to do to Meredith wouldn't come back to bite them in the butt if she lived to testify?

This leads me to think it HAD to have been slightly pre-meditated because at some point say when Rudy was sexually assaulting MK that they new that they would be introuble if they left her to survive. Also I really agree with the poster who mentioned a while back that the motives of all three are probably different which makes numurous situations possible. I do not think they where all there for the same reason and i do think that group menality had a hand in this.

Just some thoughts......



Hi 23pixiep. I have to say, it's very difficult to imagine how it could occur if 'something' hadn't been premeditated (which leaves the question 'what'?). As to the 'how' they may have thought they could have gotten away with it...Rudy offered us a clue. In his story, he described Raffaele as wearing a swimming cap (a red one I think). That's an extremely strange detail to just 'make up'. Wearing a swimming cap would serve as a partial disguise. At the same time, it would evidence premeditation, for wearing a swimming cap is what one may do if they didn't want to shed hairs at the scene. Rudy also stated Amanda was 'outside' the front door...perhaps this is part based on truth. Perhaps the idea was Raffaele would go in having been let in by Amanda, creep up behind Meredith and subdue her with the knife. Perhaps the idea was to blindfold her and then Amanda and Rudy could come in. At some point, Meredith panicked and in the struggle turned from facing in the direction she should have been and saw them, or skewed off her blindfold or simply announced they'd better stop as she had worked out who they were by their voices.

If we start with the idea that the intent was for Meredith not to recognise them right from the beginning, then several theories can potentially work if starting from that point. If we do not, then workable theories, aside from escelation from a simple argument over money say, or a refusal to join in some sex game is are all we are left with and there are certain problems with those (although the sex game one can work without such problems if we add the ualifier she wasn't intended to recognise them from the beginning).

_________________
"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 Mon May 18, 2009 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:35 pm   Post subject:    

Maybe PL spoke to MK previously about working at the bar or MK had actually previously worked at the bar and I just don't remember it. Maybe the "again" at the end of the following statement is in reference to a previous conversation.

At 3am he locked up and went on to another club, where he bumped into Meredith. "I mentioned the idea of her working for me again," he says.

Just tryng to grasp the facts,
Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:49 pm   Post subject: Mojitos   

Swanny wrote:
Maybe PL spoke to MK previously about working at the bar or MK had actually previously worked at the bar and I just don't remember it. Maybe the "again" at the end of the following statement is in reference to a previous conversation.

At 3am he locked up and went on to another club, where he bumped into Meredith. "I mentioned the idea of her working for me again," he says.

Just tryng to grasp the facts,
Swanny


Here's an excerpt from THE TIMES ONLINE

Quote:
...Into this strange gathering of people stepped Meredith, and one evening in mid-October she was invited by Knox to Le Chic bar where Knox worked. As Meredith walked in, her gaze was drawn to a bottle of Polish vodka behind the counter. “Oh, you’ve got Polish vodka,” she exclaimed, according to a legal source last week who is familiar with testimony in the case.

Lumumba, the bar manager who was known to all as Patrick, took notice and started chatting to her. Meredith told him: “I used to work in England as a barmaid, I know how to make mojitos with that vodka.” Lumumba, according to police documents, was born in Zaire in May 1963, which makes him 44 - not 37 as has been previously reported.

He was rather taken by the much younger Meredith, according to some testimony. The following Sunday, Lumumba asked Knox to bring Meredith along for an evening of free pizza. On that occasion, Lumumba again spoke to Meredith. “Why don’t you come back and make mojitos with that Polish vodka one evening?” he asked her.
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:58 pm   Post subject:    

Tara: Thank you. After writing my first post to TM, I sort of remembered reading something about a previous encounter between MK and PL. I just couldn't remember more.

Thanks,
Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:07 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Machine,
I know all the sources you quote, of course! But they don't answer my questions, because what I asked was whether statements had been made *in court* confirming those events we all read about in the newspapers. Skeptical's quotation from the Andrea Vogt article does show that Patrick actually stated that he had demoted Amanda to handing out flyers in his court appearance, but that seems to be it. Nothing about hiring Meredith, nothing about Amanda being jealous as far as I have heard.

As for the washing machine, I am again asking exactly what Filomena said *in court*; I believe she only used the word "umido" and not any word meaning warm, but I don't know the details: was she asked this specific question? Did she specifically not say or avoid saying that it was warm at that point, or say it was not warm, or that she didn't notice?

My feeling is that tabloid articles and often even more serious ones are not to be relied on. Journalists are always trying to make a story. For example, I find it hard to believe that Patrick would have said all that about Amanda's jealousy of Meredith to a newspaper, but not on the stand where it would have really mattered.

(A propos, Swanny, the idea is that Patrick had proposed a "one-time" stint as barmaid for a ladies' night to Meredith a few days before Halloween, then told Amanda he had "hired Meredith" (which he hadn't yet) and then later saw Meredith again and proposed to hire her ("again"), all this from the same somewhat doubtful newspaper article.
Something seems slightly wrong with the order of the events in this scenario, plus the fact that he said he had no further contact with either girl, omitting or forgetting the famous SMS exchange.)

This is why I think it is quite important to sift out exactly what information we have from court proceedings only, and take all other information with a grain of salt.

Another question for you, Machine: you often refer to 23 separate pieces of forensic evidence. What are they? I know about the bra clasp and the knife and Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in the sink (I don't understand how that got there or what it means, though). That's all I can think of right now. What else is there?
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:55 pm   Post subject: Patrick   

Thoughtful wrote:
My feeling is that tabloid articles and often even more serious ones are not to be relied on. Journalists are always trying to make a story. For example, I find it hard to believe that Patrick would have said all that about Amanda's jealousy of Meredith to a newspaper, but not on the stand where it would have really mattered.



You are forgetting a couple of things. Stewrat Home's reports emphasised just how much detail is omitted regarding testimony in the regular press. You are saying we shouldn't rely on the newspapers, but that's exactly what we and your good self are doing to get our information from the trial....at least, for those hearings Stewart hasn't been present (and there's going to be a few of those to come. Like it or not, the newspapers are the medium between us and the courts. In the case of Stewarts reports, he gave us many details that we regard as extremely important, but many newspapers didn't print them because they do not. They are not writing for experts on the case such those who have been following the case having made a home on the boards and put the case under the microscope, but your common man or woman on the street who may know little or nothing about this case. Why would whether Patrick had asked Meredith to work at his bar later in the week be terribly important to the public and therefore the media? You also forget, Patrick can only answer the questions on the stand he's actually asked and in addition, 'opinion' offered by witnesses is generally frowned upon in court.. Having said all that, as a general norm I would agree with you...that any supposed facts should be discarded if the witnesses themselves have not been reported as stating such in court. However, in this case, I'll have to disagree. Patrick has gone on record to numerous times about giving Meredith a job over the past year and a half (are each of the papers each inventing the same story?). Not only has he done so to newspapers I might add, but also on television in interview.. Therefore, whether we believe it to be true or or not, we can at least accept that it is true that Patrick has at least stated this to be true.

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


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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:00 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Thoughtful,

1. I quoted Barbie Nadeau, who wrote in Newsweek that Filomena Romanelli testified in court that the washing machine was warm when she arrived at the scene. It's your choice whether you believe Barbie or not.

2. I quoted Andrea Vogt, who wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Diya Lumumba testified in court that Amanda Knox had been limited to handing out flyers.

3. I quoted the London Evening Standard, which isn't a tabloid, about Diya Lumumba offering Meredith work at Le Chic. Nicki has subsequently provided further confirmation that Diya Lumumba claimed he had offered Meredith work at Le Chic on Italian television.

I trust Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt and Nicki. I've provided sources for my information from two reputable journalists and a reputable newspaper. I don't have access to verbatim statements made in court and even if I did, I suspect you wouldn't trust them unless they were personally signed and delivered by Filomena Romanelli and Diya Lumumba.

There are seven pieces of forensic evidence against Amanda Knox, including the following:

1. The double DNA knife
2. Three instances of her DNA mixed with Meredith's blood (on a tap of the basin, the bidet and a cotton swab container).
3. Her footprints set in Meredith's blood.

There are six pieces of forensic evidence against Raffaele Sollecito, including the following:

1. His DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.
2. His bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.
3. His luminol footprint in the hallway.
4. Two partial fingerprints. The significance of these fingerprints haven't been explained yet.

There were 10 pieces of forensic evidence against Rudy Guede. Judge Paolo Micheli discusses the foresic evidence against Guede in his official report. His DNA was found on a vaginal swab, on Meredith's tracksuit top, on Meredith's bra and I'm assuming in the faeces in the toilet. His bloody fingerprint was found on Meredith's purse.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:26 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
My feeling is that tabloid articles and often even more serious ones are not to be relied on. Journalists are always trying to make a story. For example, I find it hard to believe that Patrick would have said all that about Amanda's jealousy of Meredith to a newspaper, but not on the stand where it would have really mattered.


I agree with you about the tabloids, but insofar as the journalist or reporter is in the courtroom, is a professional in his or her field, is fluent in Italian, is working for a reputable publication and has been following this case since the beginning, I feel he/she can be relied on. Both Nadeau and Vogt fit the description, as do a few other journalists. EDIT TO ADD:
I hit send before I had really finished this post. There are several good journalists out there, so I can't agree with you when you say we can't rely on the press in general. Both John Follain and Richard Owen have been consistently excellent for the Times, and Nick Pisa is very good for Sky News and elsewhere. I'm sure Nicki could provide a list of reputable journalists working for the Italian media. I have found Ann Wise (assisted by Zach Nowack) very good as well. Then you have the tabloids and the US television talking heads, and that's another story.

I don't know how many journalists have read through the 10,000 page file. But it is safe to say that some have and that, among them, the professionals are not leaking the information early and are reporting on it only as it emerges in court. It is pretty clear, though, who is familiar with the case and who is not. It is also pretty clear who is providing objective and dispassionate reporting and who is not. If I object so strenuously to Peter Popham, it is above all because he is not objective.

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


Last edited by Skeptical Bystander on Mon May 18, 2009 10:30 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: Mon May 18, 2009 9:42 pm   Post subject:    

The Machine wrote:
Hi Thoughtful,

1. I quoted Barbie Nadeau, who wrote in Newsweek that Filomena Romanelli testified in court that the washing machine was warm when she arrived at the scene. It's your choice whether you believe Barbie or not.

2. I quoted Andrea Vogt, who wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that Diya Lumumba testified in court that Amanda Knox had been limited to handing out flyers.

3. I quoted the London Evening Standard, which isn't a tabloid, about Diya Lumumba offering Meredith work at Le Chic. Nicki has subsequently provided further confirmation that Diya Lumumba claimed he had offered Meredith work at Le Chic on Italian television.

I trust Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt and Nicki. I've provided sources for my information from two reputable journalists and a reputable newspaper. I don't have access to verbatim statements made in court and even if I did, I suspect you wouldn't trust them unless they were personally signed and delivered by Filomena Romanelli and Diya Lumumba.

There are seven pieces of forensic evidence against Amanda Knox, including the following:

1. The double DNA knife
2. Three instances of her DNA mixed with Meredith's blood (on a tap of the basin, the bidet and a cotton swab container).
3. Her footprints set in Meredith's blood.

There are six pieces of forensic evidence against Raffaele Sollecito, including the following:

1. His DNA on Meredith's bra clasp.
2. His bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.
3. His luminol footprint in the hallway.
4. Two partial fingerprints. The significance of these fingerprints haven't been explained yet.

There were 10 pieces of forensic evidence against Rudy Guede. Judge Paolo Micheli discusses the foresic evidence against Guede in his official report. His DNA was found on a vaginal swab, on Meredith's tracksuit top, on Meredith's bra and I'm assuming in the faeces in the toilet. His bloody fingerprint was found on Meredith's purse.


Hi TM,

About Diya Lumumba, I've lost count how many times I've posted about his TV interviews and talk shows. Patrick himself stated several times that:
- He was never physically abused nor subjected to acts of racism when he was arrested. He complained about his child being present when the police went to arrest him, and police cryptic answer "you know what did" when he repeatedly asked why was he was being arrested, on the way to the police station
-Knox was a lousy worker, flirting with customers instead of attending tables; if he had known before he would have never hired her; he was hoping she would voluntary quit her job; however he had not fired her. I never heard him saying on TV that Knox had been told to hand out fliers-perhaps he was thinking about it, and had already ventilated the idea to Knox, but he made it very clear that he had not fired her (yet).I am just posting what I heard from Patrick himself.
-He had asked Meredith to work as a bartender on the upcoming ladies' night. He made it very clear that he did not offer Meredith Knox's job: Amanda was attending tables, Meredith was supposed to work at the bar mixing drinks.

All of the above has been publicy and repeatedly declared by Patrick Lumumba on TV interviews and talk shows, many of them still avaiable on the Internet (e.g.Bianco e Nero, Matrix).


Last edited by nicki on Mon May 18, 2009 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:34 pm   Post subject: No More Mr. Nice Guy   

petafly wrote:
Quote:
For me, the lightbulb moment occured as soon as she opened her mouth. No, seriously, it nailed it for me when her family launched their PR campaign.
What the FOAK? A truly spellbinding group of disfunctional clowns without any sense of shame. "Shame? What is this "shame?"

The moment i realized that the "day of the dead" was not a normal day at all, that was my lightbulb moment! The first and only day the two girls were alone in the house, and the next day one of them is dead. Combined with bad lies and a poor fake break-in - my brain literally pinged!


For me it was when Chris Mellas began confrontively posting as himself on the old Haloscan, back on February 11/12 of 2008. I was online when he first posted and there was just something really odd, if not downright chilling, about this guy and his comments made on a board devoted to Truth and Justice for Meredith Kercher. Here are some excerpts:

You guys, and gals, always provide me with a good laugh...To clarify further, we never sought out any media attention. It is our belief that this should play out in court and not here or on tv...Any questions?
-Chris
AKA the boytoy...
PS that is my name to call myself if I wish, not yours to call me.
Just thought I would get that one out of the way first.
cmellas | 02.12.08 - 2:57 am | #


I have been given the go ahead to speak about the Rudy/Amanda cellphone thing...The program that is being filmed right now, which we are interviewed in, will be touching on this to help clarify things, and perhaps this will be enough proof...That being said, we do have to consider her life and how others view her when she is released...You, being a collection of people that have vested an enormous ammount of time into this, I felt, would be a good place to start. I think alot of people look to this site for info and if I can prove to you that Amanda is not the one you should be looking at, and perhaps, in the process, get to you more information in your search for the guilty, then what is there to loose, right?
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 9:30 pm | #


You take a poll and see if the majority want to hear what I have to offer. If I am in the majority, then I would certainly hope that you then accept it and get on with things here. If it is the other way, then I will graciously take my leave of you and yours and that will be the end...Are you afraid of learning something that may force you to have to reevaluate your current standing on this case?..I am not trying to be jerk, I am just floored by your not wanting more info when you say you do.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 9:55 pm | #


What happened at the interrogation. I can't tell you. Why didn't things happen after the interrogation to prove/disporve/whatever? I can't tell you. Is the business with all that taken care of? It hasn't even started. And that I can assure you.
That will be dealt with in due time with a vengannce.
Now, to those who ask me about that subject again. Expect silence. It is the one subject that so angers me that it is unhealthy to dwell on.

As for Doug: You seem to think he is biased. Well...good investigating there. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you be firmly planted on the fence after going through his ordeal? I would prefer to say that he is informed, having gone through some of the same things as our daughter, by the same person. Did I hire him? Is he on my blog? Is his name on the list of things I care about in this world? (no offence Doug)
That is all I will say about Doug.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 10:16 pm | #


Not to be rude to you or the rest of the people here but my PR firm, nor the one individual within that firm that works for my family, knows about this site so don't flatter yourself. As for your other question, Did Amanda know Rudy? I posted about this already it is not too hard to scroll up and read it again. Simply put, for you, again, she did not know him. She knew of him. If you need that broken down for you, tough. I am not a reading comprehension teacher. It is what it is.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 10:51 pm | #


Good night all,
Thankyou for having me on. It has been very disenchanting.
I will be back though and I hope to bring up the whole robery motive and discuss it too.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 11:04 pm | #


It is hard to not get angry with people so opposed to your cause and who show it in such a negative way. Especially when they spout crap about your family member that is so false, and they don't know it, but they sure the hell think they do...I don't want to hear your closed minded questions that you don't want my answers to them. There is nothing I can say to convince you...As for those that continually bring up Meredith and use her, her murder, her memory, and the pain of her parents, to say that I have no right to defend my daughter? How dare you say what I can and cannot do with my daughter! You are wrong. Wrong to say that, think that, and to try to act richeous by it.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 11:40 pm | #
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:36 pm   Post subject:    

nicki wrote:
disinterested wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:


On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.



This is such a pivotal point, I wish the facts were clearer. The whole SMS thing has been a piece of evidence and Amanda's probable angry reaction to it, her possible "trigger point", is so significant, it would be nice to know if she'd already been fired or if the "you don't need to come" message was a final straw for her in Patrick's evident "rejection of her for Meredith" scenario. In the Daily Mail article he says he had fired her by then and reduced her to flyering, but why would he say "don't come in" in regard to flyering?

Maybe it was just ambivalent at that point. That Daily Mail article also has all the bit about police brutality and racial stereotyping that Patrick supposedly retracted later. I think what happens is that the press has big holes in their information too and they just make up some of it to fill in the gaps. The truth is hard to find!


Patrik did not "supposedly" rectracted "his" statement, rather pubblicy stated several times that police was not brutal ,and that he hadn't fired Amanda nor hired Meredith:

- there hasn't been any abuse by the police
-he hadn't hired Meredith, only asked her to work for one night
-he didn't like Amanda as an employee because she was a poor performer at work, but he hadn't fired her yet

All the talk shows are available on the internet. If you understand Italian, you can check Matrix and Bianco e Nero to start with. But there's many more sources available.




Hi Nicki,

My point here actually was that the Daily Mail article presented information that didn't seem to be true and therefore was merely "supposed" and seemed to be just created to make a sensationalistic story. I found the whole article to be unbelievable. What I meant by the hire/fire/Meredith, etc. situation being ambivalent (I should have said "ambiguous") was actually what you've said later--he hadn't fired her yet, it was just "in the air" but probably nonetheless hard felt by Amanda. If she hadn't been fired, the SMS, again, must refer to "not coming in" for waitress work rather than flyering.

None of this is of major interest except in regard to the question of Amanda's SMS reaction and subsequent mood.

I sadly don't speak Italian. When you speak of "talk shows available on the internet"--these are Italian? (Considering those we've had in English, in the U.S., I shouldn't get my information there.)

Just clearing that up...

Thanks for all your great input!

Didi
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:49 pm   Post subject:    

FBN posting Old Chris Mellas:

Quote:
Not to be rude to you or the rest of the people here but my PR firm, nor the one individual within that firm that works for my family, knows about this site so don't flatter yourself. As for your other question, Did Amanda know Rudy? I posted about this already it is not too hard to scroll up and read it again. Simply put, for you, again, she did not know him. She knew of him. If you need that broken down for you, tough. I am not a reading comprehension teacher. It is what it is.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 10:51 pm | #


I suggest that anyone who is interested take the time now to revisit Chris Mellas's brief but explosive life as a poster on Haloscan. He and his sidekick (more like a sidecar) "Goofy" provided some very telling posts. The night they burned Old Dixie down is also quite interesting. From Chris's early posts, which FBN has provided, you can see that his agenda from the start has been to take down this forum. On the one hand, he thinks we're a bunch of powerless, unimportant losers. If so, then why the interest in what we do and the need to control it?

Incidentally, he came on board to answer our questions but then refused to answer most of them. I remember pressing him to be more specific about "Amanda knew of Rudy". In fact, I prepared a list of 7 or so questions that he could answer with a yes, a no or a no comment. He avoided, then refused, then ignored, then finally told me to stop whining.

_________________
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: Mon May 18, 2009 11:06 pm   Post subject:    

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
FBN posting Old Chris Mellas:

Quote:
Not to be rude to you or the rest of the people here but my PR firm, nor the one individual within that firm that works for my family, knows about this site so don't flatter yourself. As for your other question, Did Amanda know Rudy? I posted about this already it is not too hard to scroll up and read it again. Simply put, for you, again, she did not know him. She knew of him. If you need that broken down for you, tough. I am not a reading comprehension teacher. It is what it is.
CMellas | 02.12.08 - 10:51 pm | #


I suggest that anyone who is interested take the time now to revisit Chris Mellas's brief but explosive life as a poster on Haloscan. He and his sidekick (more like a sidecar) "Goofy" provided some very telling posts. The night they burned Old Dixie down is also quite interesting. From Chris's early posts, which FBN has provided, you can see that his agenda from the start has been to take down this forum. On the one hand, he thinks we're a bunch of powerless, unimportant losers. If so, then why the interest in what we do and the need to control it?

Incidentally, he came on board to answer our questions but then refused to answer most of them. I remember pressing him to be more specific about "Amanda knew of Rudy". In fact, I prepared a list of 7 or so questions that he could answer with a yes, a no or a no comment. He avoided, then refused, then ignored, then finally told me to stop whining.



I did just go back to the archives as FBN's Mellas post was fascinating to me. Boy, does this site have some history! I realize it may be frustrating at times with relative newcomers being uninformed. (As in Nicki's "How many times have I posted this..?" plea.)

Didn't Amanda at some point somewhere as I recall say she had met Rudy "four times"?

P.S. Found it:

Then turning on Guede she said: 'I am really angry with him. He's not telling the truth, he's told lies about me. What he says is not the truth, I wasn't there. He is a liar and he knows I wasn't there. I had only just met him three or four times and hardly knew him.

(However, attributed to Nick Pisa, Daily Mail article, so who knows if she said it...)


Last edited by disinterested on Mon May 18, 2009 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:13 pm   Post subject:    

:shock: Thank you Fly by Night, the "early" Chris Mellas was new to me. You can't see it, but im still shaking my head in disbelief...
Quote:
AKA the boytoy...
PS that is my name to call myself if I wish, not yours to call me.
Just thought I would get that one out of the way first.

likeable fellow!
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:33 pm   Post subject: Links to CM & Goofy   

Since we have a bit of a lull, and FBN & Skep brought up the old Chris Mellas and Goofy posts, here are some easy reference dates/times for all to scroll around and visit or re-visit old times.


12/17 - 2/15 HaloScan: Chris Mellas' debut 2/12 2:46am; Abdar (Goofy) chimes in as well.

2/15 - 3/19 HaloScan: Goofy debuts 2/15 8:08pm

3/18 - 4/17 HaloScan: BTD (Back to Detention; alias Goofy) comes in around 4/11

4/11 - end HaloScan: Chris Mellas 4/27 2:54am and BTD 4/28 5:11pm

______________________________________________________________

COOK"S BLOG
7/24 3:16pm, Chris Mellas telling people they can buy the 10,000 page case file
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:28 am   Post subject: Interesting testimony coming up   

This is from yesterday's (May 18) Corriere Dell'Umbria.

Testimony this weekend should be very interesting about the knife. The articles don't stay up on the site for very long, so I'm reposting the Italian.

Nicki - what do you think of this?

"Il delitto di Perugia - “Il test del dna non è attendibile”.

Il medico legale Walter Patumi “attacca” la Scientifica della polizia. La critica all’esame sul coltello trovato in casa di Raffaele Sollecito.

PERUGIA18.05.2009indietroConsulente Il medico legale Walter Patumi (al centro)

“Il presunto Dna di Meredith Kercher sulla lama del coltello trovato in casa di Raffaele Sollecito è emerso da un test che non è ortodosso. L’indagine che è stata fatta è assolutamente inefficiente e inutilizzabile persino in un caso di paternità”. Walter Patumi, medico legale, genetista, consulente di parte per la difesa di Amanda Knox nel processo di corte d’assise per l’omicidio della ragazza inglese, affida a “Gente”, in edicola propri oggi, le sue considerazioni sui reperti scientifici presentati dall’ufficio del pubblico ministero (Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi) nel corso del dibattimento. “Faccio un esempio - continua il genetista - mentre negli esami del Dna il materiale su cui si indaga viene amplificato quattro volte, nel caso di quel Dna attribuito a Meredith l’amplificazione è stata di 500 volte. Più aumentano le amplificazioni più aumentano le possibilità di contaminazione. In udienza è stato detto che la lama è stata studiata 187 volte. Quindi le possibilità di contaminazione sono state moltissime. I giornali hanno parlato di sangue di Meredith sulla lama. Ci si immagina chissà cosa. Stiamo parlando invece di tracce infinitamente piccole, microscopiche”. Quanto invece al Dna di Amanda sull’impugnatura del coltello, Patumi ribatte: “Che Amanda abbia impugnato quel coltello non è certo sorprendente. Frequentava la casa di Sollecito, quell’oggetto l’avrà preso in mano chissà quante volte”. Un altro consulente della difesa della Knox, il professor Carlo Torre, già perito nel processo di Cogne, sostiene che “c’era un solo individuo, l’ipotesi che ci siano altre persone coinvolte è pura fantasia. La mia ricostruzione è questa: un solo assassino ha fronteggiato la vittima incombendo su di lei, l’ha presa per il collo e l’ha accoltellata. Le lesioni sul corpo della povera Meredith sono procurabili da un solo individuo, le macchie di sangue sono limitate a un solo ambiente. Diciamo la verità: se un omicidio del genere vedesse coinvolte altre persone sarebbe da pubblicare nei manuali forensi”. Infine, una considerazione di Patumi: “Questo processo è stato fatto prima sui giornali. Sono state scritte milioni di parole, pubblicati saggi e profili psicologici. Ora però il processo c`è davvero e passa quasi sotto silenzio. Quello che sta emergendo, o meglio, che ’non’ sta emergendo, lo sanno in pochi. Certi giornali hanno descritto Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito come due mostri. Sono stati “gli assassini”, da subito, senza possibilità di replica”. In ogni caso “la verità, i fatti, pare che non importino a nessuno. Si dice che una persona è presunto innocente finché non viene provata la sua colpevolezza. Qui è il contrario ed è assurdo, illogico: questi ragazzi sono presunti colpevoli finché non verrà provata la loro innocenza”. Il consulente - che ha scelto di farsi intervistare da un settimanale nazionale (sconfinando anche lui dalle aule di giustizia ai media) - avrà modo di far valere le sue idee, già venerdì nel confronto in aula, davanti ai giudici della corte d’assise. La posizione degli imputati, in particolare nelle ultime udienze, si è fatta abbastanza critica anche se i due giovani continuano a dichiararsi innocenti. E’ vero, per esempio, che le tracce di scarpe e le impronte di piedi non hanno portato ad un giudizio di “identità” (che cioé le impronte sono proprio di Amanda e di Raffaele), ma un giudizio di “probabile identità”, tuttavia questi elementi insieme ad altri (a cominciare dal Dna evidenziato sul coltello e sul gancetto del reggiseno della povera Mez) rischiano di aggravare ulteriormente la posizione dei due giovani studenti universitari. Le difese comunque (Giulia Bongiorno e Luca Maori per Sollecito e Luciano Ghirga e Carlo Dalla Vedova per la Knox) annunciano battaglia, ovviamente. La strategia è quella di mettere a nudo gli errori, le incongruenze, l’approssimazione con cui sarebbero stati fatti i sopralluoghi sulla scena del delitto e i test di laboratorio che “incombono” sugli attuali imputati. La tesi portata avanti dalle difese, all’unisono, è che Mez è stata uccisa da una sola persona e che quella persona è già stata condannata a trenta anni di reclusione: Rudy Hermann Guede. Non appena saranno finiti i testi dell’accusa, le difese faranno sfilare i loro testimoni ed i loro consulenti per dimostrare quanto vanno asserendo fin dall’inizio: l’innocenza dei due ex fidanzati. I quali, con le loro dichiarazioni spontanee, fino ad oggi, hanno tenuto a ribadire questo concetto. Lo scontro si annuncia a tutto campo. La corte d’assise avrebbe intenzione di concludere il proprio lavoro, con la sentenza, già nel mese di settembre, ma se in aula i consulenti dovessero concludere il loro confronto in parità non è escluso che le difese chiedano una super-perizia che finirebbe, come è ovvio, per allungare ulteriormente i tempi"

GOOGLE TRANSLATION
Top Profile 

Offline Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:23 am   Post subject:    

I have a question not seen yet.

Where did Amanda Knox live while she attended University of Washington? Did she live with her mother? Did she live in a dorm? An apartment? Did she have roommates?

Or was this her first time on her own?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:31 am   Post subject:    

Tara wrote:

Quote:
This is from yesterday's (May 18) Corriere Dell'Umbria.

Testimony this weekend should be very interesting about the knife. The articles don't stay up on the site for very long, so I'm reposting the Italian.

Nicki - what do you think of this?

"Il delitto di Perugia - “Il test del dna non è attendibile”.

Il medico legale Walter Patumi “attacca” la Scientifica della polizia. La critica all’esame sul coltello trovato in casa di Raffaele Sollecito.


It would be surprising if the expert for the defense did not contest the knife. Basically, if I understand what Nicki and others have been saying for some time, the sample on the tip of the blade was inadequate to repeat the test, and this is not a good thing. However, and Nicki please correct me, Patumi also seems to be arguing that the chances of contamination are therefore higher for some reason. The article also mentions that Torre will be taking the stand to reiterate his theory that a lone wolf killed Meredith Kercher.

It is interesting that this article is published in the People magazine of Italy (actually, it looks to be worse than people, more on the level of Gala or one of those Eurotrashy weeklies), and not in some more reputable place. Patumi also opines about the trial by media, a process he unfortunately seems to be an only too willing participant in. But make no mistake about it, the knife is going to be a hotly contested issue. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is not the only piece of forensic evidence in this case.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:04 am   Post subject:    

Jumpy wrote:

Quote:
I have a question not seen yet.

Where did Amanda Knox live while she attended University of Washington? Did she live with her mother? Did she live in a dorm? An apartment? Did she have roommates?

Or was this her first time on her own?


My understanding is that she lived in a dorm her first year and in a rented house with other tenants the second year, a few blocks off campus. That's the house where the party was held for which Knox was cited for a noise violation.

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

Offline Brogan


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:41 am

Posts: 306

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:54 am   Post subject:    

Just going back to the issue of the double DNA knife, am I correct in suggesting that the prosecution are represented by experts who are at the top of their game and are putting their reputations on the line with their analysis.

I would expect the defence to make it's most vigarous challenge on this piece of evidence as it puts a suspected murder weapon in Amanda's hand. The fact that the decence expert has gone to the ceaper end of the tabloids looks to me like they are worried about this one being accepted by the jury.
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 7:53 am   Post subject:    

disinterested wrote:
I did just go back to the archives as FBN's Mellas post was fascinating to me. Boy, does this site have some history! I realize it may be frustrating at times with relative newcomers being uninformed. (As in Nicki's "How many times have I posted this..?" plea.)


I couldn’t agree more!

My Hogwarts Sorting Hat is off to all ol’ timers on this board who have made it what is today, what is has been and through to the finish. Indeed, information and resources are offered over and over again with the same level of dedication serving to uphold the justice for Meredith Kercher.

Thanks troop, charms to you all!

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline lady garden


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:46 pm

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 8:58 am   Post subject:    

Morning guys-watched an interesting programme on body language/criminal behaviour last night-there's some notorious cases on it and it questions whether you can spot a liar- you will need microsoft silverlight-UK prog


http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Video/defa ... lter=41899
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: Interesting testimony coming up   

Tara wrote:
This is from yesterday's (May 18) Corriere Dell'Umbria.

Testimony this weekend should be very interesting about the knife. The articles don't stay up on the site for very long, so I'm reposting the Italian.

Nicki - what do you think of this?

"Il delitto di Perugia - “Il test del dna non è attendibile”.

Il medico legale Walter Patumi “attacca” la Scientifica della polizia. La critica all’esame sul coltello trovato in casa di Raffaele Sollecito.

PERUGIA18.05.2009indietroConsulente Il medico legale Walter Patumi (al centro)

“Il presunto Dna di Meredith Kercher sulla lama del coltello trovato in casa di Raffaele Sollecito è emerso da un test che non è ortodosso. L’indagine che è stata fatta è assolutamente inefficiente e inutilizzabile persino in un caso di paternità”. Walter Patumi, medico legale, genetista, consulente di parte per la difesa di Amanda Knox nel processo di corte d’assise per l’omicidio della ragazza inglese, affida a “Gente”, in edicola propri oggi, le sue considerazioni sui reperti scientifici presentati dall’ufficio del pubblico ministero (Giuliano Mignini e Manuela Comodi) nel corso del dibattimento. “Faccio un esempio - continua il genetista - mentre negli esami del Dna il materiale su cui si indaga viene amplificato quattro volte, nel caso di quel Dna attribuito a Meredith l’amplificazione è stata di 500 volte. Più aumentano le amplificazioni più aumentano le possibilità di contaminazione. In udienza è stato detto che la lama è stata studiata 187 volte. Quindi le possibilità di contaminazione sono state moltissime. I giornali hanno parlato di sangue di Meredith sulla lama. Ci si immagina chissà cosa. Stiamo parlando invece di tracce infinitamente piccole, microscopiche”. Quanto invece al Dna di Amanda sull’impugnatura del coltello, Patumi ribatte: “Che Amanda abbia impugnato quel coltello non è certo sorprendente. Frequentava la casa di Sollecito, quell’oggetto l’avrà preso in mano chissà quante volte”. Un altro consulente della difesa della Knox, il professor Carlo Torre, già perito nel processo di Cogne, sostiene che “c’era un solo individuo, l’ipotesi che ci siano altre persone coinvolte è pura fantasia. La mia ricostruzione è questa: un solo assassino ha fronteggiato la vittima incombendo su di lei, l’ha presa per il collo e l’ha accoltellata. Le lesioni sul corpo della povera Meredith sono procurabili da un solo individuo, le macchie di sangue sono limitate a un solo ambiente. Diciamo la verità: se un omicidio del genere vedesse coinvolte altre persone sarebbe da pubblicare nei manuali forensi”. Infine, una considerazione di Patumi: “Questo processo è stato fatto prima sui giornali. Sono state scritte milioni di parole, pubblicati saggi e profili psicologici. Ora però il processo c`è davvero e passa quasi sotto silenzio. Quello che sta emergendo, o meglio, che ’non’ sta emergendo, lo sanno in pochi. Certi giornali hanno descritto Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito come due mostri. Sono stati “gli assassini”, da subito, senza possibilità di replica”. In ogni caso “la verità, i fatti, pare che non importino a nessuno. Si dice che una persona è presunto innocente finché non viene provata la sua colpevolezza. Qui è il contrario ed è assurdo, illogico: questi ragazzi sono presunti colpevoli finché non verrà provata la loro innocenza”. Il consulente - che ha scelto di farsi intervistare da un settimanale nazionale (sconfinando anche lui dalle aule di giustizia ai media) - avrà modo di far valere le sue idee, già venerdì nel confronto in aula, davanti ai giudici della corte d’assise. La posizione degli imputati, in particolare nelle ultime udienze, si è fatta abbastanza critica anche se i due giovani continuano a dichiararsi innocenti. E’ vero, per esempio, che le tracce di scarpe e le impronte di piedi non hanno portato ad un giudizio di “identità” (che cioé le impronte sono proprio di Amanda e di Raffaele), ma un giudizio di “probabile identità”, tuttavia questi elementi insieme ad altri (a cominciare dal Dna evidenziato sul coltello e sul gancetto del reggiseno della povera Mez) rischiano di aggravare ulteriormente la posizione dei due giovani studenti universitari. Le difese comunque (Giulia Bongiorno e Luca Maori per Sollecito e Luciano Ghirga e Carlo Dalla Vedova per la Knox) annunciano battaglia, ovviamente. La strategia è quella di mettere a nudo gli errori, le incongruenze, l’approssimazione con cui sarebbero stati fatti i sopralluoghi sulla scena del delitto e i test di laboratorio che “incombono” sugli attuali imputati. La tesi portata avanti dalle difese, all’unisono, è che Mez è stata uccisa da una sola persona e che quella persona è già stata condannata a trenta anni di reclusione: Rudy Hermann Guede. Non appena saranno finiti i testi dell’accusa, le difese faranno sfilare i loro testimoni ed i loro consulenti per dimostrare quanto vanno asserendo fin dall’inizio: l’innocenza dei due ex fidanzati. I quali, con le loro dichiarazioni spontanee, fino ad oggi, hanno tenuto a ribadire questo concetto. Lo scontro si annuncia a tutto campo. La corte d’assise avrebbe intenzione di concludere il proprio lavoro, con la sentenza, già nel mese di settembre, ma se in aula i consulenti dovessero concludere il loro confronto in parità non è escluso che le difese chiedano una super-perizia che finirebbe, come è ovvio, per allungare ulteriormente i tempi"

[url=http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.corrieredellumbria.it%2Fnews.asp%3Fid%3D26&sl=it&tl=en&history_state0=]GOOGLE TRANSLATION[/url]


Hi Tara,

thanks for posting the article. It's nothing new, really. Contamination is always a possibility and precautions-specific protocols are routinely taken in order to avoid it. It is also true that increasing the number on amplifications increases the risk of seeing false positives, I'm sure Dr Stefanoni is very well aware of it! Patumi has defined the test "non orthodox", which makes me think they could have used some experimental technique. But until we hear Stefanoni, there's really little to comment.

About the rest, it's the same old song: the lone wolf did it, the press has trashed the defendants etc-it's like hearing the FOA speaking Italian. The article points out that defense first complains about the mags, and then goes out and speak to them. Also, the Court wants to finish by September, but the article notes that should the match between defense and prosecution expert end in tie, defense may ask further forensic testing, and therefore trial would continue beyong that date.

About defense experts, I don't know anything about Pattumi-but Torre was the "star" defense expert for Franzoni in the Cogne trial, and everybody knows how it ended. I am sure that defense experts are highly knowledgable and the the best in the field, but they're not God, nor the can change facts. They are been paid to claim their clients are innocent and police did averything wrong. That 's how it usually goes in any trial ;)
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:09 am   Post subject:    

I think the Amanda//Meredith/Le Chic job situation is an important example of how important and how difficult it is to extract the truth. This point interests me particularly because I just can't help trying to imagine what could have motivated the crime.

Following advice, I will consider sources in the following order from most to least trustworthy:

1) Words straight from the mouths of witnesses (such as Patrick Lumumba on television)
2) Stewart Home's reports
3) Serious journalists present in court: some names are Andrea Vogt, Nick Pisa, Barbie Nadeau, Ann Wise/Zach Nowak (and indeed, in Stewart's absence, we are compelled to rely on them; the question is only how much salt...)
4) Less serious, more tabloid-style journalism
5) I am not sure where to situate Italian news sources such as ansa.it in this list.

SOURCE 1 (per Nicki's post) yields:
"Patrik...had not fired her. I never heard him saying on TV that Knox had been told to hand out flyers -- perhaps he was thinking about it and had already ventilated the idea to Knox, but he made it very clear that he had not fired her (yet). I am just posting what I heard from Patrik himself. He had asked Meredith to work as a bartender on the upcoming ladies' night. He made it very clear he did not offer Meredith Knox's job: Amanda was attending tables, Meredith was supposed to work at the bar mixing drinks."

Nicki summarizes this information as follows: "Patrik did not "supposedly" rectracted "his" statement, rather publicy stated several times that police was not brutal, and that he hadn't fired Amanda nor hired Meredith:
- there hasn't been any abuse by the police
- he hadn't hired Meredith, only asked her to work for one night
- he didn't like Amanda as an employee because she was a poor performer at work, but he hadn't fired her yet

SOURCE 2 yields nothing about flyers, demotion or offering a job to Meredith: (April 4, 11:52 am)
"Enter Patrik Lumumba, which I caught only part of, but nevertheless I have the all of the testimony. He comes in dressed in an orange p-coat, made of wool I think. Apparently the fashion police do not attend this trial. Anyway, he was asked how he met Amanda, and interestingly enough he met Amanda through Mez, they came in the bar together as friends and Amanda asked for work. This occurred sometime in early Sept, when the relationship between A and M had not soured yet. Asked if he knew RS, he said that RS had come in the bar a few times, about three, and described him as a good kid. He said buona famiglia, buon educazionebasically from a good family and good education (meaning well mannered and proper). Asked about Rudy Guede, he said that he saw him once in the bar but really did not know him.

When asked about the SMS to AK, he acknowledged that he sent the SMS not to come to work, and that he did receive Amandas reply. He stated that he knows lots of Americans and knew that, ci vediamo piu tardimeant see you later..or basically goodbye. He did not expect to see her later that night at all[....]

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

SOURCE 3 yields: (per the Machine's post): "On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity." (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

SOURCE 4 (London Evening Standard) yields a long story containing demotion, a big silence, Amanda's face falling, a confused account of Meredith's being offered a one-night stint and also perhaps a job but perhaps not, no SMS messages, and other inconsistencies.

Michael's message is to me typical of the confusion that reigns. Even the most serious followers of the case can be confused by the contradictions.

Michael: "...as a general norm I would agree with you...that any supposed facts should be discarded if the witnesses themselves have not been reported as stating such in court. However, in this case, I'll have to disagree. Patrick has gone on record to numerous times about giving Meredith a job over the past year and a half (are each of the papers each inventing the same story?). Not only has he done so to newspapers I might add, but also on television in interview. Therefore, whether we believe it to be true or or not, we can at least accept that it is true that Patrick has at least stated this to be true."

Now it seems that Nicki's reports on the TV shows contradict this. And I don't think all the newspapers invented the same story, I think one did and the others all copied it for obvious reasons: it's a colo(u)rful one. I don't think the question of Meredith's job was important to the public and thus to the media: I think the media blew it up in order to *make* it become important to the public (that's their job, I suppose).

In the final analysis, I feel the closest version to the truth is going to be the one from sources 1 and 2, meaning that I have to conclude that the demotion did not really happen (although there may have been some talk of it) and the job offer to Meredith did not really happen either, except for a one-night stint at the bar. But Meredith was seemingly not about to replace Amanda. I hope I am not the only person who is going to be convinced by this analysis!
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:30 pm   Post subject:    

:shock: WOW, thoughtful, you really live up to your name :D
Patrick wasn't even mediately "involved" in this crime. In my opinion, no simple motive can lead to such a horrible crime. There must be something deeper, evil here!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:45 pm   Post subject: Patrick   

Thoughtful wrote:
Now it seems that Nicki's reports on the TV shows contradict this. And I don't think all the newspapers invented the same story, I think one did and the others all copied it for obvious reasons: it's a colo(u)rful one. I don't think the question of Meredith's job was important to the public and thus to the media: I think the media blew it up in order to *make* it become important to the public (that's their job, I suppose).

In the final analysis, I feel the closest version to the truth is going to be the one from sources 1 and 2, meaning that I have to conclude that the demotion did not really happen (although there may have been some talk of it) and the job offer to Meredith did not really happen either, except for a one-night stint at the bar. But Meredith was seemingly not about to replace Amanda. I hope I am not the only person who is going to be convinced by this analysis!



Thoughtful, you are leaving me rather confused...you are sort of muddying the waters here. Nobody said Patrick ever said he was hiring Meredith full time. What he has always maintained (and therefore so have we) was that he was going to have Meredith work one special evening in the bar. So, this is an established fact.

Now, if people, working from the logic that a bar owner is going to offer someone a job based on high skill set they have, for one special evening, that it is then highly unlikely that if Meredith was wonderful that evening Patrick was simply going to say 'thanks' and not invite her back, then that is not an established fact, but it IS a reasonable deduction to make. Often, an employer will say to someone to come in the once and then make an offer of a job or not after based on that performance. Many venues of work in the bar buisness still work in the way things were done in the old days...where you'd just cold call in, no CV required, they'd take you on for a day and see how you did. Now if people make that deduction, you're right...it's still not an established fact, but it's still a logical deduction to make and more importantly, it would have been a logical deduction for Amanda to have made.

On the subject of Amanda being relegated to giving out flyers, this was stated by Patrick in court. That's good enough for me at least. Now, if you don't want to accept this becauuse it was reported in the 'newspapers', then you may as well pack up and go home at this point. The trial is going to continue and the newspapers are going to be the means by which we are going to hear the testimony. So, if you are ruling the newspapers out completely as a source, reputable journalists/newspapers or not, how exactly are you planning on following the trial over the next few months?

_________________
"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 Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 12:59 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtfull wrote:
In the final analysis, I feel the closest version to the truth is going to be the one from sources 1 and 2, meaning that I have to conclude that the demotion did not really happen (although there may have been some talk of it) and the job offer to Meredith did not really happen either, except for a one-night stint at the bar. But Meredith was seemingly not about to replace Amanda. I hope I am not the only person who is going to be convinced by this analysis!


Thoughtfull,

I don't disagree with your conclusion as a fact but I disagree with what you read into it.

I must have read everything written about this subject since around day 3 and what you are missing is context.

Perugia is a University town with capital U.

I can't remember the official statistics, but every Fall it's population is swollen with a huge influx of students. Most Italians will be bound for the University of Perugia and most foreigners to learn Italian/culture/politics etc. at the University of Foreigners. Those student numbers dominate the life and style of central Old Perugia. Modern Italian Perugia lives and works in the suburbs down and around the hill. Bars, shops and eateries catering for the students(and tourists) abound around the old town/walled city at the top. They are all in competition to attract this "passing" trade.

Le Chic was just one of these bars(opened that Summer) and needed to attract it's clientele. The English language, being what it is, is also the best language to have in the bar besides Italian. Most os those students will have some kind of English. Amanda and Meredith both fitted that bill. But that wasn't the only motivation behind Patrick's choice especially related to the Univerisy for Foreigners. If you have read much "reported" about the conversations between Patrick and Meredith you will know that she was saying she would bring her friends over from The Merlin.

The Merlin is a very large pub close to the University and is the British Erasmus HQ. It's the place where the students are greeted on arrival, where the noticeboards are and where they hold meetings etc. etc. For the first few weeks most of the students tend to hang out there as they get to know each other and explore the town. But as time goes on they'll have a natural tendancy to seek out and frequent venues which they prefer or may suit their style. Meredith was no exception. She had spent most of her time with her friends at the Merlin. Patrick will have seen this as some prospective trade which was up for grabs over the rest of the year. By that time Meredith, her friends and the other British students had been in Perugia for 4 or 5 weeks.

Back to english speaking Amanda. Patrick had employed her for just a few weeks during which time he'd found her a "lazy" worker who spent much of her time flirting with customers. I suspect he may have been prepared to put up with that IF her mere presence had attracted some custom. But Amanda was on her own. She didn't have friends or other students she would take along or attract to the bar where she worked. She didn't bring in the custom.

Whatever the exact words which had passed between Patrick and Amanda on much more than one occasion she must have felt her position as a waitress/flier distributor at Le Chic was under threat.

Meredith came into Le Chic about a week before she was killed. She chatted to Patrick at the bar. The conversation turned to "her friends" and a prospective ladies night with Meredith serving her Mojito's. Realistically, I don't suppose it was Meredith's drink mixing skills which so much interested Patrick, but more the trade which she would bring along from The Merlin.
If a notice about a ladies night at Le Chic went up on the board there, Patrick could have found his bar full to overflowing with English girls and the guys who would have come chasing.

Business is business.

It's entirely probable that this subject came up in conversation between Meredith and Amanda in the days following, not least since it involved Amanda's workplace, Le Chic.

On Halloween, Patrick again met Meredith, this time at the Domus disco. He renewed his offer and suggested that if it was successfull, they could maybe have a ladies night once a week with Meredith behind the bar serving her "special Mojito's". It was arranged that Meredith would contact him.

Early the following afternoon when Meredith got out of bed after a really late night, Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage. She was there with them for a couple of hours whilst she washed off her makeup, washed out the cobwebs and got herself ready to go out for a meal she had arranged to have with her friends. The most obvious conversation to have was about what they had both been doing the previous night of Halloween. It's entirely probable that Meredith told Amanda she had met her employer at Domus and he'd renewed his offer.

According to both AK and RS, Meredith then went out without telling them where she was going. Later that day AK and RS go back to his apartment. In the evening Amanda receives a text
informing her that Patrick doesn't need her.

What thought's would go through Amanda's mind???????????????

PS Although I provide no references, most of my information has come from the Italian Press. It has the same cross section and reliability as anywhere. But it invariably has more detail than the English speaking press.


Last edited by Brian S. on Tue May 19, 2009 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:09 pm   Post subject: Re: Patrick   

Michael wrote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Now it seems that Nicki's reports on the TV shows contradict this. And I don't think all the newspapers invented the same story, I think one did and the others all copied it for obvious reasons: it's a colo(u)rful one. I don't think the question of Meredith's job was important to the public and thus to the media: I think the media blew it up in order to *make* it become important to the public (that's their job, I suppose).

In the final analysis, I feel the closest version to the truth is going to be the one from sources 1 and 2, meaning that I have to conclude that the demotion did not really happen (although there may have been some talk of it) and the job offer to Meredith did not really happen either, except for a one-night stint at the bar. But Meredith was seemingly not about to replace Amanda. I hope I am not the only person who is going to be convinced by this analysis!



Thoughtful, you are leaving me rather confused...you are sort of muddying the waters here. Nobody said Patrick ever said he was hiring Meredith full time. What he has always maintained (and therefore so have we) was that he was going to have Meredith work one special evening in the bar. So, this is an established fact.

Now, if people, working from the logic that a bar owner is going to offer someone a job based on high skill set they have, for one special evening, that it is then highly unlikely that if Meredith was wonderful that evening Patrick was simply going to say 'thanks' and not invite her back, then that is not an established fact, but it IS a reasonable deduction to make. Often, an employer will say to someone to come in the once and then make an offer of a job or not after based on that performance. Many venues of work in the bar buisness still work in the way things were done in the old days...where you'd just cold call in, no CV required, they'd take you on for a day and see how you did. Now if people make that deduction, you're right...it's still not an established fact, but it's still a logical deduction to make and more importantly, it would have been a logical deduction for Amanda to have made.

On the subject of Amanda being relegated to giving out flyers, this was stated by Patrick in court. That's good enough for me at least. Now, if you don't want to accept this becauuse it was reported in the 'newspapers', then you may as well pack up and go home at this point. The trial is going to continue and the newspapers are going to be the means by which we are going to hear the testimony. So, if you are ruling the newspapers out completely as a source, reputable journalists/newspapers or not, how exactly are you planning on following the trial over the next few months?


Hi Michael,

I wasn't aware that Patrick said that in court, haven't seen it on the Italian press. He surely never mentioned it when he was on TV, where he always maintained that he hadn't fired Amanda. However I think that his sms "business is slow, no need to come to work" is a clear indication that Amanda was still attending tables. Not that it makes a major difference though, Amanda was aware that Patrick wasn't happy about the quality of her work, so I think that when he offered Meredith a chance at the bar, it would have been enough to upset Amanda, if she was the jealous type.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:20 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Nicki,

Well, if Amanda had been relegated to giving out filers, then strictly speaking Patrick hadn't fired her as she was still working for him in some capacity. The fact is, many people would see that as a 'firing' in that she was fired from working in the bar itself. But, on the testimony in court by Patrick on his demoting her to giving out fliers, I quote Skep:



Skep wrote:
Here is an excerpt from Andrea Vogt's report, filed after Lumumba testified in the current trial. (April 3, 2009/Seattle PI):

Quote:
On the stand Friday, he [Lumumba] told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.

The night of the killing he sent her a text message telling her she didn't need to come to work, to which she replied in Italian, "We'll see you later. Good night."

Lumumba said the two did not have an appointment to see one another, but rather, he interpreted the message as the American salutation "see you later," which can also mean"bye."

After he was cleared, the pub's business never picked back up, however, and his financial trouble worsened.

"Everything fell apart. When the pub was sequestered for three months. When it re-opened, well, who would go to a pub run by someone who had been arrested for murder? Of course they go somewhere else. I lost everything."

Lumumba said the episode also re-awoke terrible childhood memories about the night his politically active father was kidnapped back in Congo (and never seen again). He wakes up in the night worrying about the safety of his toddler son, said Lumumba, who an Italian court recently awarded 8,000 euros for false imprisonment.

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 1:23 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S. wrote:
Thoughtfull wrote:
In the final analysis, I feel the closest version to the truth is going to be the one from sources 1 and 2, meaning that I have to conclude that the demotion did not really happen (although there may have been some talk of it) and the job offer to Meredith did not really happen either, except for a one-night stint at the bar. But Meredith was seemingly not about to replace Amanda. I hope I am not the only person who is going to be convinced by this analysis!


Thoughtfull,

I don't disagree with your conclusion as a fact but I disagree with what you read into it.

I must have read everything written about this subject since around day 3 and what you are missing is context.

Perugia is a University town with capital U.

I can't remember the official statistics, but every Fall it's population is swollen with a huge influx of students. Most Italians will be bound for the University of Perugia and most foreigners to learn Italian/culture/politics etc. at the University of Foreigners. Those student numbers dominate the life and style of central Old Perugia. Modern Italian Perugia lives and works in the suburbs down and around the hill. Bars, shops and eateries catering for the students(and tourists) abound around the old town/walled city at the top. They are all in competition to attract this "passing" trade.

Le Chic was just one of these bars(opened that Summer) and needed to attract it's clientele. The English language, being what it is, is also the best language to have in the bar besides Italian. Most os those students will have some kind of English. Amanda and Meredith both fitted that bill. But that wasn't the only motivation behind Patrick's choice especially related to the Univerisy for Foreigners. If you have read much "reported" about the conversations between Patrick and Meredith you will know that she was saying she would bring her friends over from The Merlin.

The Merlin is a very large pub close to the University and is the British Erasmus HQ. It's the place where the students are greeted on arrival, where the noticeboards are and where they hold meetings etc. etc. For the first few weeks most of the students tend to hang out there as they get to know each other and explore the town. But as time goes on they'll have a natural tendancy to seek out and frequent venues which they prefer or may suit their style. Meredith was no exception. She had spent most of her time with her friends at the Merlin. Patrick will have seen this as some prospective trade which was up for grabs over the rest of the year. By that time Meredith, her friends and the other British students had been in Perugia for 4 or 5 weeks.

Back to english speaking Amanda. Patrick had employed her for just a few weeks during which time he'd found her a "lazy" worker who spent much of her time flirting with customers. I suspect he may have been prepared to put up with that IF her mere presence had attracted some custom. But Amanda was on her own. She didn't have friends or other students she would take along or attract to the bar where she worked. She didn't bring in the custom.

Whatever the exact words which had passed between Patrick and Amanda on much more than one occasion she must have felt her position as a waitress/flier distributor at Le Chic was under threat.

Meredith came into Le Chic about a week before she was killed. She chatted to Patrick at the bar. The conversation turned to "her friends" and a prospective ladies night with Meredith serving her Mojito's. Realistically, I don't suppose it was Meredith's drink mixing skills which so much interested Patrick, but more the trade which she would bring along from The Merlin.
If a notice about a ladies night at Le Chic went up on the board there, Patrick could have found his bar full to overflowing with English girls and the guys who would have come chasing.

Business is business.

It's entirely probable that this subject came up in conversation between Meredith and Amanda in the days following, not least since it involved Amanda's workplace, Le Chic.

On Halloween, Patrick again met Meredith, this time at the Domus disco. He renewed his offer and suggested that if it was successfull, they could maybe have a ladies night once a week with Meredith behind the bar serving her "special Mojito's". It was arranged that Meredith would contact him.

Early the following afternoon when Meredith got out of bed after a really late night, Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage. She was there with them for a couple of hours whilst she washed off her makeup, washed out the cobwebs and got herself ready to go out for a meal she had arranged to have with her friends. The most obvious conversation to have was about what they had both been doing the previous night of Halloween. It's entirely probable that Meredith told Amanda she had met her employer at Domus and he'd renewed his offer.

According to both AK and RS, Meredith then went out without telling them where she was going. Later that day AK and RS go back to his apartment. In the evening Amanda receives a text
informing her that Patrick doesn't need her.

What thought's would go through Amanda's mind???????????????


Hi Brian,
I fully agree. Actually, Patrick stated on TV that Meredith promised she would have taken all her friends, in short, she was going to tell everyone she knew. Patrick liked Meredith and he thought she made great cocktails.so he was openly happy she agreed to work there for the All-ladies night. "The boss is very happy Meredith will work at his bar but not-so happy about Amanda's performance". Then he doesn't need her to work on All-Saints-it could make sense since everybody was partying the night before (but the next day was a holiday again, I assume there was some business after all..).So:
What thought's would go through Amanda's mind???????????????[/quote]
Exactly.
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 19, 2009 1:28 pm   Post subject:    

Petafly,

Mention of the word "motive" reminds me that the possibility "It was senseless" (in the literal sense)
has not yet been formally excluded from the list of possible reasons.

With motive, we go from emotion and/or a starting thought, through a chain of logic and reasoning, to a course of action which results in consequences.

If the reasoning is flawed, as it can be with children and immature people, the results take on a
"unexplainable" component, but, to some extent, are still understandable in a way.

If the reasoning machinery is itself compromised or switched off, as with certain drugs or injuries,
the unexplainable content increases, and there may not even be a way to imagine how it could
be understandable.

Expanding our analysis outward, into a larger sphere, there could be another factor that might need
consideration:

If someone describes themself (seriously) as an agnostic (and suppose they are also
infantile in certain respects, as well), how likely would it be that they treat the "Do not kill"/"do not harm" directive
as part of the religious side of life, and therefore as also part of what they are or have to be agnostic about?
And then, after that position is reached, what (if anything) would they replace it with, in terms of how to behave?

Alternatively, someone completely compus mentus and unimpaired could still convince themselves
that hurting someone else was justified and allowable (by what reasoning methodology, I do not know,
but the possibility to think that way remains open - it is just that not everyone chooses that path).

This is a complicated area.


Thoughtful,

From how you are describing your thinking, it sounds like you are approaching a corroboration/cross-check methodology, where pieces of information are tagged with meta-information that allows a correlation matrix to be built up, meta-information such as:

(a) the information itself, including what we don't know, as well as what we do know, plus its context
(b) how reliable it is and how much credence should be given to it
(c) how well, in a measurable way, it correlates with other pieces of information
(d) how ambiguous and diagnostic it is (e.g., can it support five different scenarios, or just one?)
(e) what hypothesis or hypotheses does it slot into?
(f) what can disprove the hypothesis?

In a small way, all these steps are needed when trying to translate even one word into the correct meaning.
In a larger way, trying to understand how someone could have said and done something follows a similar
technique.

This, also, is a complicated area.

Patience! :)
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 19, 2009 1:40 pm   Post subject:    

Going through the old visual archives, I had quite forgotten about old Curatolo.


By coincidence, akatus, a student from Budapest, was in Perugia on 2 November 2007.
She and some friends went for a leisurely stroll around the historical town centre, taking photos.

By mid-afternoon they were in the Universita’ per Stranieri,
and went inside, onto the main stairs, into a classroom, onto the roof.

It really is very nice inside.

its NOT a museum by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:02:22

Using the datetime stamp her camera attached to the photos, we can get an idea of the size of that part of Perugia.

After ten minutes, at 3.12pm, they were back outside.


university entrance by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:12:15

Three minutes later, crossing the road, they were at the basketball courts.
Akatus likes taking photos of strangers.
This one must be of Curatolo. His beard was shorter then.
He’s reading. (It might even be Espresso.)


man reading by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:18:49


It would be hard, during a cigarette break, not noticing a couple (at 9.30pm the previous night) seated on the low wall having a heated discussion about something.

The low wall of the court, the railings, the trees, the size of the place, are all quite visible in the original-size photo [ here ].

Five minutes later, akatus and friends come across the panoramic view to the north of Perugia. But down below, something is up.


Carabinieri situation by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:23:43

The gravel, the leaves, the last light of day, the jackets against the cold of autumn, are all visible in detail in the original-size photo [ here ].
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 2:06 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
In the final analysis, I feel the closest version to the truth is going to be the one from sources 1 and 2, meaning that I have to conclude that the demotion did not really happen (although there may have been some talk of it) and the job offer to Meredith did not really happen either, except for a one-night stint at the bar. But Meredith was seemingly not about to replace Amanda. I hope I am not the only person who is going to be convinced by this analysis!



I have to disagree with your first conclusion, that the demotion did not happen. Based on court testimony, it did:
Quote:
On the stand Friday, he told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.


Maybe demotion is too strong a word, but notice the reporter used the term "limited her role", which suggests a demotion.

As for the second conclusion, I don't know how widely it is believed that PL had actually offered a full-time job to Meredith Kercher. This fact certainly did not emerge from trial testimony as far as I know. But Brian's contextual analysis is very compelling. After all, feelings of exclusion or jealousy do not depend entirely on external facts but rather on how each person selects and then processes those facts. So I would hesitate before concluding, Patrick did not offer Meredith a job; therefore, Amanda had no reason to feel resentful or jealous and hence did not. I am not saying she did have those feelings either. It's just that subjectivity is complicated, and it complicates objectivity.

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

Offline srilanka


Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:24 pm

Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 2:25 pm   Post subject:    

Catnip wrote:
Quote: "Going through the old visual archives, I had quite forgotten about old Curatolo. "

Thanks for those photos Catnip. What a superb context for Curatolo's witness statements. The photos have brought his observations to life for me and clarified his words. Thanks, brilliant.
Srilanka
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 2:28 pm   Post subject:    

More context:

Patrick interviewed on the street, with his son, in his bar and with his clientele in Perugia before Merediths murder.

10 minutes in Italian, but don't let the language put you off, It's the scenes and people who give context.

http://video.libero.it/app/play?id=b131 ... e5ef88035e
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 2:42 pm   Post subject: Italian Foaks   

Nicki wrote:

Quote:
About the rest, it's the same old song: the lone wolf did it, the press has trashed the defendants etc-it's like hearing the FOA speaking Italian.


:lol: Thank you Nicki!
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 2:59 pm   Post subject: Catnip!   

Catnip wrote:
Going through the old visual archives, I had quite forgotten about old Curatolo.


By coincidence, akatus, a student from Budapest, was in Perugia on 2 November 2007.
She and some friends went for a leisurely stroll around the historical town centre, taking photos.

By mid-afternoon they were in the Universita’ per Stranieri,
and went inside, onto the main stairs, into a classroom, onto the roof.

It really is very nice inside.

its NOT a museum by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:02:22

Using the datetime stamp her camera attached to the photos, we can get an idea of the size of that part of Perugia.

After ten minutes, at 3.12pm, they were back outside.


university entrance by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:12:15

Three minutes later, crossing the road, they were at the basketball courts.
Akatus likes taking photos of strangers.
This one must be of Curatolo. His beard was shorter then.
He’s reading. (It might even be Espresso.)


man reading by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:18:49


It would be hard, during a cigarette break, not noticing a couple (at 9.30pm the previous night) seated on the low wall having a heated discussion about something.

The low wall of the court, the railings, the trees, the size of the place, are all quite visible in the original-size photo [ here ].

Five minutes later, akatus and friends come across the panoramic view to the north of Perugia. But down below, something is up.


Carabinieri situation by akatus [Flickr]
2007:11:02 15:23:43

The gravel, the leaves, the last light of day, the jackets against the cold of autumn, are all visible in detail in the original-size photo [ here ].



Catnip! The things you find...the time stamps are so interesting. At 3:02pm this stranger to the situation is visiting the school where one of the accused murderers was enrolled; then walked by a witness who testified that he saw the accused murderers a few feet from him; then ending up at the murder crime scene just 21 minutes after touring the University - the CSIs were in the beginning stages of their evidence gathering. All these places this unknowing stranger took pictures of are landmarks in this case.

Great sleuthing - Thanks!
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 3:35 pm   Post subject:    

Tara wrote:

Quote:
Catnip! The things you find...the time stamps are so interesting. At 3:02pm this stranger to the situation is visiting the school where one of the accused murderers was enrolled; then walked by a witness who testified that he saw the accused murderers a few feet from him; then ending up at the murder crime scene just 21 minutes after touring the University - the CSIs were in the beginning stages of their evidence gathering. All these places this unknowing stranger took pictures of are landmarks in this case.

Great sleuthing - Thanks!


Yes! The photo of Curatolo is especially interesting. Catnip, my cats' eyes light up whenever I speak your name! They adore you and would do anything for you. In large quantities, you drive them crazy. This morning, they were up at the crack of dawn. Perhaps they knew Catnip had left an offering. Well, truth be told they are always up at the crack of dawn, as soon as the first bird chirps. But this morning, they were especially agitated.

_________________
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: Tue May 19, 2009 4:11 pm   Post subject: Stormy Weather...   

Skep wrote:

Quote:
But this morning, they were especially agitated.


My little birds are agitated as well! It must be the storm brewing and anticipation of the thunder and lightening the weatherman predicts for today! It's pouring down rain! ;)
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:27 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Michael, Skeptical and others who responded

I guess what is bothering me is that Andrea Vogt quoted the demotion as having been said (by Patrick) at the trial and Stewart Home said that it was not said. At least, he said he had all of the testimony and he described it and this key point is not mentioned and he specifically notes that there was almost no discussion about Amanda as a waitress.

So it's necessary to choose whom to believe here. (At some point when Stewart returns, we can ask him.) But in the meantime, I guess I trust Stewart because I've found his reports so detailed and useful, and therefore I'm guessing that Andrea wrote something that wasn't quite said at the trial but that she heard somewhere else. But maybe I am betting on the wrong horse here.

Michael, I think you're exaggerating a bit to say I'm muddying the waters (I was trying to clarify!) and that no one ever said that Patrick offered Meredith a full-time job. We read many times, including in the London Evening Standard article, that "Patrick offered Meredith to come work for him", without specifying that it was only for one night. At the least, such a sentence is misleading! And you yourself believed that Patrick had talked about the firing/flyers etc. on TV, which turned out not to be the case. I'm just saying that it is worth clarifying what was said by whom!

Brian's analysis of context is very interesting and convincing. Even if it now seems to me that Meredith and Amanda could both have worked together at Le Chic, one source of the jealousy might have been Meredith's big circle of friends, bringing us back to the loneliness I was thinking about earlier. All this is both probable and psychologically interesting. However, I was really trying to see what would come out of the discussions in court and whether some of these facts -- not feelings! -- would be confirmed there.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2306

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 4:53 pm   Post subject:    

thoughtful wrote:
I guess what is bothering me is that Andrea Vogt quoted the demotion as having been said (by Patrick) at the trial and Stewart Home said that it was not said. At least, he said he had all of the testimony and he described it and this key point is not mentioned and he specifically notes that there was almost no discussion about Amanda as a waitress.


Did Stewart explicitly state that Amanda Knox hadn't been demoted or limited to handing out flyers or are you putting words into Stewart's mouth?
Top Profile 

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:00 pm   Post subject:    

It was interesting to see the really lovely picture of Curatolo come up in the midst of our other discussion. While trying to find any motive for this insane, deeply disturbed crime, we then see him, sitting on his bench in the leafy, tranquil plaza--one of "society's outcasts"--enjoying a good book. He's a bit like the Shakespearean "fool," as in King Lear, who amuses all and offers wisdom in riddles about the travails of his crazy master. Society will want to believe Amanda in the face of her lies and truly bizarre behaviour and discount Curatolo as a crazy tramp.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:06 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Dear Michael, Skeptical and others who responded

I guess what is bothering me is that Andrea Vogt quoted the demotion as having been said (by Patrick) at the trial and Stewart Home said that it was not said. At least, he said he had all of the testimony and he described it and this key point is not mentioned and he specifically notes that there was almost no discussion about Amanda as a waitress.

So it's necessary to choose whom to believe here. (At some point when Stewart returns, we can ask him.) But in the meantime, I guess I trust Stewart because I've found his reports so detailed and useful, and therefore I'm guessing that Andrea wrote something that wasn't quite said at the trial but that she heard somewhere else. But maybe I am betting on the wrong horse here.


Without wishing to underestimate the value of Stewart Home's reports, I feel it is absolutely necessary to set the record straight. Stewart Home is not a reporter. This does not mean he is not a keen observer or good at providing details from the trial hearings. However -- and I can't overesimate the size of this however -- he is not subject to any rules whatsoever, except those of his own making, when it comes to reporting what emerges from the trial. Neither is he subject to the tight deadlines that reporters who publish face.

This means that reports filed by professional journalists engage them in terms of liability, so they better have their facts right. This means that a lot of compression and choosing has to be done in a short period of time, so that just the essential emerges to fill the space allotted.

No serious reporter would state categorically that X gave testimony to the effect of Y unless it were true and verifiable. The report we have, from a reporter who has been covering the case since the beginning, states categorically that Patricl Lumumba testified that Knox had been demoted to the status of handing out flyers. The sentence is very detailed. Now, whether or not Patrick actually did do what he testified to on the witness stand under oath is another matter. The reporter is charged with reporting what was said.

The fact that Stewart Home did not mention this detail is neither here nor there, and certainly does not "prove" that Lumumba did not make this statement in the courtroom. Personally, I don't find it a valid reason to cast doubt on the work of professional journalists.

Again, my intention is not to cast doubt on the quality of Stewart's "reporting" for us. But remember: Stewart takes no risk in providing us with his take on the day's events. Professional journalists do, on behalf of themselves and the publications they work for. As it stands, your opinion that normally reliable publications are not to be trusted is one I don't share. In my opinion, it is important to make a distinction between tabloid fodder and serious reporting.

In Andrea Vogt's report, which we quoted from yesterday, she does not say "it is alleged that PL said X". Having seen a lot of her work (I even read her excellent book), I am willing to bet that she would have made that clear if it were the case.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:14 pm   Post subject:    

Thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
Michael, I think you're exaggerating a bit to say I'm muddying the waters (I was trying to clarify!) and that no one ever said that Patrick offered Meredith a full-time job. We read many times, including in the London Evening Standard article, that "Patrick offered Meredith to come work for him", without specifying that it was only for one night. At the least, such a sentence is misleading! And you yourself believed that Patrick had talked about the firing/flyers etc. on TV, which turned out not to be the case. I'm just saying that it is worth clarifying what was said by whom!



With regard to this sentence, from the LES, I agree it could have been specified, thus making it more difficult to read more into the phrase than is warranted. However, you -- though you are perhaps not alone -- are the reader reading more into the sentence than is on the page. If you analyze the sentence for meaning seriously, you have to admit that it is ambiguous as to the time frame. A one-day gig, a full-time job, a part-time job, etc. We have no information about this at all.

This makes for an interesting contrast with the sentence from Patrick's testimony you are contesting based on Stewart Home's failure to mention the same detail. The latter sentence is very detailed, and says that he eventually restricted the role of Knox to handing out flyers.

I think what emerges overall is that, once again, those who say it is all rubbish are wrong, as are those who imagine that Knox had been fired after a heated exchange that ends with her being told that her flatmate Meredith has been chosen to replace her.

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:25 pm   Post subject:    

A QUESTION FOR YUMMI


Thoughtfull wrote:
However, I was really trying to see what would come out of the discussions in court and whether some of these facts -- not feelings! -- would be confirmed there.


ISTM that the testimony given in court often doesn't encompass the full information which has come from witnesses.

I don't just refer to Thoughtfull's query above but also to things like the footprint evidence.

Are the judges in possession of the prosecution file?

When Patrick gave his evidence were the judges in posession of a file which contained everything which may be relevent to his testimony? His earlier witness statements given to the police etc. etc.

When the footprint witnesses gave evidence about the footprints were the judges in possession of a file which contained all the footprint pics and the written words of the forensics people who examined those pics and explaining their thoughts and conclusions about each one?.

In short, it sometimes seems to me that the oral testimony of witnesses doesn't represent a complete picture of what the judges see.

Yummi, I'd appreciate any light you can shed on this aspect of the court procedure and evidence giving
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:35 pm   Post subject:    

Brian wrote:

Quote:
Are the judges in possession of the prosecution file?

When Patrick gave his evidence were the judges in posession of a file which contained everything which may be relevent to his testimony? His earlier witness statements given to the police etc. etc.

When the footprint witnesses gave evidence about the footprints were the judges in possession of a file which contained all the footprint pics and the written words of the forensics people who examined those pics and explaining their thoughts and conclusions about each one?.

In short, it sometimes seems to me that the oral testimony of witnesses doesn't represent a complete picture of what the judges see.


An equally important question concerns the journalists. As I said yesterday, my understanding is that they generally have access to the complete file. How many have actually read the 10,000 pages? Accordingly, some of the leaks "blamed" on the prosecution may not actually be from the prosecution.

_________________
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: Tue May 19, 2009 6:15 pm   Post subject:    

Hello Everybody,

Catching up on some things here. Someone was talking about RAINN and Tori Amos; US leg of tour kicks off in Seattle, Skep. I'll be catching her at The Tower in August...

Anyway, somebody else posted the link to Amanda's blog entries and in reading them over (nice how she finds it so hilarious she just walked out of the job her uncle got her, BWA HJA HAHAAAAAAA???) I came across this bit:

when we walk down a steep road to my university, we run into a very skinny girl who looks a little older than me putting up a page with her number on the outer wall of the unviersity. i chat it up with her, she speaks english really well, and we go immediately to her place, literally 2minntes walk from my university. it's a cute house that is right in the middle of this random garden int he middle of perugia.

The bold is mine, the misspellings, well, aren't. Wasn't part of the problems on the day Meredith's body was found put down to Amanda and her roommate not understanding one another? It must all be part of another unfortunate misunderstanding.

I'm thinking Catnip better be ready to start answering some questions from the disbanded FOA. Whoever took those pictures must be the real murderer. :shock: Color me crazy, but I sure wouldn't know just from looking at him that Caraotolo was homeless, nor would I automatically assume a homeless person would be a liar. Looks to me like he could have seen plenty. Hoping I'm not the only one aware of the infiltration, but at least they are doing their best to remain civil and only slightly derailing discussion.

Alrighty then, back to the bees! I'm having my very first inspection by the local apiary inspector for the Dept. of Agriculture. The honey flow is on...
Top Profile 

Offline Miss_R


Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:44 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject:    

This is my first post here eeek, hope I haven't messed it up, not overly familiar with forums :shock:

I actually read all of Amanda's blog entries a while ago and was suprised to read the one about her laughing at her joy at having walked out of the Bundestag after she admitted having cried at making her uncle annoyed at her for doing so. To me it seemed a massive contradiction in emotions. One minute she's upset at having upset her uncle and all the disturbance this caused and the next minute she's laughing at the convenience at being able to "chill in Hamburg for another week" all while her uncle who is "one of the nicest guys out there" takes care of the mess she caused and also the embarrassment. The poor guy must have been mortified at her behaviour, yet another glimpse into the life of a young woman completely devoid of responsibility.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:15 pm   Post subject:    

Hi Miss R, congratulations on your first post on PMF...congratulations also on the setting up of the new home for your site :)

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


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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:26 pm   Post subject:    

Miss R wrote:

This is my first post here eeek, hope I haven't messed it up, not overly familiar with forums

Quote:
I actually read all of Amanda's blog entries a while ago and was suprised to read the one about her laughing at her joy at having walked out of the Bundestag after she admitted having cried at making her uncle annoyed at her for doing so. To me it seemed a massive contradiction in emotions. One minute she's upset at having upset her uncle and all the disturbance this caused and the next minute she's laughing at the convenience at being able to "chill in Hamburg for another week" all while her uncle who is "one of the nicest guys out there" takes care of the mess she caused and also the embarrassment. The poor guy must have been mortified at her behaviour, yet another glimpse into the life of a young woman completely devoid of responsibility.


Welcome, Miss R. You did fine - even used an emoticon! :)
I hope your posting here will quell the rumor that we are one and the same person. :lol:

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

Offline Miss_R


Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:44 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 9:45 pm   Post subject:    

Thanks Michael and Skep.

Skep: Haha! Ah yes that little rumour. Well well as with all things in life, it seemed much easier when I took the plunge. :D

This is a great forum and I have been a lurker for some time, wanting to jump in and discuss, kind of reminds me of my kayaking days, sat at the top of the river knowing there was a massive well of water in front but not quite sure if it's a good idea. I'm glad I did, this is such a great space. Well it's lovely to be here and I'm grateful for this site, it has helped me greatly.

Thanks guys
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:16 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
One minute she's upset at having upset her uncle and all the disturbance this caused and the next minute she's laughing at the convenience at being able to "chill in Hamburg for another week" all while her uncle who is "one of the nicest guys out there" takes care of the mess she caused and also the embarrassment. The poor guy must have been mortified at her behaviour, yet another glimpse into the life of a young woman completely devoid of responsibility.


But now we already have collected some imformations about her - as a 20 year old possibly not still an "adult -minded" person - as a person with a tendency to avoid or drop responsability, focused on her own emotions and pleasure, and to escape some difficulties though leaving others in a mess. And readers know I am particularly annoyed by her behaviour, "statements" declarations and "memorial".

But, besides our annoyance about some aspects of the personality she showed in her recent past, I want to point out the other side. Because part of the risk of a mistake in having suspiciouns against her comes from this. The point is: on our side we observrs should be focused on try to avoid to confuse a judgmenet with a suspicion of guilt. On many comments on several blogs though time, I often feel a danger of an overlapping. A neutral judge has to pay attention not to be influenced by the fact that she may have an annoying or irresponsible or immature personality. Attention to that some of the feeling she could be guilty of murder could - maybe even in a subconscious mode - be motivated by a negative feeling coming from the fact that she is to blame for other things.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:24 pm   Post subject:    

Yummi, I know exactly what you mean. That's why earlier I was emphasizing that I am basing my feelings of guilt on the forensic evidence and on the statements Amanda made after the murder. There are plenty of odd, offbeat, irresponsible young people -- possibly similar to Amanda -- who would never murder someone in a million years. I think it's good to be careful about drawing conclusions from her arguably odd pre-murder behavior. Of course, there is certainly nothing wrong with *theorizing* about how it all ties in with the murder - I just think one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from it.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:41 pm   Post subject: Respect and Responsibility   

Miss_R wrote:
This is my first post here eeek, hope I haven't messed it up, not overly familiar with forums :shock:

I actually read all of Amanda's blog entries a while ago and was suprised to read the one about her laughing at her joy at having walked out of the Bundestag after she admitted having cried at making her uncle annoyed at her for doing so. To me it seemed a massive contradiction in emotions. One minute she's upset at having upset her uncle and all the disturbance this caused and the next minute she's laughing at the convenience at being able to "chill in Hamburg for another week" all while her uncle who is "one of the nicest guys out there" takes care of the mess she caused and also the embarrassment. The poor guy must have been mortified at her behaviour, yet another glimpse into the life of a young woman completely devoid of responsibility.


Hello Miss R! :)

It's really nice to see you here. I so enjoy reading your in depth analysis and thoughts about this case.

Someone brought up the Bundestag stint a few days ago and I've been thinking about it ever since. You have just added another element to the situation; Amanda being upset one minute and laughing afterwards to her friends about it on her blog.

Is it a generation thing? I am old enough to be her mother, but I really was her age once! When I was attending the University of Washington and seeking summertime work, my father's good friend found me a job in his office at a very large local bank in the area. This was a huge deal for my dad, and I was NOT about to disappoint him. These were very good friends of the family doing me a huge favor. Back in those days, (late 1970's) "respecting your elders" was an important part of the family hierarchy. Although tough sometimes, we would try our hardest to not embarass the family! Wrong or right, parents had certain expectations of their children. Maybe I'm stuck in the dark ages? I worked very hard at that rare job given to me as a favor, and although the summer Seattle parties with my college friends were tempting, I did not disappoint my parents or their friends. My job was nowhere near as prestigious as the Bundestag. What an opportunity!

I just can't understand how Amanda Knox could do this to her uncle and laugh about it. If I would have done something like that, I eventually would have been forgiven, but what I did would never be forgotten!
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:45 pm   Post subject:    

Truth Seeker wrote:
Yummi, I know exactly what you mean. That's why earlier I was emphasizing that I am basing my feelings of guilt on the forensic evidence and on the statements Amanda made after the murder. There are plenty of odd, offbeat, irresponsible young people -- possibly similar to Amanda -- who would never murder someone in a million years. I think it's good to be careful about drawing conclusions from her arguably odd pre-murder behavior. Of course, there is certainly nothing wrong with *theorizing* about how it all ties in with the murder - I just think one should be cautious about drawing conclusions from it.


I agree, there are many irresponsible and obnoxious people who would never " kill a spider". But if such people don't have an alibi and repatedly lie to the police, without mentioning the evidence pointing at them, their character doesn't help, actually it may make things even worse.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:51 pm   Post subject: No envy here...   

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
A neutral judge has to pay attention not to be influenced by the fact that she may have an annoying or irresponsible or immature personality.


So true Yummi. I don't envy the judges at all.
Top Profile 

Offline Miss_R


Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:44 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:56 pm   Post subject:    

Hey Tara,

I once started work for the UK civil service. I was so excited, my psychology department organised everything and I spent over £2000 moving to London. I tried my very best to work for them but in the end they found me too 'kooky' and decided they couldn't continue with the placement (their exact words) I was mortified, wondering what it was I did wrong, whether I didn't do my work properly, whether I said something 'out of place'. I was so upset at having upset the people around me. What shocks me about Amanda's statement is that she literally doesn't seem to care, as if the thought of making a fool of herself at the Bundestag is just an afterthought, like someone will 'sort it out'.

I can see why many people do not see the psychological insights as 'evidence' in this case, indeed I too look forward to hearing about all the physical evidence, but these factors are an important glimpse into her character and I think they need not be ignored.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 10:57 pm   Post subject:    

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
But now we already have collected some imformations about her - as a 20 year old possibly not still an "adult -minded" person - as a person with a tendency to avoid or drop responsability, focused on her own emotions and pleasure, and to escape some difficulties though leaving others in a mess. And readers know I am particularly annoyed by her behaviour, "statements" declarations and "memorial".

But, besides our annoyance about some aspects of the personality she showed in her recent past, I want to point out the other side. Because part of the risk of a mistake in having suspiciouns against her comes from this. The point is: on our side we observrs should be focused on try to avoid to confuse a judgmenet with a suspicion of guilt. On many comments on several blogs though time, I often feel a danger of an overlapping. A neutral judge has to pay attention not to be influenced by the fact that she may have an annoying or irresponsible or immature personality. Attention to that some of the feeling she could be guilty of murder could - maybe even in a subconscious mode - be motivated by a negative feeling coming from the fact that she is to blame for other things.


I agree with Yummi on this point. Besides, it makes no sense in any universe and would never fly in a court of law in any jurisdiction to argue that a suspect is immature and irresponsible, thus guilty. Using this incident as proof of guilt would be foolish. This incident may be indicative of a certain mindset and nothing more.

At the same time, it is important to pay attention to what we are trying to prove when we use an incident or an attitude. In this particular case, this incident does not fit well with the storybook image of the suspect that has been sold to the media, in particular the US media. Anyone can make a mistake at any time. This may be a youthful mistake. But when a monolithic view is put forth about the character of a person ("she would never do x", "he would not hurt a fly", etc.), it is legitimate to point to a known counter-example.

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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2009 11:26 pm   Post subject: "Gente" article   

For those of you who are wondering about the new "Gente" article, I have bought a copy of the magazine and between a set of pictures of Julia Roberts' protruding belly on an Hawaiian beach ( she gets an A+ from the magazine, notwithstanding her "roundness) and a local soap actress beauty advice in order to look at the top next summer, I've found the article about the Perugia case, titled "We know why Amanda is innocent".

The defense is basically repeating what we all know very well by now: scarce material, contamination due to the repeated "analyses" . First they say the sample has been "studied" 187 times, whatever that means. Then they say the DNA has been"amplified 500 times". Considering that amplification is exponential until about 30 cycles and afterward it starts to decline quickly reaching a plateau, I think they might have been referring to a 500 fold amplification of DNA, which is another thing. The latter can be performed with commercial kits that allow for up to 1000 fold amplification of genomic DNA from trace samples. But it doesn't "guarantee contamination" as defense will indeed claim. The fact remains though that the knife sample was very scarce. No breakthrough news.

Other statements were very upsetting for me,i.e. defense firmly denying that sexual violence occured : "non ci sono tracce di violenza sessuale", there are no traces of sexual violence, Torre says. "Non ci sono elementi che provino un rapporto sessuale violento", there aren't elements proving a violent sexual intercourse. They're claiming the killer is only one, the lone wolf theory is alive and kicking. Although they do not name Guede, it seems very clear they imply that Meredith had consensual sex with her killer.

The article ends with a long invective against the media that have "turned Amanda and Raffaele into two monsters", the same media that defense is now despicably using to trash the victim.
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:22 am   Post subject:    

The defence trying to sell their scenario to the tabloid press ahead of the evidence in court smacks of desperation to me. In light of different sized bare footprints in the house I thought the nearest they could come to the lone wold theory would be 'Guede had help, it just wasn't our darling angels'. If they are sticking to the claim of Guede doing it all on his own then again it seems desperate; it contradicts too much evidence. I think they have painted themselves into a corner with no way out.
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 20, 2009 1:50 am   Post subject: Mafia   

Mutley wrote:
The defence trying to sell their scenario to the tabloid press ahead of the evidence in court smacks of desperation to me. In light of different sized bare footprints in the house I thought the nearest they could come to the lone wold theory would be 'Guede had help, it just wasn't our darling angels'. If they are sticking to the claim of Guede doing it all on his own then again it seems desperate; it contradicts too much evidence. I think they have painted themselves into a corner with no way out.



Hi Mutley. Well, LMT's busy preparing them an Albanian/mafioso gang murder to replace the 'Lone Wolf' theory as a 'plan B' ;)

_________________
"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: Wed May 20, 2009 1:55 am   Post subject: Re: "Gente" article   

nicki wrote:
For those of you who are wondering about the new "Gente" article, I have bought a copy of the magazine and between a set of pictures of Julia Roberts' protruding belly on an Hawaiian beach ( she gets an A+ from the magazine, notwithstanding her "roundness) and a local soap actress beauty advice in order to look at the top next summer, I've found the article about the Perugia case, titled "We know why Amanda is innocent".

The defense is basically repeating what we all know very well by now: scarce material, contamination due to the repeated "analyses" . First they say the sample has been "studied" 187 times, whatever that means. Then they say the DNA has been"amplified 500 times". Considering that amplification is exponential until about 30 cycles and afterward it starts to decline quickly reaching a plateau, I think they might have been referring to a 500 fold amplification of DNA, which is another thing. The latter can be performed with commercial kits that allow for up to 1000 fold amplification of genomic DNA from trace samples. But it doesn't "guarantee contamination" as defense will indeed claim. The fact remains though that the knife sample was very scarce. No breakthrough news.

Other statements were very upsetting for me,i.e. defense firmly denying that sexual violence occured : "non ci sono tracce di violenza sessuale", there are no traces of sexual violence, Torre says. "Non ci sono elementi che provino un rapporto sessuale violento", there aren't elements proving a violent sexual intercourse. They're claiming the killer is only one, the lone wolf theory is alive and kicking. Although they do not name Guede, it seems very clear they imply that Meredith had consensual sex with her killer.

The article ends with a long invective against the media that have "turned Amanda and Raffaele into two monsters", the same media that defense is now despicably using to trash the victim.



Thanks for that Nicki. I won't pretend to understand too well what you're saying regarding the sciency bit, but it sounds like, in essence...you're saying the defence expert is really simply trying to dazzle the reader with science in order to make a weak claim sound stoing...have I got that right?

_________________
"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 Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 4:10 am   Post subject:    

Cards and Chains

From what Nicki has finely reported about the Gente article, it looks to me like the Defense Team’s strategy for disputing the DNA evidence may be to focus on any non-standard Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) protocols, such as an excessive number of PCR cycles, used in the analysis of the evidence. The Prosecution’s DNA Expert has previously reported that “copious amounts” of RS’s and Ak47’s DNA were found on the bra clasp, so the Defense Team’s attempts look futile. A standard number of PCR cycles (~30) were assuredly used and PCR products were probably detected during the early cycles with the bra clasp evidence, leading to the copious remark.

I have recently read indications in the news, however, that to detect MK’s DNA on the knife, that non-standard methods may have been used. Perhaps they used a high number of cycles (>60) and maybe even added fresh polymerase or other heroic measures with the knife evidence just to see what they got and found MK’s DNA. These latter drawn-out experiments may have caused some unspecific PCR products to appear on the gel. I propose that the Defense Team’s Expert may use any non-standard protocols employed on the knife evidence as a way to discredit all the DNA evidence. He will attempt to mislead the Jury that the unspecific PCR products are from contamination, and not from polymerase exuberance.

The Defense Team’s arguments about the DNA evidence won’t scientifically make sense. A PCR machine can’t create positive results without a DNA template to copy. It looks like the bra clasp evidence that ties RS and Ak47 to the murder is scientifically strong and solid, which has nothing to do with the knife evidence. But if you have a guilty client, I guess a hired-gun expert will come up with anything he can to confuse a jury. The knife DNA evidence is tantalizing with its combination of MK’s and Ak47’s DNA, but perhaps the Prosecution doesn’t need it to convict the deadly duo. If the knife evidence is shaky and could be used to confuse the jury, perhaps the Prosecution should drop it. At the very least, the Defense Team shouldn’t have tipped their hand on this strategy, before playing their cards.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:02 am   Post subject:    

Greggy wrote:
Cards and Chains

From what Nicki has finely reported about the Gente article, it looks to me like the Defense Team’s strategy for disputing the DNA evidence may be to focus on any non-standard Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) protocols, such as an excessive number of PCR cycles, used in the analysis of the evidence. The Prosecution’s DNA Expert has previously reported that “copious amounts” of RS’s and Ak47’s DNA were found on the bra clasp, so the Defense Team’s attempts look futile. A standard number of PCR cycles (~30) were assuredly used and PCR products were probably detected during the early cycles with the bra clasp evidence, leading to the copious remark.

I have recently read indications in the news, however, that to detect MK’s DNA on the knife, that non-standard methods may have been used. Perhaps they used a high number of cycles (>60) and maybe even added fresh polymerase or other heroic measures with the knife evidence just to see what they got and found MK’s DNA. These latter drawn-out experiments may have caused some unspecific PCR products to appear on the gel. I propose that the Defense Team’s Expert may use any non-standard protocols employed on the knife evidence as a way to discredit all the DNA evidence. He will attempt to mislead the Jury that the unspecific PCR products are from contamination, and not from polymerase exuberance.

The Defense Team’s arguments about the DNA evidence won’t scientifically make sense. A PCR machine can’t create positive results without a DNA template to copy. It looks like the bra clasp evidence that ties RS and Ak47 to the murder is scientifically strong and solid, which has nothing to do with the knife evidence. But if you have a guilty client, I guess a hired-gun expert will come up with anything he can to confuse a jury. The knife DNA evidence is tantalizing with its combination of MK’s and Ak47’s DNA, but perhaps the Prosecution doesn’t need it to convict the deadly duo. If the knife evidence is shaky and could be used to confuse the jury, perhaps the Prosecution should drop it. At the very least, the Defense Team shouldn’t have tipped their hand on this strategy, before playing their cards.


Greggy, the article was focused on Amanda and the knife, the bra was not discussed. There was also a brief mention of the bathroom mixed blood traces that couldn't be dated and therefore are useless. The "500 fold" amplification referred to the knife DNA. but with LCN DNA we still speak about 60 cycles max. Literature states that there's little to gain from increasing the number of cycles since it doesn't result in increased sensitivity, actually increases the chances of artefact production. However, the test was defined "unorthodox" by defense, which may just mean they have used some experimental technique, and I agree with you, they will try to play the non-standard- technique card in order to exonerate the knife. It's what they are being being paid for.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:19 am   Post subject: Re: "Gente" article   

Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
For those of you who are wondering about the new "Gente" article, I have bought a copy of the magazine and between a set of pictures of Julia Roberts' protruding belly on an Hawaiian beach ( she gets an A+ from the magazine, notwithstanding her "roundness) and a local soap actress beauty advice in order to look at the top next summer, I've found the article about the Perugia case, titled "We know why Amanda is innocent".

The defense is basically repeating what we all know very well by now: scarce material, contamination due to the repeated "analyses" . First they say the sample has been "studied" 187 times, whatever that means. Then they say the DNA has been"amplified 500 times". Considering that amplification is exponential until about 30 cycles and afterward it starts to decline quickly reaching a plateau, I think they might have been referring to a 500 fold amplification of DNA, which is another thing. The latter can be performed with commercial kits that allow for up to 1000 fold amplification of genomic DNA from trace samples. But it doesn't "guarantee contamination" as defense will indeed claim. The fact remains though that the knife sample was very scarce. No breakthrough news.

Other statements were very upsetting for me,i.e. defense firmly denying that sexual violence occured : "non ci sono tracce di violenza sessuale", there are no traces of sexual violence, Torre says. "Non ci sono elementi che provino un rapporto sessuale violento", there aren't elements proving a violent sexual intercourse. They're claiming the killer is only one, the lone wolf theory is alive and kicking. Although they do not name Guede, it seems very clear they imply that Meredith had consensual sex with her killer.

The article ends with a long invective against the media that have "turned Amanda and Raffaele into two monsters", the same media that defense is now despicably using to trash the victim.



Thanks for that Nicki. I won't pretend to understand too well what you're saying regarding the sciency bit, but it sounds like, in essence...you're saying the defence expert is really simply trying to dazzle the reader with science in order to make a weak claim sound stoing...have I got that right?


Hi Michael, yes I think they using the "187 examinations", "500 fold amplification" to stress that the quantity of Meredith 's DNA on the knife was very scarce-which is true by the way. But they're making an unclear claim as to the validity of the test, "unorthodx" doesn't say much. Perhaps the journo didn't get it right, it happens all the time.

It appears that Knox's "cause" has completely won Gente magazine. I would think they'put headlines on the cover page in order to sell more copies but they haven't. The reader wouldn't know about the artcile unless they bought the magazine.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm   Post subject:    

Nicki wrote:
Other statements were very upsetting for me,i.e. defense firmly denying that sexual violence occured : "non ci sono tracce di violenza sessuale", there are no traces of sexual violence, Torre says. "Non ci sono elementi che provino un rapporto sessuale violento", there aren't elements proving a violent sexual intercourse. They're claiming the killer is only one, the lone wolf theory is alive and kicking. Although they do not name Guede, it seems very clear they imply that Meredith had consensual sex with her killer...



Hi Nicki,

This was first mooted back last September when it became apparent that the window entry theory had such problems.

Since it is a lost cause that Rudy came through the window then somebody must have let him in.

But the possible defense theory that Meredith let him in and they then had consensual sex also has a great big problem.

If Meredith had arranged the meeting with Rudy, why would he need to kill her??
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 20, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject: Dating   

Nicki wrote:
There was also a brief mention of the bathroom mixed blood traces that couldn't be dated and therefore are useless.



Yes, we've seen this argument being made by the various Funnycats on the Cook's Smog over the last few months. I don't really see how this argument is too important though, since the same situation exists in any crime scene that has resulted in blood. They may not be able to date blood precisely (to the minute or hour) but they can show a difference between very recent blood deposits and old ones. Old blood stains, that they have been there for days for example, will be subject to effects from oxigenisation. As well as cracking on the surface...as something that was wet and dres out forming a crust does, a blit like mud...as it becomes very dry it starts to crack. Then there's also wear and tear from the environment it's in, in this case the wear and tear being from humans in their day to day activity, causing things like scratches to the surface of a stain or other damage. Pristine stains indicate fresh stains.

But the other important factor in providing a reasonable date for blood is the context it is in. If say for example, we have a body on the floor that has suffered serioous trauma and lost blood and next to it on the floor is blood matching that individual, the context suggests that the blood got on the floor as a result of the victim being murdered, rather then from some earlier mishap.

From what I read in many of the early reports, it is indeed the context that the prosecution are using in order to date the blood stains. For example that whilst the stains also look fresh, they are in highly visible places and therefore must have been very recent, as older stains would not have survived the cleaning of the girls in the house who were quite fastidious about keeping the cottage clean. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that blood stains in plain sight would be left by any of the girls.

There is also the matter of the stains in question where the blood is mixed, or the one that is Amanda's blood, not beiong the only blood stains in the bathroom. There are also the the blood driops of Meredith on the floor. It is clear and not disputed by the defence, that the blood drops on the floor matching Meredith were as a result of the murder, not some earlier point. Now, if they match the stains that are being challeneged, in shade and colour, then that would date them to the same time as the stains on the floor. This is due to the facts that as a blood stain ages it's shade and colour will change. Stains that are are of different ages will therefore look slightly different to each other...certainly a stain that is days old compared to one that is hours old.

If these arguments are made in court and it is shown that all the blood was laid down at the same time, this could be a pivotal piece of evidence in the case. Especially as Amanda in her story has already conceded that she had not been bleeding and was not responsible for any of the blood in the cottage the cottage that morning. If this can be shown to be a lie, Amanda will find herself in serious 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 disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:05 pm   Post subject:    

It would seem to me that if they can establish that a cover up was attempted--for which it would appear they have some fairly solid evidence--and also prove the use of bleach in the attempt to clean up the murder scene (is that a forensic possibility?) it would support the reason the blood/DNA deposit on the knife is so miniscule and their need to use extraordinary measures to detect it. Thereby having that fact in their favor rather than against them?
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 5:41 pm   Post subject: Three More Scenarios   

Three More Scenarios For The Night That Accord With The Timeline and accompanying insights posted by Fiori over on True Justice for Meredith Kercher.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:02 pm   Post subject: KOMO 4, 6:00pm   

For those who live in the Pacific Northwest Seattle area, Kathi Goertzen has a "one on one" interview with Curt Knox to be aired tonight during the 6:00pm news hour - KOMO 4 (ABC)
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 7:39 pm   Post subject:    

Brian wrote:

‘This was first mooted back last September when it became apparent that the window entry theory had such problems.
Since it is a lost cause that Rudy came through the window then somebody must have let him in.
But the possible defense theory that Meredith let him in and they then had consensual sex also has a great big problem.
If Meredith had arranged the meeting with Rudy, why would he need to kill her??’

Brian I’m not exactly sure what Torre is trying to say or why. Is he trying to make some distinction between sexual violence, sexual assault, and rape. I don’t know if he is saying the sex was consensual , or that the victim under threat of a knife cooperated but the sex wasn’t violent, or that there wasn’t any sex? I guess Torre can imply one thing and her attorney’s can say another. Raffaele’s Dad has already spent mucho dollars trying to prove that Rudy broke into the flat (using the window) and then assaulted and killed Meredith. All that money would go up in smoke. If the sex was consensual, then Rudy would hardly need to beak into the flat. Although the conjecture that anything resembling consensual by Meredith is appalling. I wonder if Torre is just trying to lay some groundwork, in the advent that Amanda is found guilty of some of the charges. That there’s no evidence to suggest that anyone (certainly not Amanda), was involved in a sexual assault? Rudy would probably agree with this approach..

Nicki wrote:

‘Hi Michael, yes I think they using the "187 examinations", "500 fold amplification" to stress that the quantity of Meredith 's DNA on the knife was very scarce-which is true by the way. But they're making an unclear claim as to the validity of the test, "unorthodx" doesn't say much. Perhaps the journo didn't get it right, it happens all the time.’ ‘

I appreciate all the info. It looks like they are saying that the DNA test is not proper for court conviction purposes and should be denied. In addition even if the procedure is accepted by the courts that the results don’t meet minimal standards set by the court. I’m just wondering if they are also saying that if the court accepts this evidence, then they are going into uncharted territory as to what is acceptable, and what isn’t. And could be setting some kind of precedent for future court cases, and will certainly be appealed? I think the coming testimony will certainly clarify some of these issues. OT) I assume that in nature (not lab induced) that DNA replication is essentially flawless and error free.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 8:55 pm   Post subject:    

DLW wrote:
Brian wrote:

‘This was first mooted back last September when it became apparent that the window entry theory had such problems.
Since it is a lost cause that Rudy came through the window then somebody must have let him in.
But the possible defense theory that Meredith let him in and they then had consensual sex also has a great big problem.
If Meredith had arranged the meeting with Rudy, why would he need to kill her??’

Brian I’m not exactly sure what Torre is trying to say or why. Is he trying to make some distinction between sexual violence, sexual assault, and rape. I don’t know if he is saying the sex was consensual , or that the victim under threat of a knife cooperated but the sex wasn’t violent, or that there wasn’t any sex? I guess Torre can imply one thing and her attorney’s can say another. Raffaele’s Dad has already spent mucho dollars trying to prove that Rudy broke into the flat (using the window) and then assaulted and killed Meredith. All that money would go up in smoke. If the sex was consensual, then Rudy would hardly need to beak into the flat. Although the conjecture that anything resembling consensual by Meredith is appalling. I wonder if Torre is just trying to lay some groundwork, in the advent that Amanda is found guilty of some of the charges. That there’s no evidence to suggest that anyone (certainly not Amanda), was involved in a sexual assault? Rudy would probably agree with this approach..

Nicki wrote:

‘Hi Michael, yes I think they using the "187 examinations", "500 fold amplification" to stress that the quantity of Meredith 's DNA on the knife was very scarce-which is true by the way. But they're making an unclear claim as to the validity of the test, "unorthodx" doesn't say much. Perhaps the journo didn't get it right, it happens all the time.’ ‘

I appreciate all the info. It looks like they are saying that the DNA test is not proper for court conviction purposes and should be denied. In addition even if the procedure is accepted by the courts that the results don’t meet minimal standards set by the court. I’m just wondering if they are also saying that if the court accepts this evidence, then they are going into uncharted territory as to what is acceptable, and what isn’t. And could be setting some kind of precedent for future court cases, and will certainly be appealed? I think the coming testimony will certainly clarify some of these issues. OT) I assume that in nature (not lab induced) that DNA replication is essentially flawless and error free.


Hi DLW,
OT: DNA replication occurs error free in nature-when it fails, different types of disease may occur (cancer is an example).
In the lab, we try to " photocopy" the original DNA by "amplification". Obviously, if a contaminant is present in the sample, that will be amplified as well.That is basically what defense is claiming. If forensic scientists have used an experimental protocol that uses 500 cycles of amplification I'm very curious to learn how the technique works, since it is known that after the plateau is reached (max 60 cycles in some cases), there's no point to continue.

About the sexual violence issue, Torre was very clear: "no evidence of sexual violence". Perhaps Torre is making a difference between attack, violence and rape, but the Italian Penal code doesn't (art 609 bis CP, definition of sexual violence): "forcing someone to commit or submit to sexual acts by use of violence or threat. The use of an offensive weapon is considered an aggravating circumstance".
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 9:53 pm   Post subject:    

Dear Fly by Night,
I looked with interest at the new scenarios posted on TJMK. I am always very interested in scenarios that could make sense and include all details.

The scenarios presented on TJMK seem have the problem that Meredith's cell phones are guessed to be stolen at around 9:30pm. But this is impossible, since she called her mother at 9:30 pm.

I always imagined that the 10:13 aborted call from Meredith's phone was the result of the phone being bumped or falling. But I was unaware that it is known or proved by "pings" that her cell phone was in the area of the garden where it was eventually found at 10:13, rather than in the area of the cottage. Is that confirmed?
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 pm   Post subject: Nicki?   

Hi Nicki :)

I was just studying some older articles from Corriere della Sera and found one back from October 24, 2008 that was really never translated. Finn mentioned it here:


Quote:
FinnMacCool

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:30 am Post subject:

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

There's a longish piece on Amanda's time in prison in today's Corriere: Tattoos, Jovanotti and a nightmare: Amanda says I'll get out and become an interpreter.


Here's the original link: CORRIERE DELLA SERA 10/24/08

The Google translation is really confusing and I was particularly interested in the 3rd paragraph where Knox says something about how she "hopes she doesn't get 20 years but 1 year would be ok". When you get a few moments, could you please clarify this? This article has some interesting information - do you think it's reliable?

Thanks so much!
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 20, 2009 11:31 pm   Post subject: Knife DNA   

nicki wrote:
DLW wrote:
Brian wrote:

‘This was first mooted back last September when it became apparent that the window entry theory had such problems.
Since it is a lost cause that Rudy came through the window then somebody must have let him in.
But the possible defense theory that Meredith let him in and they then had consensual sex also has a great big problem.
If Meredith had arranged the meeting with Rudy, why would he need to kill her??’

Brian I’m not exactly sure what Torre is trying to say or why. Is he trying to make some distinction between sexual violence, sexual assault, and rape. I don’t know if he is saying the sex was consensual , or that the victim under threat of a knife cooperated but the sex wasn’t violent, or that there wasn’t any sex? I guess Torre can imply one thing and her attorney’s can say another. Raffaele’s Dad has already spent mucho dollars trying to prove that Rudy broke into the flat (using the window) and then assaulted and killed Meredith. All that money would go up in smoke. If the sex was consensual, then Rudy would hardly need to beak into the flat. Although the conjecture that anything resembling consensual by Meredith is appalling. I wonder if Torre is just trying to lay some groundwork, in the advent that Amanda is found guilty of some of the charges. That there’s no evidence to suggest that anyone (certainly not Amanda), was involved in a sexual assault? Rudy would probably agree with this approach..

Nicki wrote:

‘Hi Michael, yes I think they using the "187 examinations", "500 fold amplification" to stress that the quantity of Meredith 's DNA on the knife was very scarce-which is true by the way. But they're making an unclear claim as to the validity of the test, "unorthodx" doesn't say much. Perhaps the journo didn't get it right, it happens all the time.’ ‘

I appreciate all the info. It looks like they are saying that the DNA test is not proper for court conviction purposes and should be denied. In addition even if the procedure is accepted by the courts that the results don’t meet minimal standards set by the court. I’m just wondering if they are also saying that if the court accepts this evidence, then they are going into uncharted territory as to what is acceptable, and what isn’t. And could be setting some kind of precedent for future court cases, and will certainly be appealed? I think the coming testimony will certainly clarify some of these issues. OT) I assume that in nature (not lab induced) that DNA replication is essentially flawless and error free.


Hi DLW,
OT: DNA replication occurs error free in nature-when it fails, different types of disease may occur (cancer is an example).
In the lab, we try to " photocopy" the original DNA by "amplification". Obviously, if a contaminant is present in the sample, that will be amplified as well.That is basically what defense is claiming. If forensic scientists have used an experimental protocol that uses 500 cycles of amplification I'm very curious to learn how the technique works, since it is known that after the plateau is reached (max 60 cycles in some cases), there's no point to continue.

About the sexual violence issue, Torre was very clear: "no evidence of sexual violence". Perhaps Torre is making a difference between attack, violence and rape, but the Italian Penal code doesn't (art 609 bis CP, definition of sexual violence): "forcing someone to commit or submit to sexual acts by use of violence or threat. The use of an offensive weapon is considered an aggravating circumstance".



Hi Nicki. However, it's not possible for some random contaminant to result in a reading for meredith's DNA, any contaminant to present such a result has to actually be Meredith's DNA right? And if I'm right on that, Judge Micheli actually went to quite some lengths to rule out the possiblity that the knife could have been contaminated accidentally with Meredith's DNA. Therefore, if that's the route the defence are going, they have to provide some new pheasible reason for any such contamination that they were unable to give in the pre-trial.

_________________
"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 Wed May 20, 2009 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:35 pm   Post subject: Phone Pings   

thoughtful wrote:
Dear Fly by Night,
I looked with interest at the new scenarios posted on TJMK. I am always very interested in scenarios that could make sense and include all details.

The scenarios presented on TJMK seem have the problem that Meredith's cell phones are guessed to be stolen at around 9:30pm. But this is impossible, since she called her mother at 9:30 pm.

I always imagined that the 10:13 aborted call from Meredith's phone was the result of the phone being bumped or falling. But I was unaware that it is known or proved by "pings" that her cell phone was in the area of the garden where it was eventually found at 10:13, rather than in the area of the cottage. Is that confirmed?



Thoughtful, this was all discussed long ago. That reading was deeemed meaningless, because in actual fact, when Raffaele called the police from the cottage (finally), that was also registered as have coming from the area of the garden rather then the cottage. It meant that the phone company had to go back and refine their data.

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:40 pm   Post subject: Re: Knife DNA   

Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
DLW wrote:
Brian wrote:

‘This was first mooted back last September when it became apparent that the window entry theory had such problems.
Since it is a lost cause that Rudy came through the window then somebody must have let him in.
But the possible defense theory that Meredith let him in and they then had consensual sex also has a great big problem.
If Meredith had arranged the meeting with Rudy, why would he need to kill her??’

Brian I’m not exactly sure what Torre is trying to say or why. Is he trying to make some distinction between sexual violence, sexual assault, and rape. I don’t know if he is saying the sex was consensual , or that the victim under threat of a knife cooperated but the sex wasn’t violent, or that there wasn’t any sex? I guess Torre can imply one thing and her attorney’s can say another. Raffaele’s Dad has already spent mucho dollars trying to prove that Rudy broke into the flat (using the window) and then assaulted and killed Meredith. All that money would go up in smoke. If the sex was consensual, then Rudy would hardly need to beak into the flat. Although the conjecture that anything resembling consensual by Meredith is appalling. I wonder if Torre is just trying to lay some groundwork, in the advent that Amanda is found guilty of some of the charges. That there’s no evidence to suggest that anyone (certainly not Amanda), was involved in a sexual assault? Rudy would probably agree with this approach..

Nicki wrote:

‘Hi Michael, yes I think they using the "187 examinations", "500 fold amplification" to stress that the quantity of Meredith 's DNA on the knife was very scarce-which is true by the way. But they're making an unclear claim as to the validity of the test, "unorthodx" doesn't say much. Perhaps the journo didn't get it right, it happens all the time.’ ‘

I appreciate all the info. It looks like they are saying that the DNA test is not proper for court conviction purposes and should be denied. In addition even if the procedure is accepted by the courts that the results don’t meet minimal standards set by the court. I’m just wondering if they are also saying that if the court accepts this evidence, then they are going into uncharted territory as to what is acceptable, and what isn’t. And could be setting some kind of precedent for future court cases, and will certainly be appealed? I think the coming testimony will certainly clarify some of these issues. OT) I assume that in nature (not lab induced) that DNA replication is essentially flawless and error free.


Hi DLW,
OT: DNA replication occurs error free in nature-when it fails, different types of disease may occur (cancer is an example).
In the lab, we try to " photocopy" the original DNA by "amplification". Obviously, if a contaminant is present in the sample, that will be amplified as well.That is basically what defense is claiming. If forensic scientists have used an experimental protocol that uses 500 cycles of amplification I'm very curious to learn how the technique works, since it is known that after the plateau is reached (max 60 cycles in some cases), there's no point to continue.

About the sexual violence issue, Torre was very clear: "no evidence of sexual violence". Perhaps Torre is making a difference between attack, violence and rape, but the Italian Penal code doesn't (art 609 bis CP, definition of sexual violence): "forcing someone to commit or submit to sexual acts by use of violence or threat. The use of an offensive weapon is considered an aggravating circumstance".



Hi Nicki. However, it's not possible for some random contaminant to result in a reading for meredith's DNA, any contaminant to present such a result has to actually be Meredith's DNA right? And if I'm right on that, Judge Micheli actually went to quote some lengths to rule out the possiblity that the knife could have been contaminated accidentally with Meredith's DNA. Therefore, if that's the route the defence are going, they have to provide some new pheasible reason for any such contamination that they were unable to give in the pre-trial.


Yes Michael, of course "random" contamination would not yield Meredith's DNA. The only chance is the sample havin benn contaminated with her biological material.But one thing is speculation, another one is to prove that such contamination has happened for real.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 12:06 am   Post subject: Re: Nicki?   

Tara wrote:
Hi Nicki :)

I was just studying some older articles from Corriere della Sera and found one back from October 24, 2008 that was really never translated. Finn mentioned it here:


Quote:
FinnMacCool

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:30 am Post subject:

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

There's a longish piece on Amanda's time in prison in today's Corriere: Tattoos, Jovanotti and a nightmare: Amanda says I'll get out and become an interpreter.


Here's the original link: CORRIERE DELLA SERA 10/24/08

The Google translation is really confusing and I was particularly interested in the 3rd paragraph where Knox says something about how she "hopes she doesn't get 20 years but 1 year would be ok". When you get a few moments, could you please clarify this? This article has some interesting information - do you think it's reliable?

Thanks so much!

Hi Tara,
The Corriere is quite reliable. This is an essential translation for you of the third paragraph:

She is saying that she hopes the trial won't take twenty years, "if it takes one year OK better than twenty". She keeps fit, has lost weight, is practicing guitar with an instructor, studies Chinese, Italian and German, has become a vegetarian, doesn't war bread nor past, loves parmesan cheese etc. She has received "thousands of letters from admirers", doesn't watch much TV because "they only say bullshit". She is intimidated by the media, and "worried about what to say to the papers when she gets out"-she adds: I won't be able to just say "I'm going home, thanks. She is very worried about what people say: when she is told the American version of the story (the innocentisti wave from Seattle)-she is always asking how friends but also the the public are reacting. When she gets out she think she could be an interpreter for a not for profit organization.

More bits from the rest of the article :
"I want to do the Pacific Crest Trail, with Dj, my American boyfriend. Mom, tell him to tell me he loves me...Life in jail is not easy, one of her jail mates even proposed to her "Once she was down and I hugged her so she asked me if I wanted to do sex,but I ma not a lesbian" With Raffaele Sollecito it's finished because "I don't want to think about him anymore, it was only a two weeks story and now it has been months"
She would like to get two tattoos, and about Rudy she says :" I thought he was going to confess, I was screaming with joy.Rudy is a desperate man, but he's pissing me off". She would like to write a book about her experience and said her father said a publisher has already showed some interest.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 1:53 am   Post subject: KOMO Interview with Curt Knox   

Here's Curt Knox on KOMO4 NEWS with Kathi Goertzen:

KOMO4 with Curt Knox


NICKI!

Thank you for the translation. 8-)
Top Profile 

Offline Anastasia


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:13 pm

Posts: 47

Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 6:27 am   Post subject:    

The comments are actually more interesting than the KOMO article itself, hmmm.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:48 am   Post subject:    

I had a PM from Thoughtfull in connection with my speculation about Meredith's clothes which were found on the floor of her room near to her body. Have you had a look at how they are "layed out" in formation. It doesn't look to me as if they were removed in a struggle which would have moved around the room.

[web]http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/fotogallery/fotogallery3634.shtml?8[/web]

In an attempt to clear up any misunderstanding this is another attempt to explain my thoughts.

It came about because of Mignini's apparent fixation with the washing machine.

I refer in particular to the jeans and knickers.

Rudy's DNA was found on Merediths blue zipped top and the DNA of all three was found on her bra. They are blood soaked, she was obviously wearing them and they don't play a part in my speculation.

Rudy's DNA was also found inside Meredith but it wasn't found on either her jeans or her knickers.

We know that in court there has been speculation about any interaction Meredith may have had with the washing machine on Nov. 1st. Did she put some clothes in it? Did she use it for a wash? etc.

My speculation revolves around the fact that Meredith's English boyfriends jeans and her torn pair of jeans may not be one and the same pair.

That AK and RS were worried that their DNA (along with Rudy's) may have been on the jeans and knickers that she was wearing when she was assaulted and killed.

RS was very keen to point out that Meredith was wearing her ex boyfriends jeans when she went out on Nov 1st. Meredith's friends say she was wearing her torn jeans.

My specualation is that Meredith may have been wearing her boyfriends jeans and the black pair of knickers in the pic above when she went out on Halloween



That she put them in the washing machine along with some other items(maybe the top she wore on Halloween) when she got up on Nov 1st. but didn't do the wash.

She then put on her torn jeans and went out for the meal with her friends.

That she was wearing her torn jeans and not the black pair of knickers when she was later killed.

BUT because of their worry about DNA, RS and AK retrieved her boyfriends jeans and the black pair of knickers from the washing machine and put them on the floor in the room.

They then washed Merediths torn jeans and the knickers she had been wearing (and their own clothes) sometime overnight and put them back on the wardrobe shelf or in her drawers.

Because any evidence from Meredith's room has so far been held in camera, we haven't yet been privy to detailed discussion of what was found there, except the footprints and fingerprints.

I hope I have now explained my speculation clearly.


Edit to add: Thinking back to something Walter Biscotti said last year: "Staged break in, staged rape".

Then of course there was this mysterious post made by someone out of the blue on Perugia Shock referring to Lalli's report:

Quote:
Anonymous said...

Gentile Frank

Le prove scientifiche riguardo al dna sul coltello erano disponibili ai legali difensori prima del riesame del 30 novembre.

Al riesame gli esperti per l’Amanda, i proff. Patumi e Torre non hanno contestato l’identità del dna. Hanno contestato l’equivalenza di sangue e di dna. Questi egregissimi professori hanno detto che le tracce biologiche erano troppo piccole per determinare se il dna della Knox e il dna della Kercher erano posati sul coltello infamo allo stesso momento. E quest’è ovvio.
Ma il match fra il dna sul coltello e il dna della Kercher non è mai messo in dubbio dagli egreg.mi professori. Cos'è cambiata net frattempo? Dna è dna, e si può identificarlo dalle tracce così piccole che resterebbe incerto se vengono dalla sangue, dalla saliva, dalle pelle, dala sperma o dalle eccettere.
Quando dice, caro Frank, che: “But many months elapsed since such an easy statement was made and the proof of it never arrived”, vuol dire che le prove, proveniente dalla Polizia Scientifica di Roma, disponibile ai professori due settimane prima del riesame e non erano vere prove scientifiche? Un’identificazione di dna non può cambiare: ossia vero, ossia falso o contaminato.


Secondo punto:
Dice che “This possibility is not excluded by the signs on Meredith, that are not typical of a sexual violence. There are some minimal bruises on her thighs. Nothing to compare with what 'needed' for a rape. On the little lips there are some abrasions. They are also minimal. They are something inferior to a bruise: there's no mixture of blood and other cells. They are indeed not typical of a rape but they are compatible with a sexual activity started before the girl had the time to lubricate.”

Queste informazioni sono molto più ampie di quelle che sono emerse alla perizia del 19 aprile. Mi pare che uno stupro post-mortem non è di escludere.... Magari, non sono incompatibili con una violenza nei primi ore dopo la morte.
Finto furto, finto stupro!

Coi saluti i più cordiali al nostro Virgilio in questo labirinto scuro e giallo
dal suo amico
Anonimo

September 10, 2008 11:28 AM


Google translation:

Anonymous said ...

Frank Gentile

The scientific evidence about the DNA on the knife were available to legal representatives prior to the review of November 30. 2007

Experts to review for Amanda, the proff. Patumi and Torre did not dispute the identity of the DNA. Questioned the equivalence of blood and DNA. These egregissimi professors have said that the biological traces were too small to determine whether the DNA of Knox and Kercher had the dna on the knife laid infamous at the same time. And That obvious.
But the match between the DNA on the knife and the dna of Kercher is never called into question by egreg.mi professors. What changed net meantime? DNA is DNA, and one can identify the tracks so small that remain uncertain if they are by blood, the saliva from the skin, semen or dala exception.
When you say, dear Frank, that: "But many months elapsed since such an easy statement was made and the proof of it never arrived", it means that the evidence derived from the Scientific Police in Rome, available to teachers two weeks prior to the review and were not real scientific evidence? Identification of DNA can not change: that is true, or false or contaminated.


Second point:
He says that "This possibility is not excluded by the signs on Meredith, that are not typical of a sexual violence. There are some minimal bruises on her thighs. Nothing to compare with what 'needed' for a rape. On the little lips there are some abrasions. They are also minimal. They are something inferior to a Bruise: there's no mixture of blood and other cells. They are indeed not typical of a rape but they are compatible with a sexual activity started before the girl had the time to lubricate. "

This information is much more extensive than those that have emerged in the report of April 19. I think that a rape post-mortem is not to rule out .... Perhaps, are not incompatible with violence in the first hours after death.
Fake robbery, rape fake!


With the most cordial greetings to our Virgil in this maze of dark and yellow
his friend
Anonymous

September 10, 2008 11:28 AM






PS And I hate to add it but, Rudy's DNA was also found inside Meredith but it wasn't found on either her jeans or her knickers. This will play into any defense claims of consensual sex IF the torn jeans and Meredith's ex boyfriends jeans, contrary to my argument above, are one and the same pair. But what did Lalli say about the bruising on Meredith at the trial? Did he have an opinion on whether some of it was caused after her death??


PPS If Walter Biscotti is aware that the prosecution can and will prove a staged rape scene.(including the jeans??) and that the defenses will attempt to prove consensual sex(Meredith let Rudy in) then it was eminently obvious not to let Rudy give evidence at this trial before the fact but wait for these arguments to be had and use them at his appeal.


Last edited by Brian S. on Thu May 21, 2009 11:34 am, edited 15 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:05 am   Post subject:    

Excuse me, Michael. You sound I my post is tiringly discussing old ideas that all you veterans have known for months. But I beg to disagree. I am discussing Fiori's new scenarios for the crime which were posted on TJMK on May 20 and linked to on our board just yesterday. I made a relevant remark about those scenarios conflicting with Meredith's phone call to her mother. My last observation questioned Fiori's statement about the ping, but this was just a question of a detail which did not have any bearing on the gist of my post. So why respond only to that?

Hi Didi!
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:07 am   Post subject:    

from the comment section:
Quote:
The front page teaser says "Amanda is going to show the court "what really happened.""

So she's going to stab someone in the courtroom?


And here's Curt, using his favorite word again: "fact", even though he doesn't fully understand the meaning of it...
Quote:
"What we will find is, when the defense gets up there... they will show that it in fact it actually is Rudy, in that footprint," Curt said, referring to Rudi Guede, who has already been convicted of taking part in the murder.

Boy, Curt's able to predict the future! We all will change our minds completely once his (spin) doctors take the stand, we just don't know it yet! They will show us that thinking for ourselves costs way too much energy, which eventually heightens our CO2 emissions. They'll convince us, that if we won't stop it now all dutch will drown. And so we'll stop. And we're gonna love it!

Seriously, i can only imagine how painful Curts words must be for the Kerchers!
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 12:02 pm   Post subject:    

Frank alert. On the Knife,
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 12:46 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
We know why they thought Amanda and Raffaele were accusing each other or were not remembering about that night. We know why they had no phone traffic. We know why the washing machine was full. We know why there's only one Amanda's fingerprint in the house. We know why the sweatshirt disappeared. We know why Amanda knew about the position of the body. We know who cleaned Raffaele's house. We know why he needed to take his shirt to the laundry. We know who gave the alarm. We know why the witnesses lied. We know everything.
...
In other words --with the data known as far-- the logic tells us that the DNA test on the blade must be wrong and Raffaele's DNA on the bra, if there is, is inconclusive and unusable. Should we still see it in detail?

:lol: I absolutely love Franks sense for Irony!
Top Profile 

Offline Miss_R


Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:44 am

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 1:42 pm   Post subject:    

I especially liked the way Frank suggests in his latest post that the knife is probably not the murder weapon because nobody saw Amanda or Raffaele carrying it through town. He has to be joking, unless of course he hasn't heard of a handbag.

Frank:

Quote:
Then Amanda and Raffaele should have walked through via Garibaldi --swarming with people at 9 pm-- holding a huge knife, with no one having seen it (actually I should remember that nobody has seen not even them walking or driving).
So that knife being The Knife is very improbable. But still possible.


Probably just him being [s]stupid[/s] ironic ;)
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 21, 2009 1:52 pm   Post subject: Knife   

Miss_R wrote:
I especially liked the way Frank suggests in his latest post that the knife is probably not the murder weapon because nobody saw Amanda or Raffaele carrying it through town. He has to be joking, unless of course he hasn't heard of a handbag.

Frank:

Quote:
Then Amanda and Raffaele should have walked through via Garibaldi --swarming with people at 9 pm-- holding a huge knife, with no one having seen it (actually I should remember that nobody has seen not even them walking or driving).
So that knife being The Knife is very improbable. But still possible.


Probably just him being [s]stupid[/s] ironic ;)



Hi Miss R :) He also fails to mention nobody saw anybody 'else' carrying a knife through town either...which must mean Meredith wasn't murdered with a knife.

You've just murdered someone...as if you're going to go wondering about town with bloody knife in hand anyway. There's many ways to conceal a knife, in a handbag as you mention, or even just inside a rolled up newspaper or magazine....or even in a folded jumper or other item of clothing. It doesn't requre genius.

Frank's logic sometimes is totally off with the fairies

_________________
"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 21, 2009 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 21, 2009 1:56 pm   Post subject: Phone Pings   

thoughtful wrote:
Excuse me, Michael. You sound I my post is tiringly discussing old ideas that all you veterans have known for months. But I beg to disagree. I am discussing Fiori's new scenarios for the crime which were posted on TJMK on May 20 and linked to on our board just yesterday. I made a relevant remark about those scenarios conflicting with Meredith's phone call to her mother. My last observation questioned Fiori's statement about the ping, but this was just a question of a detail which did not have any bearing on the gist of my post. So why respond only to that?

Hi Didi!



Hello Thoughful. The intent of my post was not to suggest that you were being tiresome. Rather, it was simply to point out the fact that the phone pings has been established to have been incorrect data in that particular case.

_________________
"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 21, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject:    

Michael wrote:

Quote:
Miss_R wrote:
I especially liked the way Frank suggests in his latest post that the knife is probably not the murder weapon because nobody saw Amanda or Raffaele carrying it through town. He has to be joking, unless of course he hasn't heard of a handbag.

Frank:

Quote:
Then Amanda and Raffaele should have walked through via Garibaldi --swarming with people at 9 pm-- holding a huge knife, with no one having seen it (actually I should remember that nobody has seen not even them walking or driving).
So that knife being The Knife is very improbable. But still possible.


Probably just him being stupid ironic



Hi Miss R He also fails to mention nobody saw anybody 'else' carrying a knife through town either...which must mean Meredith was murdered with a knife.

You've just murdered someone...as if you're going to go wondering about town with bloody knife in hand anyway. There's many ways to conceal a knife, in a handbag as you mention, or even just inside a rolled up newspaper or magazine....or even in a folded jumper or other item of clothing. It doesn't requre genius.

Frank's logic sometimes is totally off with the fairies.


I wonder if this would even have been true on November 1, a holiday that many Italians spend with family. After all, Knox was told not to come in to work that night because there were so few customers. It probably is true that whoever killed Meredith with a knife did not walk through town brandishing it beforehand. I think Frank has seen Nightmare on Elm Street one too many times.

_________________
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 21, 2009 2:04 pm   Post subject:    

Petafly wrote:

Quote:
from the comment section:
Quote:
The front page teaser says "Amanda is going to show the court "what really happened.""

So she's going to stab someone in the courtroom?


And here's Curt, using his favorite word again: "fact", even though he doesn't fully understand the meaning of it...
Quote:
"What we will find is, when the defense gets up there... they will show that it in fact it actually is Rudy, in that footprint," Curt said, referring to Rudi Guede, who has already been convicted of taking part in the murder.

Boy, Curt's able to predict the future! We all will change our minds completely once his (spin) doctors take the stand, we just don't know it yet! They will show us that thinking for ourselves costs way too much energy, which eventually heightens our CO2 emissions. They'll convince us, that if we won't stop it now all dutch will drown. And so we'll stop. And we're gonna love it!

Seriously, i can only imagine how painful Curts words must be for the Kerchers!


The main reason I don't watch television is that television news is so bad. Spin trumps substance completely in that medium; the only reason to watch television news is to know how any particular event is currently being spun.

_________________
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 21, 2009 2:19 pm   Post subject:    

Brian wrote:

Quote:
PS And I hate to add it but, Rudy's DNA was also found inside Meredith but it wasn't found on either her jeans or her knickers. This will play into any defense claims of consensual sex IF the torn jeans and Meredith's ex boyfriends jeans, contrary to my argument above, are one and the same pair. But what did Lalli say about the bruising on Meredith at the trial? Did he have an opinion on whether some of it was caused after her death??

PPS If Walter Biscotti is aware that the prosecution can and will prove a staged rape scene.(including the jeans??) and that the defenses will attempt to prove consensual sex(Meredith let Rudy in) then it was eminently obvious not to let Rudy give evidence at this trial before the fact but wait for these arguments to be had and use them at his appeal.


Brian, thanks for taking the time to lay all of that out so clearly. The configuration of the victim's clothing is quite significant, as is that fact that apparently nothing was torn unless you count the bra clasp, which looks to have been cut rather than torn off. Raffaele's DNA in that particular spot is quite significant in this regard.

Would Rudy have been a participant in the staging of the rape as well?

Early on, a rape expert was interviewed on one of those "Porta Potty" programs, and she noted that in an increasingly high percentage of sexual assault cases the signs of rape are minimal to non-existent. The real problem is that the method for establishing whether or not a victim has been raped is outmoded and can lead to incorrect interpretations. In other words, Lalli was just interpreting the results based on standard procedure, which may be in need of adjustment. A woman who is petrified may "consent" to being violated, but only if the meaning of the word "consent" is twisted out of shape. Insufficient lubrication and the micro bruises it can cause corroborates a sexual assault hypothesis.

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 2:32 pm   Post subject:    

Skep wrote:
Would Rudy have been a participant in the staging of the rape as well?

Early on, a rape expert was interviewed on one of those "Porta Potty" programs, and she noted that in an increasingly high percentage of sexual assault cases the signs of rape are minimal to non-existent. The real problem is that the method for establishing whether or not a victim has been raped is outmoded and can lead to incorrect interpretations. In other words, Lalli was just interpreting the results based on standard procedure, which may be in need of adjustment. A woman who is petrified may "consent" to being violated, but only if the meaning of the word "consent" is twisted out of shape. Insufficient lubrication and the micro bruises it can cause corroborates a sexual assault hypothesis.



No, I wasn't making Rudy a part of the rape staging. I believe that is firmly down to AK and RS.

What I was suggesting was that if they replaced the jeans and knickers Meredith was wearing when she was assaulted and killed to get rid of their own DNA, they would have also gotten rid of that belonging to Rudy. BUT that didn't matter in their eyes, his DNA was also in many other places.

With regard to Rudy's appeal, I was suggesting that if this trial proved:

1} The rape was staged.
2} Sex was possibly consensual.

These factors could be used to his advantage.


Last edited by Brian S. on Thu May 21, 2009 2:39 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 21, 2009 2:38 pm   Post subject:    

OT, from the Seattle PI. In this morning's online edition of the PI, there is a nice profile of Heather Brooke, the journalist who did the digging that resulted in this week's political scandal in Britain. Excerpts below:

Quote:
Her groundbreaking request for expense-account information from members of Parliament five years ago helped set the stage for Tuesday's resignation of the speaker of the House of Commons, an event not previously witnessed for 300 years. Two British reporters deserve credit as well for the effort to free the records, and others in British journalism contributed, but as The Independent in London put it this week: "There are no words to express the gratitude due Heather Brooke for the long campaign that made it possible."

British parliamentarians, who abused expense accounts to garner massive profits on homes, among other things, could now face criminal prosecution.


About Heather Brooke:

Quote:
Though she is fast becoming a household word in England for her fight to pry loose expense-account documents from secretive politicians, Brooke said she learned her prying methods in Washington state. She credits a city editor in Spokane, a professor at the University of Washington, her colleagues and friends at The Daily and an investigative-reporting attitude throughout this state where, for the most part, she grew up.


More about Brooke's background:

Quote:
Brooke graduated from Federal Way High School and then the UW's communications school in 1993. She worked briefly as a reporter for The Spokesman Review, toiled as a police reporter in South Carolina for a few years, and then moved to England where, because her divorced parents had remained British citizens, she has dual U.S. and United Kingdom citizenship. She was born in Pennsylvania, but lived most of her childhood in Washington, excepting a brief period as an early teen in England.


Federal Way High School is in Federal Way, a community south of Seattle.

The University of Washington has a fairly well-regarded communications school. I believe David Marriott, whose firm is running the Knox PR campaign, is is a graduate.

Note that Brooke worked for the Spokesman Review in Spokane, Washington, which is where Candace Dempsey has said she was a police beat reporter. Candace must have worked there in the 1970's, however. It is hard to say, however, as this information is not on her linked-in CV.

Brooke did time as a police reporter in South Carolina.

Her divorced parents are British nationals. Her father had returned to England the divorce, and Brooke moved there after her mother died.

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

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 2:56 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S wrote:

Quote:
BUT because of their worry about DNA, RS and AK retrieved her boyfriends jeans and the black pair of knickers from the washing machine and put them on the floor in the room.

They then washed Merediths torn jeans and the knickers she had been wearing (and their own clothes) sometime overnight and put them back on the wardrobe shelf or in her drawers.



Hi Brian. I understand what you are saying, but I have a question. Didn't the cottage have only a washing machine and no dryer? Jeans would take a long time to air-dry. In my house, jeans are still somewhat damp even after a cycle in the dryer. Would this change your scenario at all?
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 3:22 pm   Post subject:    

Jodyodyo wrote:
Hi Brian. I understand what you are saying, but I have a question. Didn't the cottage have only a washing machine and no dryer? Jeans would take a long time to air-dry. In my house, jeans are still somewhat damp even after a cycle in the dryer. Would this change your scenario at all?


You have to remember that they likely had blood on their own clothes. Why not wash and dry those along with Meredith's jeans and knickers at Raf's or even the local launderette. Amanda just returned Meredith's in the morning.
Top Profile 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 3:25 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S wrote:

Quote:
You have to remember that they likely had blood on their own clothes. Why not wash and dry those along with Meredith's jeans and knickers at Raf's or even the local launderette. Amanda just returned Meredith's in the morning.



Ah, RIGHT! Now I remember. Also RS or AK made some remark about carrying a bag for laundry in one of their statements to police didn't they?
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 3:30 pm   Post subject: Gente article   

Scanning the blogs this morning I see that Funnycat has added something to her translation of the GENTE article she proudly announced yesterday:

From the IW's table:

Quote:
Posted by funnycat at 5/20/09 11:38 p.m.

The English translation of the Gente is missing the second author's full name. The authors are Allesandra Gavazzi and Stefano Nazzi.


Of course, our own Nicki had bought the tabloid rag, (or to use one of Goofy's favorite terms, "tabroid") and translated the article already a couple of days ago.

Interesting to note that on Stefano Nazzi's Facebook "friends" page, 3 names are quite familiar; Edda Mellas, Sam W. Klein and Madison Paxton.

Not surprising. :shock:
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: KOMO Interview with Curt Knox   

Tara wrote:
Here's Curt Knox on KOMO4 NEWS with Kathi Goertzen:

KOMO4 with Curt Knox


BREAKING NEWS - EXCLUSIVE REPORT: "What's going to happen is when the defense gets their opportunity to present we're going to find that 'oh, it's a completely different story now,' and I look forward to that day," Amanda's father, Curt Knox, said in an exclusive interview with KOMO.

Excuse me, but isn't this exactly how a trial is supposed to work? Apparently Curt is a little slow on the uptake.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: KOMO Interview with Curt Knox   

Tara wrote:
Here's Curt Knox on KOMO4 NEWS with Kathi Goertzen...


Curt said Amanda will make her statement in Italian so nothing can be taken out of context in the translation. She's expected to be on the witness stand for hours.

"It's a scary circumstance. She's dealing with the possibility of a life sentence as a 21 year old," Curt said. She will do good. She will do well."

Knox will take the stand either June 6 or June 12, but Italian court shuts down for two months after that, so we likely won't know the outcome of the trial until October.


I can't help but see putting Knox on the stand as taking a HUGE risk. Perhaps the defense sees it as a necessary risk. Knox has regularly demonstrated a knack for incriminating herself, which doesn't make her guilty - but it surely doesn't help matters.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 3:45 pm   Post subject:    

Tara wrote:

Quote:
Interesting to note that on Stefano Nazzi's Facebook "friends" page, 3 names are quite familiar; Edda Mellas, Sam W. Klein and Madison Paxton.

Not surprising.


Yes. Take a good look at Nazzi's facebook photo. If you look at Candace Dempsey's photo taken last September in Perugia, showing Nick Pisa and Richard Owen (I think) in the reporter's room, you will see that she identifies the third person (sitting over Pisa's shoulder and away from the table), as "Frank Sfarzo". I think that person is in fact Stefano Nazzi. "Frank" doesn't have a modified buzz cut.

_________________
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: Thu May 21, 2009 4:06 pm   Post subject: Stefano Nazzi   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Tara wrote:

Quote:
Interesting to note that on Stefano Nazzi's Facebook "friends" page, 3 names are quite familiar; Edda Mellas, Sam W. Klein and Madison Paxton.

Not surprising.


Yes. Take a good look at Nazzi's facebook photo. If you look at Candace Dempsey's photo taken last September in Perugia, showing Nick Pisa and Richard Owen (I think) in the reporter's room, you will see that she identifies the third person (sitting over Pisa's shoulder and away from the table), as "Frank Sfarzo". I think that person is in fact Stefano Nazzi. "Frank" doesn't have a modified buzz cut.



Very Interesting Skep! The man in the khaki suit really doesn't look like that other picture of Frank that Candace has posted. Also, in the very biased documentary that Funnycat et al just raved about, "Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher", the driver who drove the journalist around Perugia looks VERY similar to Stefano Nazzi's Facebook picture. Almost as if that exact picture was captured from the film.

This documentary can be seen on YouTube in several parts.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 4:16 pm   Post subject: Scenarios   

thoughtful wrote:
Dear Fly by Night,
I looked with interest at the new scenarios posted on TJMK. I am always very interested in scenarios that could make sense and include all details.

The scenarios presented on TJMK seem have the problem that Meredith's cell phones are guessed to be stolen at around 9:30pm. But this is impossible, since she called her mother at 9:30 pm.

I always imagined that the 10:13 aborted call from Meredith's phone was the result of the phone being bumped or falling. But I was unaware that it is known or proved by "pings" that her cell phone was in the area of the garden where it was eventually found at 10:13, rather than in the area of the cottage. Is that confirmed?


I think Michael has already answered the one question you asked, but regarding scenario proposals in general - in the absence of absolute evidence scenarios serve as brainstorming sessions that help us to think "out of the box." In cases like this one there are likely to be problems with any given scenario, but this is not so important.

The prosecution and defense of any trial usually work very hard to make us think about things in a certain way in their effort to cross the "reasonable doubt" threshold. This means that sometimes key evidence and other extenuating factors are downplayed or overlooked and left wanting an explanation - which is why proposing scenarios serves as a valuable means of getting at the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 4:32 pm   Post subject:    

Brian wrote:
With regard to Rudy's appeal, I was suggesting that if this trial proved:

1} The rape was staged.
2} Sex was possibly consensual.

These factors could be used to his advantage.


There is a 3rd obvious point which I still believe is the key factor in the position Rudy has taken:

3} If Knox and Sollecito are found guilty

Rudy and Biscuits don't seem to have any doubt that those 2 will be found guilty!
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:27 pm   Post subject:    

Seattle PI article --

Knox ready to take the stand

For four months inside a courtroom in Perugia, Italy, prosecutors have painted Amanda Knox as a killer who took part in a 2007 drug-induced sex crime that ended with the murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher.

Now, lawyers for Knox and her former boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito, will present their defense together.

"What's going to happen is when the defense gets their opportunity to present we're going to find that 'oh, it's a completely different story now,' and I look forward to that day," Knox's father, Curt Knox, said in an exclusive interview with KOMO.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Haloscan   

A bit off topic:

Ever since FBN etc. brought up the old Haloscan threads, when insomnia hits, sometimes thats where you'll find me! To see all who have participated over the past (and the new people who sign up daily!) since November 2007, makes one realize just how important this case is to SO many people.

I just wanted to give a shout out to some people whose thoughtful posts I've come across that I haven't seen in awhile; Bluetit, ddude, mylady007, JW, Traduco, bpcl! I hope you're all doing great and I'm certain you're out there somewhere.

I'm sure I'll come across more as I keep reading!
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:42 pm   Post subject:    

A bit more off topic:

You gotta love these sentencing reports. I think they should happen everywhere.

Quote:
Silvio Berlusconi bribed British lawyer, say Italian judges

• Court spells out source of payment to David Mills


The judges were giving the reasoning behind their decision in February to sentence Mills, husband of the British Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, to four and half years in jail for taking a bribe....But since Berlusconi furnished himself with immunity from prosecution after returning to power last year, the court was unable to reach any conclusion with respect to him.

Today's judgment made explicit what was only implicit three months ago: that the money for Mills came from Italy's billionaire prime minister....


The Guardian


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:46 pm   Post subject:    

Brian wrote:

Quote:
A bit more off topic:

You gotta love these sentencing reports. I think they should happen everywhere.

Quote:
Silvio Berlusconi bribed British lawyer, say Italian judges

• Court spells out source of payment to David Mills

The judges were giving the reasoning behind their decision in February to sentence Mills, husband of the British Olympics minister, Tessa Jowell, to four and half years in jail for taking a bribe....But since Berlusconi furnished himself with immunity from prosecution after returning to power last year, the court was unable to reach any conclusion with respect to him.

Today's judgment made explicit what was only implicit three months ago: that the money for Mills came from Italy's billionaire prime minister....


And now for something even more off-topic: I heard on the radio this morning that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has 97,000 Facebook friends. That may sound impressive, but the journalist went on to say that Italy's PM has even more than that. He probably had to bribe them to be his friend. :lol:

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 6:13 pm   Post subject:    

Quote:
Will once the forensic experts, four of tomorrow and Saturday, to sit in the Court of Assizes of Perugia for the resumption of the process whereby the accused American student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Pugliese, Raffaele urge, for the murder of Meredith Kercher. For the same crime and 'already been' sentenced to 30 years with the abbreviated rite Ivorian Rudy Hermann Guede. With the testimony of four experts to the conclusion you start the long list of texts, about 90, called to report in the classroom by prosecutors Manuela Comfortable and Giuliano Mignini. Then touch 'to the civil parties. To be heard will be the family of the victim and the accused, Amanda Knox. Important sara 'domani deposition of biologist Patrizia Stefanoni, official investigations of the genetics section of the Police forensic science, anti-central management of the Department of Public Safety. She will be 'devoted the entire hearing and will be' asked to report on the technical findings, mode 'operation performed repertoire, the results obtained. But the expert will 'also asked to report on any possibility' of a contamination of the finds, the more 'supported by the argument times, particularly with respect to the hook of the bra of the victim, which were found traces of DNA of call, and seized the knife in the student's home pugliese, considered the accusation of the murder weapon and on which, in the laboratories of science, were found genetic traces of Amanda and Meredith.
For Saturday and 'planned testimony to the technical director of the main physical investigations of forensic ballistics, Francesco Camana, which will be' heard on investigations carried out on the trail is blood. Experts Codisposti and Giuseppe Piero Sbardella, respectively director and assistant head of the 'for the analysis of Violent Crime of Science report, however, with regard to the second survey conducted in the house of the crime and the fingerprints found on the pillow.



Google translation of this story at AGI


Something tells me that Amanda ain't gonna testify in the criminal part of the trial.

She's gonna speak in the civil part?

Avoiding cross examination??

Can anyone shed any light on this????
Top Profile 

Offline mojo


Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:31 pm

Posts: 225

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:32 pm   Post subject:    

i can't shed any light, but i do think they'd be fools to let her testify if cross-examination is on the table. same for sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:09 pm   Post subject: Knox testifying   

I have a question for our bi-lingual members. I'm surprised that Amanda Knox will be testifying in Italian. Could this create more confusion?

If you were accused of murder with so much controversy, wouldn't it be best to tell your story in the language you know best? After studying Italian in prison for the past 18 months, would she be considered fluent?

I don't get it.

Or, will she be reading from a prepared script by her lawyers?
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:30 pm   Post subject: Re: Knox testifying   

Tara wrote:
I have a question for our bi-lingual members. I'm surprised that Amanda Knox will be testifying in Italian. Could this create more confusion?

If you were accused of murder with so much controversy, wouldn't it be best to tell your story in the language you know best? After studying Italian in prison for the past 18 months, would she be considered fluent?

I don't get it.

Or, will she be reading from a prepared script by her lawyers?

Mistranslation of Amanda during the interrogations is still part of the defense. Incompetence! They want to make that statement with this way of testimony.

Oh wait, to claim that the italian police, the italian forensic experts, the whole prosecution and the judges (several!) are all incompetent is not part of the defense, it's their only defense strategy! Oh boy... :roll:


Last edited by petafly on Thu May 21, 2009 8:48 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject:    

From the Seattle PI story:

Quote:
Curt said Amanda will make her statement in Italian so nothing can be taken out of context in the translation. She's expected to be on the witness stand for hours.


I've read up on the rules about witnesses in criminal trials. They aren't allowed to make statements or tell stories on the witness stand. The instructions are that they should respond to questions put to them by the defense and prosecution, giving as best they can a clear answer without elaborating.

ISTM that since Amanda is gonna make a statement she is appearing as part of the civil proceedings. Likely the only person who can ask her questions will be Maresca.

Quote:
Amanda Knox will take the stand either June 6 or June 12, but Italian courts shut down for two months after that




I'd welcome Yummi's insight on the subject of Amanda's statement.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:11 pm   Post subject:    

Brian S. wrote:
Quote:
Will once the forensic experts, four of tomorrow and Saturday, to sit in the Court of Assizes of Perugia for the resumption of the process whereby the accused American student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Pugliese, Raffaele urge, for the murder of Meredith Kercher. For the same crime and 'already been' sentenced to 30 years with the abbreviated rite Ivorian Rudy Hermann Guede. With the testimony of four experts to the conclusion you start the long list of texts, about 90, called to report in the classroom by prosecutors Manuela Comfortable and Giuliano Mignini. Then touch 'to the civil parties. To be heard will be the family of the victim and the accused, Amanda Knox. Important sara 'domani deposition of biologist Patrizia Stefanoni, official investigations of the genetics section of the Police forensic science, anti-central management of the Department of Public Safety. She will be 'devoted the entire hearing and will be' asked to report on the technical findings, mode 'operation performed repertoire, the results obtained. But the expert will 'also asked to report on any possibility' of a contamination of the finds, the more 'supported by the argument times, particularly with respect to the hook of the bra of the victim, which were found traces of DNA of call, and seized the knife in the student's home pugliese, considered the accusation of the murder weapon and on which, in the laboratories of science, were found genetic traces of Amanda and Meredith.
For Saturday and 'planned testimony to the technical director of the main physical investigations of forensic ballistics, Francesco Camana, which will be' heard on investigations carried out on the trail is blood. Experts Codisposti and Giuseppe Piero Sbardella, respectively director and assistant head of the 'for the analysis of Violent Crime of Science report, however, with regard to the second survey conducted in the house of the crime and the fingerprints found on the pillow.



Google translation of this story at AGI


Something tells me that Amanda ain't gonna testify in the criminal part of the trial.

She's gonna speak in the civil part?

Avoiding cross examination??

Can anyone shed any light on this????


Well what they say here is "after these four, the long list of prosecution witnesses is near the end, next it will be the turn of the civil part. The relatives of the victim and the defendant Amanda Knox will also be heard" I'm not sure it means she is not going to be cross examined though, we would need to have an Italian lawyer opinion. I 'll ask some of my attorney-friends, unless someone here is able to provide an answer...
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:21 pm   Post subject: Re: Knox testifying   

petafly wrote:
Tara wrote:
I have a question for our bi-lingual members. I'm surprised that Amanda Knox will be testifying in Italian. Could this create more confusion?

If you were accused of murder with so much controversy, wouldn't it be best to tell your story in the language you know best? After studying Italian in prison for the past 18 months, would she be considered fluent?

I don't get it.

Or, will she be reading from a prepared script by her lawyers?

Mistranslation of Amanda during the interrogations is still part of the defense. Incompetence! They want to make that statement with this way of testimony.

Oh wait, to claim that the italian police, the italian forensic experts, the whole prosecution and the judges (several!) are all incompetent is not part of the defense, it's their only defense strategy! Oh boy... :roll:


Hi Petafly,
I think there is a psychological motive here which Knox's Italian lawyers are going to use-and I was wondering why they hadn't yet done so. Can you imagine the impact on the jury of a cute sweeet college girl etc etc struggling with Italian and trying to express herself in the language oh she dearly love, with the cutest of the accents? Italians are very sensitive to people trying to learn the language -it's hardly spoken anywhere else but in Italy -and they go crazy for American /Anglo accents. A much greater impact on the jurors than the emotionless professional interpreter's voice. I would bet she will shed some tears too...ahi ahi ahi.
Top Profile 

Offline Bluetit


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:01 am

Posts: 39

Location: France

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:48 pm   Post subject: Echoes from the Middle East ?   

OT

Read about the outcome of another murder trial on today's Timesonline. The victim, Suzanne Tamim, was most unlike Meredith, but there are echoes ...

"... There [in Dubai] Sukkari staked out her apartment and after buying a knife, he tricked his way into the flat claiming to work for the owner of the property.
Ms Tamim was discovered hours later, dead, with her throat slashed and multiple stab wounds over her body.
Dubai policed solved the murder when they found Sukkari’s footprint at the scene and traced it back to him through the shop where he bought the shoes. ...
... Evidence for the prosecution included recordings of conversations between the two conspirators, taped by Sukkari. ...
... Also submitted was CCTV footage of Sukkari entering and leaving the Dubai apartment on the morning of the murder".



Hello, all, and thanks for everything.


Bluetit (hoping for truth and justice)
RIP Meredith
Top Profile 

Offline Fly by Night


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 1:09 pm

Posts: 1014

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: Knox testifying   

nicki wrote:
I think there is a psychological motive here which Knox's Italian lawyers are going to use.


I have to agree. Good catch on the civil vs. criminal portions of the trial, Brian! Most in the US would not understand that the two trials are running concurrently. Given the track record that has been established we can expect that the US media will fail to report this accurately. What we will be left with is some great sound bites of a sobbing young woman proclaiming complete innocence in the Italian court - not likely to be persuasive evidence on its own for the jury since we should expect that much, but it should play very well with the press in Seattle and the USA. I can't imagine her defense surrendering her to cross examination by Mignini - I can't see her pulling that off to an advantage.
Top Profile 

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 2:32 am   Post subject:    

The Other Amanda

I think Amanda is going to testify. The translation of the recent article in Corriere shows just how deluded she has made herself become about her involvement in MK's murder. To her, this trial is a huge misunderstanding that will be over soon and she will be able to get on with her life. We may hear classic narcissistic, Bill Clinton-esque quotes from her on the stand like: "It is a shame what happened to that girl." I am certain Amanda has talked and flirted her way out of messes for years. Why would this trial be any different? Italy is a lovely country full of fair, nice people.

If the Prosecution royally pins her down and she can't escape, then she will blame the murder on the other Amanda: Ak47. Ak47 planned and killed MK and then made sweet Amanda clean up the yucky mess on her day off from college. How inconsiderate. She wouldn't have done it if she weren’t so afraid of Ak47. That makes her like totally not guilty, doesn’t it? By the way, I think her lawyers figured this out a long time ago. Maybe they think she will get less time if she cracks up on the stand. But then again, maybe all of this is just more of Ak47's manipulations of people inhabiting her life; her end game in a chess match that she thinks could lead to a draw – a cushy mental hospital stint with a miraculous recovery in a couple of years. She reminds me of an aphorism that Kafka wrote in The Great Wall (I don’t have the book nearby so I may slightly mangle it): The slave grabs the whip and whips himself so that he can be the master, no realizing that his action is just another knot in the master’s whip.”
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 3:20 am   Post subject: DNA Results   

Frank has Part 2 of his entry - complete with hard to read photos of the DNA result charts.

We'll see what happens tomorrow and Saturday.
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 22, 2009 4:00 am   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD   

:!: I am now locking this thread:


Please continue the discussion in the new Main Discussion Thread Here: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -


Thank You

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


THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER WIKI
PMF ON TWITTER
PMF FORUM RULES
Top Profile E-mail 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 10 of 10 [ 2401 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,914,497 Views