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


Last visit was: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 pm
It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 pm
All times are UTC

Forum rules

IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - June 19, 09

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


 Page 12 of 12 [ 2985 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:18 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mutley wrote:

Quote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
meant as a compliment of course


Nicki, a serious question for you: Do you really think that making passive-aggressive lawyer jokes on a board where multiple lawyers are active members is a good idea? Do you think it serves to facilitate an atmosphere of friendly, civil, and open-minded discussion?



This board is full of LAWYERS???? BL**DY HELL!!! No wonder I can't argue with anybody.

Please don't take offence learned ladies and gents, my lawyer jokes are firmly in the box. I would like to make it clear that I will be unavailable to take the stand and answer questions and argue points about my posts as events surrounding them are very confused. All I can say is that I didn't actually post them. I will be issuing spontaneous statements only which will clarify everything you need to know in bite size chunks.


Mamma mia, Mutley! What do you take us for, idiots?

And Michael, what are you talking about? The best lawyer jokes are concocted and told by lawyers! Ever heard the one about skid marks, skunks and lawyers? Mua-)

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

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:21 pm   Post subject: Re: Shower   

Michael wrote:
I'm just wondering...does anyone know anything about the heating situation in the cottage, what that was all about? Why was there no hot water? Was it a situation whereby, they'd turn on the hot water as needed, in order to save money...so say they needed a shower, they'd turn on the hot water one or two hours in advance of when they wanted their shower?

According to Amanda...Meredith had a shower on the 1st. If that is correct, either, as I suggested above, Meredith turned on the hot water an hour or two before she wanted her shower....or, the hot water was on continuously but then turned off on the 1st for some reason. Whichever it was, Amanda would have known about this...why did she therefore return home for a shower when there was no hot water? The reason she always gave...was that she didn't like Raffaele's shower. Well, that doesn't ring true...how can any other shower, now matter how poor, possibly be any poorer then a freezing cold shower on a rather chilly day?

Whatever, the whole subject of the hot water or lack thereof, is something completely new, of which we know nothing about and have heard about for the first time only in last weekend's testimony. We've been caught on the hop with this one. We need to find out more about this, it's important...it throws a whole new light on Amanda's claim of returning to the cottage for the primary reason of taking a shower and that this shower was better then Raffaele's.


I'm curious about this too Michael. The only source as far as I can see is the Kercher lawyer talking to the press about it. Was it ever brought up in court? I didn't see it in the transcripts that thoughtful has done. As for the type of water heating in the cottage - it wouldn't surprise me if it was of a combi boiler type. This gives near instant hot water when switched on and is common in the EU, but doesn't usually use a tank to store latent heat for later use. As the cottage was occupied by students they probably had to pay for heating costs when used and so the most cost effective method for them would be such a unit. As for how to prove it wasn't switched on that morning - well it could show usage via the meter (particularly if it took money to use), but really this seems very vague to me. It's a pretty damning finding if true as Amanda could have easily strolled back to Raffaele's for her shower if the water wasn't hot for any reason, but I really need to see this presented in court to believe in this statement by the Kercher lawyer.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:23 pm   Post subject: Re: Shower   

The MUSHROOM MYSTERY: (A minor matter?)
Here's something that continues to puzzle me.
I don't believe Amanda was questioned about this. However, I'd be interested to hear what people here think.
During the autopsy, we know mushrooms were found in Meredith's esophagus.(I'll use the US spelling.)

1)We know, from testimony, that Meredith did NOT eat mushrooms with her English friends, during their
meal together that night.
2) As I recall (correct me if I am mistaken) the type of mushrooms ingested by Meredith were found in Raff's refrigerator. AND I assume that type of mushroom was NOT found in the cottage--IS THAT CORRECT?
So that would have to be another type of link suggesting RS, because I can't think of another believable scenario, given the time of day.

3) We know from her mother and others, that Meredith intended to do some school work after returning from her friend's flat.

Since I first heard this detail, I thought (or dare I say visualized or "IMAGINED" ,ala Amanda Knox!!) that the mushrooms in question were PORCINI mushrooms, rather than the CHAMPIGNON type, you might put on a pizza.
Maybe because it was the fall season and I just think of PORCINI as a particularly autumnal delicacy in Italy.
And since they were on student budgets, I tend to doubt they were TRUFFLES...

ANYWAY-- how do those mushrooms fit into the time line?
From experience, I practically never eat mushrooms raw, unless I am preparing them in a mixed salad.
Who does??!
And it DOES seem strange for anyone snack on them raw, right after having a dinner.

So, they were cooked? Grilled? Sauteed? If so, by whom? Meredith? Rudy? Or?????

If they were transported to the house, and presumably cooked, a knife HAD TO be involved in the preparation. You don't tear mushrooms apart before cooking them, you SLICE them.

But, why were they STILL in her esophagus, and not in her stomach?

Just some fast physiological facts to bear in mind.
It takes 5-6 SECONDS for swallowed food (bolus) to reach the stomach. Not minutes, 5-6 SECONDS.
However, considering the manual strangulation, is it possible that the mushrooms
were regurgitated into the lower part of her esophagus?

Forgive the graphic details here, but I think this is something
odd in the story of Meredith's last hours, that really needs to be explained.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Mutley wrote:

Quote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
meant as a compliment of course


Nicki, a serious question for you: Do you really think that making passive-aggressive lawyer jokes on a board where multiple lawyers are active members is a good idea? Do you think it serves to facilitate an atmosphere of friendly, civil, and open-minded discussion?



This board is full of LAWYERS???? BL**DY HELL!!! No wonder I can't argue with anybody.

Please don't take offence learned ladies and gents, my lawyer jokes are firmly in the box. I would like to make it clear that I will be unavailable to take the stand and answer questions and argue points about my posts as events surrounding them are very confused. All I can say is that I didn't actually post them. I will be issuing spontaneous statements only which will clarify everything you need to know in bite size chunks.


Mamma mia, Mutley! What do you take us for, idiots?

And Michael, what are you talking about? The best lawyer jokes are concocted and told by lawyers! Ever heard the one about skid marks, skunks and lawyers? Mua-)


Skep, it was I, not Michael, who posed the question to Nicki. But you have to know the backstory of Nicki's little "feud" with me and with Thoughtful to understand why I asked the question, instead of just letting her little "joke" roll off my back. You can PM me for deets so we don't have to clog up the board. ;)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Tara wrote:

Quote:
Amanda's court testimony in Audio #4:


Quote:
But you knew they were going away, the boys.

I knew they were going to do something to celebrate Halloween together, at
least that's what I understood.

Hm. Now, how is it that you went downstairs to see if they were home, on
the morning of the 2nd?

I didn't know whether they were home, or not. We wanted to go down and ask
them if they had heard anything.

Hm.

So I went there, I knocked...

And nobody had told you that they had all gone to their respective homes,
far from Perugia?

If they said that, then I didn't understand it, because really I thought that
they were just talking about Halloween.


From Amanda's email home on 11-04-07:


Quote:
giacomo and marco-n's room was spotless which made since becaus the
guys had thoroughly cleaned the whole house before they left on
vacation.


Question for our legal experts please? Would Amanda Knox have copies of all of her statements/relevant documents in prison with her to study? These blatent discrepancies are surprising yet perhaps they are normal for this type of situation?


Well, for someone who preferred to hang out with the locals, she shows a surprising degree of cluelessness here. She did know (as she stated during her courtroom performance) that Friday, November 2 was a holiday - since this is another reason she gives for shutting off her cellphone. I would imagine that she and Raffaele discussed this, as in: what should we do on Friday, since there is no school? Moreover, she would have noticed the relative lack of people (students) in Perugia, with many returning home as is customary. Finally, she seemed to be "on call" that night at Le Chic, and was told she didn't need to come in as there were no customers. Why no customers (or few customers)? Because it was a long school holiday weekend. November 1 is a bank holiday. I would really like to believe Knox, but I find this really stretches my credulity past the breaking point. la-)

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

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:32 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Start Audio #6

What drugs did you and Sollecito use?

Sometimes we smoked a joint.

On Nov 1, you testified that you smoked a joint, in the afternoon.

Afternoon-evening, yes.

Afternoon or evening?

Evening. Yes.

After your arrival at the house in via della Pergola, did you bring other
men into the house?

Brought other men?

Before meeting Raffaele Sollecito?

[Ghirga? "What was the question? I didn't hear it."]

I asked Amanda Knox if she brought other men, other boys to her house after
her arrival in via della Pergola, before meeting Raffaele Sollecito on
October 25.

So, I had two friends. One of them was Juve, who worked with me at Patrick's,
and Juve would sometimes come to the house, bringing me home after work, or
even after school. He also accompanied me a few times. Then, once, there
was Spiros, who wanted to hear me play the guitar. I told him that I couldn't
take Laura's guitar out of the house, so I invited him over. Then there was
the time, after Rezzon [?, the disco] who was called Daniele, and....that's
it. For boys. There was a girl I invited once to play guitar. And there
were the boys from downstairs who used to come up.

In that period, did you have other, I don't know what to call them, "boyfriends"
[English] as you would say, before Raffaele Sollecito?

I wouldn't say boyfriends, but there are people I went out with, for example.
I went out with a boy, a barman, who had a bar that I went to a lot, and
I often talked to him. We used to joke. So, he asked me over to his place
to see a film, and eat a pizza, which I did. Then, there was this Daniele
with whom I had an experience, after Rezzon. Yes.

Okay. I would like you to explain, with a little precise chronology, your
movements on the morning of November 2nd. Do you remember more or less at
what time you arrived in the house in via della Pergola coming away from
Raffaele's place?

[Sigh] Okay. I left Raffaele's place around 10:30. I walked to my house, and
then I walked. I don't know how long it takes, but not a long time, to get to
my house. Then I went in. When I saw that the door was open, I called out
"Is anybody home?" but nobody answered, so I thought "Okay", and I left the
door open in case anybody was about to get back. The first thing I did was,
I went into my room and undressed, and then I went into the bathroom, took
out my earrings, and washed my ears...

So this was around 11:00 more or less, maybe?

More or less, maybe.

Okay.

Yes.

You undressed in your own room? as you just said?

Yes.

You also took off your shoes in your own room?

Yes.

And you went barefoot into the bathroom?

Yes.

Go on.

Okay. I can't remember if I brushed my teeth before or after taking a shower.
I think...before...I don't remember. I did brush my teeth, but I don't know
if it was before or after the shower. Anyway, I got into the shower, took
the shower, and then, getting out of the shower, I used the bathmat to
kind of hop over to my room, because I had forgotten my towel. Then I took
my towel, returned to the bathroom, dried myself and put my earrings back in.
Then I went into my room, got some clothes and dressed.

Can I stop you?

Yes, yes.

In the bathroom, did you use the bidet? or just the shower.

This time, I did not use the bidet.

Did you use the sink?

Yes.

And you cleaned your ears?

Yes. I cleaned my ears and brushed my teeth.

[Another voice (the Presidente apparently): "Cleaned your ears, what does that
mean? Did you use cotton swabs to clean your ears?"]

That was my question. [Oh, it was that?] Yes, yes, no, please go ahead,
Presidente. You forestalled my question.

[Presidente: "Did you use cotton swabs to clean your ears? Or did you just
wash them with water?"]

ur room?

Yes.

All right. On the bathmat, you saw drops like on the sink, or...

No, it was a larger stain.

A larger stain. Did it look like a footprint to you?

No. I just saw a stain.

How much more time did you spend in the house? After the shower and getting
dressed?

The time to get dressed and dry my hair, and to take the mop. And then I
left.

Okay. So, maybe another half an hour?

I don't think as much as half an hour. It doesn't take me long to dry my
hair because it's very fine, so it gets dry very fast.

Okay. Then you went back to Sollecito's house.

Yes.

It was more or less what time?

I couldn't say exactly.

You never looked at the time on your cell phone?

It wasn't important to me to know the time, so I didn't look. I didn't look
at the time very often, especially right then, when I didn't have any
particular place to go. I just wanted to go to Gubbio with Raffaele.

Okay. And when did you decide to return with Raffaele to your house?

He was in the bathroom, I think, when I got back. So I took the mop and
quickly cleaned up what was on the floor. Then while we were preparing a
little coffee, I told him about the things I had seen. And while we were
eating biscuits, I think, he said to me "You should call your roommates."
So first I called Meredith, then Filomena, and Filomena explained to me that
Laura was in Rome, and that I should go, or rather I should have gone to
see how things were. So I said "Fine, I'll finish breakfast," which took
a couple of minutes, and I left with Raffaele.

So the idea of returning to the house to check your friends' things, was
given to you by Sollecito if I understood correctly.

He...

He invited you to clarify matters by telephoning?

I asked him advice about what to do, because I didn't know what to think. He
said "Call your roommates to see if they know anything, if anything happened
to them."

And then you went back to the house.

Yes.

Together.

Yes.

And what happened then?

So, we looked around a little bit, and when I saw that the window was broken,
I became even more worried. So we looked through the rooms to see if
anything was missing. That's when I tried Meredith's door and couldn't
open it. I was worried. Then, leaving Raffaele in the house, I went
running downstairs and knocked on the boys' door, but they didn't answer.
I ran back upstairs and said, "What should we do now? I'll call Filomena,
and...

Let me interrupt you just one second. You knew that the boys downstairs
weren't home?

I didn't know.

You didn't know?

No.


Then why, in your interrogation of...we'll look at them together in a couple
of minutes...do you assert that you went to say hi to them one week earlier?
Do you remember that?

I remember, I don't know exactly when, but I remember that they were supposed
to go somewhere.

[Ghirga? "Objection: Is that the interrogation of Nov 3?"]

You can't make an objection about information [some legal term I don't
really understand. Long pause.] Can I continue? [Something...the statement
from the 6th? "obviously can't be used."] In the statement of November 3!
Can I continue? ["Yes. On November 3..."] Miss Knox was heard on the
subject of the boys: "The last time I was in the boys' house, it was about
a week ago, to say hi." [Ghirga? "This was confirmed in the interrogation
by the pubblico ministero, if I'm not mistaken."] However, it isn't important.

Yes, I -- can I answer? [Objecting, crossing voices. I catch the words
"against the accused." Amanda is heard to meekly say "all right". Maresca
is invited to continue, but apparently with a different question.]

Let's talk about the policeman that we heard, a witness from the Postal Police.
If you remember the episode where he asked you about the telephone of
Romanelli, and you told him it was Meredith's telephone. Is this true?
Do you remember?

I didn't understand.

When the two agents from the Postal Police came, they had this cell phone...

Okay, those.

Do you remember?

Yes.

Did they ask you for the telephone numbers of your friends?

Yes, they asked me for the telephone numbers of the girls who lived in the
house, I think. So I gave them my number and the girls' numbers, yes.

You also gave them Meredith's number?

I think so.

Right. But on the statement from November 6th, the one from 1:45 that we
are allowed to use [There is an interruption which we can't hear. Maresca
says "What?" and then goes on.] The question is this: I'll give you
specific questions and you answer them.

Okay.

Did you meet Patrick Lumumba in the basketball court of Piazza Grimana on
the evening of the 1st?


No.

The fact that it is in your statement here, was that meeting specifically
suggested to you, or did you imagine it? [Another voice: "Excuse me. Where
in the statement?"] In the last line of the usable declaration from 1:45.
"I met Patrick immediately afterwards in the basketball court of Piazza
Grimana." [Objection: "This document has been disallowed except for the
slander case. It seems to me that it is the Kercher's defense lawyer who
is asking the question." Arguing (during which Amanda is heard to say
"So, should I answer?" a couple of times.)] I have specific questions, and
if I can ask them, I will, otherwise I will stop. Let the Presidente
decide. [Presidente: "Let's hear the objection." "The objection is relative
to the use of these documents, which are unusable, limited only to the slander
charge." Presidente: "So these documents were used only in the slander
case and limited to that?" "Yes." "Then it seems to me that the Kercher
family's defense has already...." (not clear to me what is said here but
apparently it is a green light).] So, I will ask a specific question.
["Please go ahead."]

About the succession of moments that you describe in this statement,
were they all suggested, like the final one, by the police, and then
imagined by you, or are there some that have a different origin? This
was my question. ["Yes, sorry. But the accused has already answered
this question. If there are other questions...so as to avoid going over
things that were already illustrated..."]

You underwent pressure, as you said, from the police who were asking you for
information. Was that also true in your interrogations of the 2nd, the 3rd
and the 4th, or only for the one from the 6th?

The police repeated their questions and wanted, above all, for me to tell them
who could have done this, but I didn't know how to respond. I told them about
all the people that I knew. The most intense pressure was in the Questura
between Nov 5 and 6, because I never lived through anything like that.
Before that, they would ask me and then say "Okay, fine." They wouldn't say,
for example, "Maybe you don't remember well" or "Maybe you're a liar".

So the other statements were made in a more natural, a lighter way.

Lighter, yes. But still always repeating.

Who was present, the same policemen or different ones?

There were so many policemen...

When you say "so many", what do you mean? Five, ten, fifteen, twenty?

Well...

For you, "so many" means how many?

In the sense that I didn't recognize the policemen from one time to another,
so I looked for the ones that were always there, for example, like the
person who led the interrogation on the 5th. That was a person who was
already there the first days that I was there. But in the sense that one
person said they were from Rome, one was from Perugia, one from somewhere
else that was going to arrive, so it was difficult to know them all.

But "all" of them was how many, more or less?

When? [Ghirga: "At the different times."]

At the different times: the 2nd, the 3rd, the 5th....the 4th.

On the 2nd there were so many witnesses, and so many policemen also. Other
times there were less because there were also less people.

But standing around you, interrogating you [Ghirga: "Can you say if there were
five or ten? Just as an indication?"]

For example, five...well, sometimes there was just this one woman, then
there would be five, then there would be ten, then -- [Ghirga: "Okay.
Go ahead, avvocato."]

So you don't remember how many there were? [Ghirga: "Yes, yes. Sorry,
avvocato--" Amanda says very loudly "One, three, five, it depended on the
situation!", while she's talking Ghirga keeps talking: "-- she already answered,
sorry, there."]

Do you remember talking on November 10 with your mother in prison, about the
declarations of Raffaele Sollecito?

If you could tell me which -- yes, of course I remember talking to my mother
when I arrived in prison, yes. [Ghirga: "But the specific reference to--"
Amanda interrupts: "To which date?" "No, to Raffaele Sollecito."]

Raffa--I-- it was a long time ago, and the fact that my mother came twice
a week makes it hard to distinguish the different dates.

Yes, but the question is specific. Did you talk with your mother about the
declarations that Sollecito made in the Questura?

I remember telling her that I was astonished by those declarations.

Why?

Because I didn't understand why he had to do it.

To do what?

Say something else.

Other than what?

Other than what really happened.

Do you remember signing [your notification of arrest? (not sure)]

When I was in the Questura, I signed so many things just to get it over with
and go home. I signed so many things. And the arrest...I know they talked
to me about arrest, but I didn't understand everything that was happening,
I was shocked and deeply impressed by the whole situation, so I signed
so many things and....[Ghirga: "Okay. Go ahead, avvocato."]

But do you remember if this document, this act was translated into English?

I don't remember.

[At the same time as her:] Had been translated into English?

I don't remember.

You don't remember. Do you remember if when they translated it to you, they
explained to you why you were being held?

I remember understanding that it was some bureaucratic issue. I didn't
understand the specific situation, but at the same time, I was extremely
tired, exhausted, stressed, and I didn't understand anything any more. So
that fact is that everything they explained to me at that point, everything
seemed the same to me, total confusion. I just didn't understand.

Let's return to via della Pergola. I'm almost finished. When you returned
to the house in via della Pergola with Sollecito, and noticed the window
that was broken, did you check in your own room if anything was missing?

Just like that. I saw that my computer was there...

But yesterday you said that you had money.

Yes, I had some money.

Did you check the money?

I don't remember.

You don't remember. So you can't tell us if the money was stolen or not?

I honestly can't tell you. I can't remember whether or not I took a look in
the little drawer. The thing I remember is that my computer was there,
so I thought "Oh, if they haven't taken the computer," because it's a
good quality portable computer, so I would have thought it would be the first
thing a person would take from my room. And it was right there near the
door, on the table.

In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?

There was one but it didn't work, so I used the bedside lamp.

The lamp.

The little lamp, yes.

And you previously stated that you didn't look for the lamp either; you only
looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn't look
for your money, you didn't look for your lamp.

So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The
first time I went into the house I didn't even think of looking to see if
anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really
looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order,
just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn't even think of looking
for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents
were in it.

But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your
room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without
any light?

It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.

Did you open your shutters or were they already open?

I don't remember.

To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?

But it wasn't dark in my room. Often --

I don't know, I wasn't there.

All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at
night, or in the evening, when I wanted to...So I didn't even think of
turning it on. It really wasn't dark in my room when I went in. [Another
voice: "It wasn't dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?"
"Natural." "And what window was it coming from, this natural light?" "I
only have one window, but it was also coming from the other side because
there's a balcony." "And the door of the bathroom? Meredith's door was
closed so no natural light was coming from there. Outside, there's the
little corridor, the living room, Romanelli's door, and Laura
Mezzetti's door. Which were the doors that let in light?" "The door
of the balcony on the other side of the corridor, which lets in light,
and then there was the window." "So, from the balcony, the corridor,
the light actually reached your room?" "Yes." "That was the light that you
had."]

You mentioned to your friends in the Questura that according to you,
Meredith died slowly.

They said...

How did you come to say that?

I heard that her throat was cut, and from what I saw in CSI [Crime Scene
Investigation] of these things, these things are neither quick nor pleasant.
So when they said "We hope she died quickly," like I don't know, in some other
way, I said "But what are you saying, her throat was cut, good Lord, bleargh.
I had remained at that point, that brutality, this death that was really
blechh, that made a horrible impression. That was what really struck me,
that fact of having your throat cut. It seemed so gross, and I imagined that
it was a very slow and terrifying death. So when they said "We hope it was
like this," I said "No, I think it was really gross, disgusting."

And do you know if, when Meredith was murdered, she screamed?

I don't know.

Did someone tell you?

No, uh, no. No, I didn't know if she screamed or not.

Did you talk about it with someone immediately after?

End of Audio #6
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:33 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
...'B' is a problem for 'what' people specifically? I'll wager, none of the ones that really matter...those actually sitting on the judges panel.

It's the public that are obsessed with the idea of 'motive', motive isn't really that important to a 'court'.


Though not entirely true, it is largely true that motive doesn't matter to a court. However your previous post seemed to me geared towards tackling, on its own merits, the argument to motive.

So I guess my point becomes "if you had been" addressing, on their own terms, those who doubt guilt (particularly for Ms. Knox and/or Mr. S) because the specific circumstances alleged seem- not only on the surface, but very deep below it, too- extremely unlikely, then I don't think the reasoning in your previous post provides much basis for them to reconsider.

It's not that these three couldn't have bumped into each other or otherwise become acquainted that should be difficult for people to accept. That's mundane. It's what comes *after* that- which you suggest can then be taken for granted- that is precisely the thing that we can *not* take for granted. Because, that is the point at which what is alleged seems to have few, if any, real life parallels or precedents. And, thus, viewed strictly from the point of view of trying to reconcile a credible motive, it is the point at which the allegations become dubious.


Michael wrote:

...What 'is' important, is 'mechanisms', the presence of mechanisms that could 'enable' an event to occur. 'B' is not really such an issue, because once at point 'B' the accused are a 'pack' and the mechanisms of pack behaviour/mentality come into play...


Quite disagree. What is important, in court, is showing that something *did* happen. Not just that it's not beyond the realm of human possibility that it *could* have happened.

The notion that we can just take for granted that "B" happened because there's such a thing as mob behaviour puts me in mind of the talking head who said we should just take for granted the victim's dna on the knife is the result of contamination (because cross contamination is indeed a mechanism known to exist).



Michael wrote:
...The provision of a mechanism for point 'A' in order to 'reach' point 'B', that was the problem and what was missing and importantly, Maresca demonstrated such a mechanism.


If there truly was any problem it's difficult to understand how it could've have been that it was beyond people's ability to imagine how it was even possible that these three somehow crossed paths.

Since that is otherwise obvious, any problem, I presume, must be that they don't solid evidence to *directly* prove that she *did* meet up with Rudy. And that problem, and that shortcoming of the case, is not reasonably overcome by arguing that they *might* have met each other, so, by that alone, we can infer they *did*.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Principessa Etrusca


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:15 am

Posts: 33

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Yeah, I think Ferret's point is that, in her opinion, Amanda's reactions are the result of guilt-without-sociopathy. In other words, Amanda's seemingly bizarre reactions were related to her worry about getting caught or maybe related to a forced state of denial over the murder. I have to say that I do tend to agree with Ferret on this point (because there is a fair amount of evidence that Amanda was loved or looked upon affectionately by a lot of people), although it's hard to say for sure and I have an open mind about Amanda's possible sociopathy.


We don't know about Amanda's feeling of guilt. I tend to think that she has none of those: to have feelings of guilt, a person needs to have a very strong inner sense of what is right and what is wrong and Amanda does not strike me as such a person. Her denial imo is more to do with the unpleasantness (or "yackiness") of it all than with a feeling of guilt.

She was certainly preocupied with the possibility of getting caught, but at the same time her flaw (sociopathy or other) stopped her from doing the sensible thing: behaving in an appropriate manner, most probably because she even has no intuition what an appropriate manner might be.

Ferret wrote:
I should rephrase what I wrote, Amanda may have gotten into the five stages of grief when she was arrested. She may had been the denial stage when she was interviewed and right after the murder. The shock came that the police arrested her with some serious evidence against her. If she is feeling grief, it is about her fate not of the murder. Amanda appears to be very self centered, but it doesn't mean she can't empathize with others or lack a conscience.

If she doesn't feel grief about murdering Meredith doesn't mean she is a sociopath. As mentioned in previous post, there has to be obvious signs in her history, the environment she grew up in, that show an ASPD. One of the biggest signs that she doesn't have an ASPD is putting the duvet over Meredith, (Meredith's eyes were open) while Amanda and Raffaele were cleaning up. Feeling guilt is kind of a big sign that the person has a conscious. A person with an ASPD, would look at Meredith being dead with the same feeling as looking at the duvet.

It doesn't mean that people with a conscious cannot murder, it is that Amanda may have something else, and it isn't an ASPD.

I really think that people who are liberally using sociopath/psychopath to judge Amanda, need to look up the ASPD disorder. As I repeatedly stated, female sociopaths are a very rare find. There are many other ways to interpret Amanda's behavior, or explain why she committed murder.



I would think that there are not many grieving murderers. However, imo, what makes Amanda "different" (a sociopath?) is not that she was not a grieving murderer, but that she has no idea what grieving is. For that reason she was not able to even imagine what it would be to loose a close person and behave in an approriate manner (at least without saying "she f***ing bled to death!").

Regarding putting a duvet over Meredith's body, I remember a very early comment that the duvet indicated a woman's presence at the scene. Compassion? Not necessarily. Amanda described Meredith's death as "yacky" and I can easily see that it had more to do with her estetics than with her conscience.

People are in denial for all sorts of reasons and guilt is only one of many. I have not recognised in Amanda any feeling of guilt and don't see any indication that she has a conscience and would really like to know what you see as examples to the contrary.
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:39 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Good points Tara and Skep regarding who was where on that night. It was something that struck me a long while ago that everyone who lived in the cottage had gone away that evening, apart from Amanda and Meredith. The contradictory statements regarding the whereabouts of the 'boys' could be seen as an innocent mistake if it wasn't for her email so soon after the murder. She either hasn't thought things through (poor lawyer advice) or she exceeded her total number of lies to be held in your head at the same time (I think it's around 7...).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Paula


Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:12 pm

Posts: 29

Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Jools, I'm pretty sure Raphaele's prints were found on the outside of the door handle, perhaps someone else can confirm.

Michael, Maresca made reference to the ''heating but perhaps the hot water runs off a propane instantaneous water heater as is very common in Europe, must check the pictures for a tank outside. If the water is heated via the furnace and it was turned off there would be no hot water, as this line of questioning seemed to imply, or at the very least that the apartment would have been very cold.

The worst hot water situation I ever had was at an apartment I had for a few months in Berlin in my early twenties. The heating was via coal stoves, which you must continuously add to in order to maintain any heat. I was hardly ever home so the stove was always out, it was dead of winter and I had to sleep in many layers of clothing. Well the shower was also heated via the coal stoves, which of course was also always cold except weekends when I managed to keep the coal in for a while. I had to boil water to wash most days but it was one of the best years of my life.
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:53 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Thoughtful - once again, many thanks for your translated court transcripts. These are very revealing I think and provides much more detail than found in the usual media outlets.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:58 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Principessa Etrusca wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Yeah, I think Ferret's point is that, in her opinion, Amanda's reactions are the result of guilt-without-sociopathy. In other words, Amanda's seemingly bizarre reactions were related to her worry about getting caught or maybe related to a forced state of denial over the murder. I have to say that I do tend to agree with Ferret on this point (because there is a fair amount of evidence that Amanda was loved or looked upon affectionately by a lot of people), although it's hard to say for sure and I have an open mind about Amanda's possible sociopathy.


We don't know about Amanda's feeling of guilt. I tend to think that she has none of those: to have feelings of guilt, a person needs to have a very strong inner sense of what is right and what is wrong and Amanda does not strike me as such a person. Her denial imo is more to do with the unpleasantness (or "yackiness") of it all than with a feeling of guilt.




Hi PE. I should have been more clear in my post. I meant GUILT OF THE MURDER, not FEELINGS OF GUILT. Hopefully that clarifies my thought process there. :)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

411, I've been intrigued by the mushroom information as well. When I first heard about it, my thought was that the knife must have been brought over to slice mushrooms, and all four players snacked on them before the murder. But then someone pointed out that the knife was a much larger knife than would typically be brought somewhere to slice mushrooms. Hmmmmm.

And that's an interesting angle re: the esophagus, and one I hadn't considered before. Your theory makes intuitive sense to me, although I don't know how the specific medical/bodily processes work in such a situation.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:13 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

RE: the hot :D or cold :shock: shower:

Wasn't the landlord going to testify?
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:25 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ok, I found something.

This is from Catnip’s Digest of 38 May 2009 (thanks Catnip!):


Then the parties of the Civil Part will speak (next week (6)): the Kercher family, who live in England, will take the witness stand first, mother, brother and sister (perhaps 5 and 6 June), then the owner of the house that became the murder scene, and lastly Patrick Lumumba, who was arrested for the murder and then subsequently released and cleared of all charges, and is now suing Knox for calumny on her part (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Notes
1 – “Case resumes in Court with Forensics Depositions” [Nazione] 28 May 2009 and “Last prosecution witnesses in court tomorrow” [Fondazione] 28 May 2009
2 – “Last prosecution witnesses tomorrow” by Maria Quarato [Bari Mia] 28 May 2009
3 – “Tomorrow: last three witnesses called by the prosecution” by Amalia Coletta [Notiziario] 28 May 2009
4 – “Last prosecution witnesses tomorrow” [ANSA] 28 May 2009
5 – “Experts tomorrow, last prosecution witnesses” [AGI]




What happened with the owner of the cottage? I imagine she'd be able to answer the shower question.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:34 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Shirley wrote:
Ok, I found something.

This is from Catnip’s Digest of 38 May 2009 (thanks Catnip!):


Then the parties of the Civil Part will speak (next week (6)): the Kercher family, who live in England, will take the witness stand first, mother, brother and sister (perhaps 5 and 6 June), then the owner of the house that became the murder scene, and lastly Patrick Lumumba, who was arrested for the murder and then subsequently released and cleared of all charges, and is now suing Knox for calumny on her part (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Notes
1 – “Case resumes in Court with Forensics Depositions” [Nazione] 28 May 2009 and “Last prosecution witnesses in court tomorrow” [Fondazione] 28 May 2009
2 – “Last prosecution witnesses tomorrow” by Maria Quarato [Bari Mia] 28 May 2009
3 – “Tomorrow: last three witnesses called by the prosecution” by Amalia Coletta [Notiziario] 28 May 2009
4 – “Last prosecution witnesses tomorrow” [ANSA] 28 May 2009
5 – “Experts tomorrow, last prosecution witnesses” [AGI]




What happened with the owner of the cottage? I imagine she'd be able to answer the shower question.

Hi Shirley,
I am not sure, but could it be she has already testified?
Cheers :)

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
She either hasn't thought things through (poor lawyer advice) or she exceeded her total number of lies to be held in your head at the same time (I think it's around 7...).


:lol: I trust that this is based on serious academic research and not on personal experience, mister?????

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:46 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I can not tell a lie - I made it up :).

Actually, there is some research done about the total number of facts that anyone can store simultaneously. It was around that number on average, but of course you get those people using memory tricks to far exceed that. Not sure if Amanda has been practicing that or not. Based on her testimony so far, I doubt it.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:50 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
I can not tell a lie - I made it up :).

Actually, there is some research done about the total number of facts that anyone can store simultaneously. It was around that number on average, but of course you get those people using memory tricks to far exceed that. Not sure if Amanda has been practicing that or not. Based on her testimony so far, I doubt it.


Ah - here we go: Working Memory Capacity.


I remembered it ;).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline bfd


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am

Posts: 9

Location: lower lusatia

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Back to partially breaking the door of MKs room by AK and RS.
A) Just imagine there are three standard programs when you suffer stress:
1st Attac, 2nd Retreat, 3rd Playing dead
B) Imagine the unconsciously percieving of blood scent causes stress.
First of all the stress level was quite low so they decided to break the door but the intensifying scent of blood (unconsc.) when beeing next to the door creates a higher level of stress so they retreat without this job done. Would this sound like a good reason?
Top Profile 

Offline bfd


Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:48 am

Posts: 9

Location: lower lusatia

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:03 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Slicing mushrooms
If you intend to fry them you just cut them in quarters so they keep their texture and stay juicy. But for salad you really slice them. And for slicing I usually take the largest knife because this is the easiest way. So you have full controll of the blade direction which is much more complicated with a smaller knife.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:06 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
justlooking wrote:
I can not tell a lie - I made it up :).

Actually, there is some research done about the total number of facts that anyone can store simultaneously. It was around that number on average, but of course you get those people using memory tricks to far exceed that. Not sure if Amanda has been practicing that or not. Based on her testimony so far, I doubt it.


Ah - here we go: Working Memory Capacity.


I remembered it ;).


Interesting. I wonder if Amanda's being fairly new to the Italian language had an effect on how much information and detail she could store in her head and effectively communicate? I tend to think that it did.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:09 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Just started reading here and I have to say that having been a jury member on a double murder trial, I don't feel that the prosecution has presented anything that would convince me as a juror that there was more than one murderer. I'm having a hard time with the theory that they cleaned the crime scene. Impossible to have cleaned it and left only Guede's dna behind and none of their own. The footprints mean nothing to me, they were in the house both before and after the crime. The blood in the sink mixed with Merediths', well, I was in my 21 year old sons bathroom this morning and there was blood in the sink from a week ago. I asked him how it got there and he stated that he must have cut himself shaving, but really didn't know. From what I've read, they shared the bathroom and it has already been stated that AK was not the best housekeeper. Changing her story? I believe that she could have been intimidated enough by LE to make up a story just to get them off of her back. She's twenty years old. Intimidation and fear have caused much older and wiser people to confess and/or accuse another party than her. Cartwheels in the hallway? Disgusting, but in my opinion, not an indication of guilt, just very inappropriate behaviour. The knife is the only thing in my opinion that if they had identified it as the murder weapon might sway me, but they did not. I would have a hard time convicting someone based on reactions that might be inappropriate to me, but perhaps she has always reacted inappropriately. She may be a sociopath, she may not be, most likely is, but that doesn't mean she is guilty, rather to me, it explains her odd reactions.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:25 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 - Sollecito's DNA was left on the bra strap. Also, the bathmat footprint was a bare footprint in MK's blood, where the bare footprint substantially matches Sollecito's footprint. From this, it appears to me that RS was there and in Miss Kercher's room and blood. Also, the knife had both AK's and MK's DNA on it and it was found at Sollecito's and, I think, owned by Sollecito. In addition, the autopsy evidence points to multiple assailants. From these things, it appears to me that RS was involved in the murder.

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:28 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hellos ks1 and welcome. I like to read all perspectives on this case so it's always good to read different opinions. As a former juror what has been presented in the trial so far that show that they must be innocent, or that the evidence itself is not sufficient for a guilty verdict? Obviously the trial is only about half way through so there may be more details to come, but I'm interested to see how you've come to that conclusion so soon.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:32 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Swanny wrote:
ks1 - Sollecito's DNA was left on the bra strap. Also, the bathmat footprint was a bare footprint in MK's blood, where the bare footprint substantially matches Sollecito's footprint. From this, it appears to me that RS was there and in Miss Kercher's room and blood. Also, the knife had both AK's and MK's DNA on it and it was found at Sollecito's and, I think, owned by Sollecito. In addition, the autopsy evidence points to multiple assailants. From these things, it appears to me that RS was involved in the murder.

Swanny


For me, personally, that bra clasp evidence is HUGE. It appears that the DNA was not the result of contamination because of the quantity of it, and I just don't buy the evidence-planting theory.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:37 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
Just started reading here and I have to say that having been a jury member on a double murder trial, I don't feel that the prosecution has presented anything that would convince me as a juror that there was more than one murderer.


It would be a good idea to actually get acquainted with the evidence before making ignorant comments.
Top Profile 

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:46 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1- To go further, a shoeprint matching the size of shoe worn by AK was found in MK's blood on the pillow, where the pillow was found underneath MK's body. This indicates a third person was in MK's room. A lone murderer? No, I can't say I think it was a lone murderer.

Also, Curatolo saw them near the cottage at the time of the murder and HK saw them near the cottage at the time of the murder. I think it is more than coincidence that the evidence matches RS and AK.

Best Regards,
Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
Did you meet Patrick Lumumba in the basketball court of Piazza Grimana on
the evening of the 1st?


No.

The fact that it is in your statement here, was that meeting specifically
suggested to you, or did you imagine it? [Another voice: "Excuse me. Where
in the statement?"] In the last line of the usable declaration from 1:45.
"I met Patrick immediately afterwards in the basketball court of Piazza
Grimana." [Objection: "This document has been disallowed except for the
slander case. It seems to me that it is the Kercher's defense lawyer who
is asking the question." Arguing (during which Amanda is heard to say
"So, should I answer?" a couple of times.)] I have specific questions, and
if I can ask them, I will, otherwise I will stop. Let the Presidente
decide. [Presidente: "Let's hear the objection." "The objection is relative
to the use of these documents, which are unusable, limited only to the slander
charge." Presidente: "So these documents were used only in the slander
case and limited to that?" "Yes." "Then it seems to me that the Kercher
family's defense has already...." (not clear to me what is said here but
apparently it is a green light).] So, I will ask a specific question.
["Please go ahead."]



Confirmation, if it were needed, that the disallowed statements have been used in the slander part of the trial.
Top Profile 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
Hellos ks1 and welcome. I like to read all perspectives on this case so it's always good to read different opinions. As a former juror what has been presented in the trial so far that show that they must be innocent, or that the evidence itself is not sufficient for a guilty verdict? Obviously the trial is only about half way through so there may be more details to come, but I'm interested to see how you've come to that conclusion so soon.


In the U.S., it is a jurors duty to make a decision based only on what is presented at trial. Reasonable doubt = not guilty, they do not have to prove innocence, as they are presumed innocent. Though the dna on the bra points to RS, it doesn't put AK at the crime scene and in the U.S, I don't think that would even be admitted as evidence during her trial. His, yes, but not hers, it has nothing to do with her case. A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time. Again, his footprint may speak volumes and hold all kinds of evidence pointing to him, but it says nothing to me of her guilt or innocence, and I would disregard that evidence. A shoeprint found in her size would mean nothing to me, unless they matched that print to one of her shoes. Size 7 is a very common shoe size. I want EVIDENCE. I want PROOF, not possibilities. I have not read of the witnesses that put them at the cottage at the time of the murder, will try to find it. She stated that she used the knife while cooking at RS's apartment, thus, one would expect her dna to be on that knife. At this point, and with what I've read (realizing that there may be more evidence which might change my opinion presented later) I have not read anything that PROVES to me that she committed the crime, therefore, by U.S. juror obligations, I would not be able to hand down a guilty verdict.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:09 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
ks1 wrote:
Just started reading here and I have to say that having been a jury member on a double murder trial, I don't feel that the prosecution has presented anything that would convince me as a juror that there was more than one murderer.


It would be a good idea to actually get acquainted with the evidence before making ignorant comments.


Am I not allowed an opinion that differs from yours, or is it just that if my opinion is different from yours, then it is ignorant?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
justlooking wrote:
Hellos ks1 and welcome. I like to read all perspectives on this case so it's always good to read different opinions. As a former juror what has been presented in the trial so far that show that they must be innocent, or that the evidence itself is not sufficient for a guilty verdict? Obviously the trial is only about half way through so there may be more details to come, but I'm interested to see how you've come to that conclusion so soon.


In the U.S., it is a jurors duty to make a decision based only on what is presented at trial. Reasonable doubt = not guilty, they do not have to prove innocence, as they are presumed innocent. Though the dna on the bra points to RS, it doesn't put AK at the crime scene and in the U.S, I don't think that would even be admitted as evidence during her trial. His, yes, but not hers, it has nothing to do with her case. A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time. Again, his footprint may speak volumes and hold all kinds of evidence pointing to him, but it says nothing to me of her guilt or innocence, and I would disregard that evidence. A shoeprint found in her size would mean nothing to me, unless they matched that print to one of her shoes. Size 7 is a very common shoe size. I want EVIDENCE. I want PROOF, not possibilities. I have not read of the witnesses that put them at the cottage at the time of the murder, will try to find it. She stated that she used the knife while cooking at RS's apartment, thus, one would expect her dna to be on that knife. At this point, and with what I've read (realizing that there may be more evidence which might change my opinion presented later) I have not read anything that PROVES to me that she committed the crime, therefore, by U.S. juror obligations, I would not be able to hand down a guilty verdict.


You seem to be concentrating on Amanda in your argument around innocence. Don't you apply the same conclusions to Raffaele, or do you think it's possible that one of them may be guilty and the other innocent?

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time.


There was a mixture of Amanda Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood on the floor in Filomena's room. Barbie Nadeau highlighted the significance of this evidence on The Daily Beast website:

"But perhaps more damning even than the knife was Stefanoni’s testimony that a mix of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood was found on the floor in the bedroom of a third roommate, Filomena Romanelli. While it might not be noteworthy to find mixed genetic traces of residents of the same house, Romanelli’s room is critical in this crime. Her window was broken with a large rock that prosecutors believe was used to stage a break-in. The mixed Knox-Kercher trace was found after investigators used luminol, a substance used in forensic science to bring out blood that had been cleaned up."


ks1 wrote:
She stated that she used the knife while cooking at RS's apartment, thus, one would expect her dna to be on that knife.


You failed to mention the significance of the double DNA knife: Meredith's DNA was on the blade.

I find the idea of you being a juror a scary thought.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:19 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

KS1 wrote:

Quote:
justlooking wrote:
Hellos ks1 and welcome. I like to read all perspectives on this case so it's always good to read different opinions. As a former juror what has been presented in the trial so far that show that they must be innocent, or that the evidence itself is not sufficient for a guilty verdict? Obviously the trial is only about half way through so there may be more details to come, but I'm interested to see how you've come to that conclusion so soon.


In the U.S., it is a jurors duty to make a decision based only on what is presented at trial. Reasonable doubt = not guilty, they do not have to prove innocence, as they are presumed innocent. Though the dna on the bra points to RS, it doesn't put AK at the crime scene and in the U.S, I don't think that would even be admitted as evidence during her trial. His, yes, but not hers, it has nothing to do with her case. A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time. Again, his footprint may speak volumes and hold all kinds of evidence pointing to him, but it says nothing to me of her guilt or innocence, and I would disregard that evidence. A shoeprint found in her size would mean nothing to me, unless they matched that print to one of her shoes. Size 7 is a very common shoe size. I want EVIDENCE. I want PROOF, not possibilities. I have not read of the witnesses that put them at the cottage at the time of the murder, will try to find it. She stated that she used the knife while cooking at RS's apartment, thus, one would expect her dna to be on that knife. At this point, and with what I've read (realizing that there may be more evidence which might change my opinion presented later) I have not read anything that PROVES to me that she committed the crime, therefore, by U.S. juror obligations, I would not be able to hand down a guilty verdict.


Welcome KS1. Since you have just started reading here, I guess you still have a lot more material to wade through. I don't know of many murder cases where there is an eyewitness placing the suspects at the scene when the crime is committed. By nature, murder is a crime committed without eye witnesses. You forgot to mention that Meredith Kercher's DNA is on the tip of the knife in question, which is not at all to be expected since she never cooked or ate at RS's apartment.

The evidence placing RS at the scene is problematic for AK, since he is her somewhat wobbly alibi. I'm just skimming the surface here, of course. Speaking only for myself, the comparisons with the US system - from the point of view of jurors, attorneys and judges - are not useful unless one has extensive knowledge of both systems. I can't really say at this point how I would feel or what I would decide if I were a juror on this particular case, however. The defense has not yet rebutted the evidence and I don't have access to the 10,000 page file.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:23 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The evidence placing RS at the scene is problematic for AK, since he is her somewhat wobbly alibi


Raffaele Sollecito stopped providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Did you meet Patrick Lumumba in the basketball court of Piazza Grimana on
the evening of the 1st?


No.

The fact that it is in your statement here, was that meeting specifically
suggested to you, or did you imagine it? [Another voice: "Excuse me. Where
in the statement?"] In the last line of the usable declaration from 1:45.
"I met Patrick immediately afterwards in the basketball court of Piazza
Grimana." [Objection: "This document has been disallowed except for the
slander case. It seems to me that it is the Kercher's defense lawyer who
is asking the question." Arguing (during which Amanda is heard to say
"So, should I answer?" a couple of times.)] I have specific questions, and
if I can ask them, I will, otherwise I will stop. Let the Presidente
decide. [Presidente: "Let's hear the objection." "The objection is relative
to the use of these documents, which are unusable, limited only to the slander
charge." Presidente: "So these documents were used only in the slander
case and limited to that?" "Yes." "Then it seems to me that the Kercher
family's defense has already...." (not clear to me what is said here but
apparently it is a green light).] So, I will ask a specific question.
["Please go ahead."]



Confirmation, if it were needed, that the disallowed statements have been used in the slander part of the trial.


Yes, this is an important point to underscore.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:29 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

The Machine wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
The evidence placing RS at the scene is problematic for AK, since he is her somewhat wobbly alibi


Raffaele Sollecito stopped providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007.


I didn't want to burden ks1 with these details, since he or she has already decided what a US juror must do in this case. Too bad the trial is not being held here in the US. Also, jurors often deliberate and argue for days and days, suggesting that "what a juror must do" is not always as clear-cut as it is for ks1. Some people reach a verdict very quickly and then never look back.

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

Offline Swanny


Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:12 pm

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:37 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 - The bra strap DNA points to RS and the bathmat footprint evidence points to RS. Both have been admitted into AK's trial. These things, among others, seem to tie RS quite closely to the murder. As to AK, bloody footprints and shoeprints that match AK's, mixed DNA in Filomena's room, a double DNA knife, witness testimony that places her near the scene at the time, the lack of an alibi and/or witness testimony that contradicts her alibi, AK's relationship to RS, and the murder happening at AK's place (possibly with RS involved in the murder), tie AK into the murder. It will be interesting to see what the jury thinks. Personally, I have a difficult time not thinking she was involved in the murder.

TS- I agree, the bra clasp evidence is HUGE and I don't believe the contamination or evidence-planting theory, either.

But, I wonder if we will hear an explanation from Sollecito that he touched the bra strap on the drying rack or on AK, as they said before, and I wonder if the DNA was found in the threads that were cut? However, I think RS may have to testify to get this evidence in and I don't think he will do that.

Swanny
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:45 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
Am I not allowed an opinion that differs from yours, or is it just that if my opinion is different from yours, then it is ignorant?


ks1, I hear you. That comment seemed rather brusque.

Anyway, I'm curious to know, if you were a juror, you also would vote not guilty on Rudy. He admits to being there, said he had a consensual encounter. That explains his dna and fingerprint on the scene. He says somebody else came in and comitted the murder. And there are signs that others, besides him, were there.


Last edited by lane99 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:47 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Something else for ks1 to ponder on.

In Italy the jury must explain in detail the exact reasons they came to a guilty verdict. These reasons will be explained in detail in a report which will be several hundred pages long. A failure in the logic or accuracy of those reasons will result in an appeal by the defense. An appeal will happen in any case because a defence can always find some kind of fault in that report. The appeal consists of argument against the reasoning and logic of the jury in reaching the conclusions they have in that report.

Is the reasoning of Jurors in the US subject to anything like the same kind of scrutiny or do they just cast their vote without explaining in detail their reason for doing so and walk away from the court?


EDIT to add:

This reponsibility of the jury to explain their verdict has in fact been the most enlightening thing to me as I've come to understand a different system.

Why not adopt some similar practice in common law.

OJ would never have happened.


Last edited by Brian S. on Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:52 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 mentioned a double murder trial for which he or she was a juror. It would be interesting to hear a little more about this case. Who was on trial? Who was murdered? What was the verdict?

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

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

You seem to be concentrating on Amanda in your argument around innocence. Don't you apply the same conclusions to Raffaele, or do you think it's possible that one of them may be guilty and the other innocent?[/quote]

I was concentrating on Amanda as she is the one on trial and any evidence against Raffaele has nothing to do with her. I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrupt the board, I was simply stating that I have read nothing that PROVES her guilt, which is not to say that I think she is innocent. I think the defense experts will offer information as to the possibilities that exist for her dna to be mixed with Meredith's in Filomena's room, the trial I was on was mostly blood related evidence and I've heard those arguments. We did, by the way, find that defendant guilty.
I do think it is possible that one may be guilty and not the other. Raffaele could have left the apartment with her sleeping there, or vice versa.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:04 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
This reponsibility of the jury to explain their verdict has in fact been the most enlightening thing to me as I've come to understand a different system.

Why not adopt some similar practice in common law.

OJ would never have happened.


It's a reasonable point Brian. If the jury were obliged to explain in detail how they came to their verdict then it would reduce the tendency to come to a conclusion based on bias or prejudice or even ignorance. It's a shame such an approach is not adopted more widely.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:09 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
justlooking wrote:
Hellos ks1 and welcome. I like to read all perspectives on this case so it's always good to read different opinions. As a former juror what has been presented in the trial so far that show that they must be innocent, or that the evidence itself is not sufficient for a guilty verdict? Obviously the trial is only about half way through so there may be more details to come, but I'm interested to see how you've come to that conclusion so soon.


In the U.S., it is a jurors duty to make a decision based only on what is presented at trial. Reasonable doubt = not guilty, they do not have to prove innocence, as they are presumed innocent. Though the dna on the bra points to RS, it doesn't put AK at the crime scene and in the U.S, I don't think that would even be admitted as evidence during her trial. His, yes, but not hers, it has nothing to do with her case. A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time. Again, his footprint may speak volumes and hold all kinds of evidence pointing to him, but it says nothing to me of her guilt or innocence, and I would disregard that evidence. A shoeprint found in her size would mean nothing to me, unless they matched that print to one of her shoes. Size 7 is a very common shoe size. I want EVIDENCE. I want PROOF, not possibilities. I have not read of the witnesses that put them at the cottage at the time of the murder, will try to find it. She stated that she used the knife while cooking at RS's apartment, thus, one would expect her dna to be on that knife. At this point, and with what I've read (realizing that there may be more evidence which might change my opinion presented later) I have not read anything that PROVES to me that she committed the crime, therefore, by U.S. juror obligations, I would not be able to hand down a guilty verdict.



But, KS, there's so much more evidence than what you describe...good circumstantial evidence.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:

Quote:
You seem to be concentrating on Amanda in your argument around innocence. Don't you apply the same conclusions to Raffaele, or do you think it's possible that one of them may be guilty and the other innocent?


I was concentrating on Amanda as she is the one on trial and any evidence against Raffaele has nothing to do with her. I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrupt the board, I was simply stating that I have read nothing that PROVES her guilt, which is not to say that I think she is innocent. I think the defense experts will offer information as to the possibilities that exist for her dna to be mixed with Meredith's in Filomena's room, the trial I was on was mostly blood related evidence and I've heard those arguments. We did, by the way, find that defendant guilty.
I do think it is possible that one may be guilty and not the other. Raffaele could have left the apartment with her sleeping there, or vice versa.[/quote]

Raffaele Sollecito is also on trial. As others have pointed out, their alibis are interdependent. This too is complex. RS first said they were at a party with friends; he then said they were together; he then said AK went out at 9 pm while he surfed the web until 1 am. Computer forensics show this to be untrue. He also stated that his father called him on his land line at 11 pm and this too is false. Meanwhile, AK has placed herself in the cottage with an innocent man doing the killing. She provided a written version of this accusation that was not coerced. And so on. Like I said: this is all somewhat complex. By the way, the mixture in Filomena's room contains Meredith's blood.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:12 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
This reponsibility of the jury to explain their verdict has in fact been the most enlightening thing to me as I've come to understand a different system.

Why not adopt some similar practice in common law.

OJ would never have happened.


It's a reasonable point Brian. If the jury were obliged to explain in detail how they came to their verdict then it would reduce the tendency to come to a conclusion based on bias or prejudice or even ignorance. It's a shame such an approach is not adopted more widely.


Yeah. Here, it happens in bench trials (when a defendant waives a jury trial and asks for a single judge to decide his/her cas), but it obviously doesn't happen in jury trials.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:13 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Something else for ks1 to ponder on.

In Italy the jury must explain in detail the exact reasons they came to a guilty verdict. These reasons will be explained in detail in a report which will be several hundred pages long. A failure in the logic or accuracy of those reasons will result in an appeal by the defense. An appeal will happen in any case because a defence can always find some kind of fault in that report. The appeal consists of argument against the reasoning and logic of the jury in reaching the conclusions they have in that report.

Is the reasoning of Jurors in the US subject to anything like the same kind of scrutiny or do they just cast their vote without explaining in detail their reason for doing so and walk away from the court?


EDIT to add:

This reponsibility of the jury to explain their verdict has in fact been the most enlightening thing to me as I've come to understand a different system.

Why not adopt some similar practice in common law.

OJ would never have happened.


I didn't know that about the jury having to detail their reasons for their verdict. That is actually quite a good idea, although in our crime-ridden America the logistical hurdles would be tremendous. Jurors often choose to speak to the media after they have arrived at a verdict, to explain their reasoning, but they are never required to do so. They are "polled" after the verdict, but that is all.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:24 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
ks1 mentioned a double murder trial for which he or she was a juror. It would be interesting to hear a little more about this case. Who was on trial? Who was murdered? What was the verdict?

It was a double murder, drug deal gone bad, two men from Garden City, Kansas murdered in Wichita, we found the defendant guilty and handed down the 1st hard 40 sentence ever given in Kansas. The instructions to the jury were quite extensive as to what we could base our verdict on. A bloody shoeprint would not allow us to assume guilt unless that print was a proven match to the defendants shoe. A drop of the victims blood on the shoe that he was wearing at the time of his arrest, would allow us to assume guilt. After the trial, we learned that there was another party to the crime, but he was never charged. We learned after the trial of the evidence that indicated another person was involved (bloody shoeprints not belonging to the defendant), not during the trial.
We did not have to explain our verdict. The jury foreman is asked to stand and give the verdict, then each juror is asked personally to state whether they found the defendant guilty or not guilty.
The system in Italy seems far superior.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:29 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:

Quote:
A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time. Again, his footprint may speak volumes and hold all kinds of evidence pointing to him, but it says nothing to me of her guilt or innocence, and I would disregard that evidence.


In fact, what you say may apply as well to an Italian judge. If they think - after reading hundreds of pages of forensic reports, and having questioned the experts - that footprints in fact mean "nothing", this would mean that the trial slids towards a verdict of insufficient proof. As some people yet forsee.

I totally disagree that an attribution for sure of a footprint to Raffaele would be neutral to Amanda. This would be not possible for sure by Italian court and law. This would mean that Amanda is providing a false alibi to a murderer, therfore she would be at least claiming the murder.

Anyway, the level of proof in this case depends on the significance of the forensic reports about footprints, blood stains, dna findings, plus the *number* of any precise circumstantial evidence. The footprints "mean nothing because she lived there and there was blood" may happen to be a right conclusion, but as a complete thoungt it sounds a bit too quick to me. I don't know if my house is full of luminol-enhanced bare footprints. But if this is the case, there could be a possibility to discover what is the reason, what is the substance that I sed in the shower for example, I mean there is a big number of clues worth to be investigated. Italy is a land with a tradition of patient craftsmen with a big obsession for details.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:41 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, the level of proof in this case depends on the significance of the forensic reports about footprints, blood stains, dna findings, plus the *number* of any precise circumstantial evidence. The footprints "mean nothing because she lived there and there was blood" may happen to be a right conclusion, but as a complete thoungt it sounds a bit too quick to me. I don't know if my house is full of luminol-enhanced bare footprints. But if this is the case, there could be a possibility to discover what is the reason, what is the substance that I sed in the shower for example, I mean there is a big number of clues worth to be investigated. Italy is a land with a tradition of patient craftsmen with a big obsession for details.


The ceiling of the Sistene Chapel is not the only thing that comes to mind, but it certainly comes to mind when I hear the terms "obsession for details".

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

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Pay attention to what Brian wrote:

Quote:
An appeal will happen in any case because a defence can always find some kind of fault in that report. The appeal consists of argument against the reasoning and logic of the jury in reaching the conclusions they have in that report.


It is *not* correct.

An appeal is not made against the reasoning and the logic of the first degree verdict. Instead, an appeal in the Italian system is an entirely new process. It does not require the quesioning nor use of the verdict's motivation.
A serious failure in the logic of the written verdict, instead, leads to an appeal to the Supreme Court by which the defendant can win a right to a new *first degree* trial. The "questioning of the verdict's motivation" is a Supreme Court appeal. The direct questioning of evidence - no matter what the motivation was - is a second degree appeal. The previous motivations are usually disallowed by the court of appeal, who refuses to read them.
Top Profile 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

[
lane99 wrote:
ks1 wrote:
Am I not allowed an opinion that differs from yours, or is it just that if my opinion is different from yours, then it is ignorant?


ks1, I hear you. That comment seemed rather brusque.

Anyway, I'm curious to know, if you were a juror, you also would vote not guilty on Rudy. He admits to being there, said he had a consensual encounter. That explains his dna and fingerprint on the scene. He says somebody else came in and comitted the murder. And there are signs that others, besides him, were there.


I would have found him guilty as well. I'm not saying at the end of the trial I wouldn't find them all guilty, but if the evidence is all circumstatial against AK, and if the defense presents a persuasive argument and creates enough "reasonable doubt", if I were on the jury, I would not be able to find her guilty.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline allsburg


Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:51 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
411, I've been intrigued by the mushroom information as well. When I first heard about it, my thought was that the knife must have been brought over to slice mushrooms, and all four players snacked on them before the murder. But then someone pointed out that the knife was a much larger knife than would typically be brought somewhere to slice mushrooms. Hmmmmm.

And that's an interesting angle re: the esophagus, and one I hadn't considered before. Your theory makes intuitive sense to me, although I don't know how the specific medical/bodily processes work in such a situation.


I'm now convinced that Mignini's "sex game" theory is all bogus. Here's the real motivation for the crime: Ruby, Raf and Amanda were sitting around eating mushrooms, and they offered one to Meredith but she wouldn't eat it. Then they started teasing her, trying to get her to eat one, but she hated mushrooms so she wouldn't. Then things got out of hand, and although they never meant to, the knife came out and Meredith was dead.

And OT: a dm-) shows up, and manages to hijack the board? ss-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:57 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Pay attention to what Brian wrote:

Quote:
An appeal will happen in any case because a defence can always find some kind of fault in that report. The appeal consists of argument against the reasoning and logic of the jury in reaching the conclusions they have in that report.


It is *not* correct.

An appeal is not made against the reasoning and the logic of the first degree verdict. Instead, an appeal in the Italian system is an entirely new process. It does not require the quesioning nor use of the verdict's motivation.
A serious failure in the logic of the written verdict, instead, leads to an appeal to the Supreme Court by which the defendant can win a right to a new *first degree* trial. The "questioning of the verdict's motivation" is a Supreme Court appeal. The direct questioning of evidence - no matter what the motivation was - is a second degree appeal. The previous motivations are usually disallowed by the court of appeal, who refuses to read them.


Thankyou for the correction Yummi.

I've been under a misapprehension there for quite some time. I picked it up when Walter Biscotti talked about his appeal for Rudy Guede.
Is this a difference between the rights of appeal in a shortened trial and those in a first degere trial?
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:10 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
I didn't know that about the jury having to detail their reasons for their verdict.


Justa quick by side thought . The written verdict might have a great meaning as to - for example - an American point of view, to understand a possibly different Italian attitude towards media exposure, environmental bias, etc. like much of the accusations and criticism that arose around this particular case. Why do the Italian *not* criticize so much a prosecutor and a trial debate? Because Italian criticism by judiciary reporters and public opinon is focused on the written motivations by the verdict. Most people would even refouse to put any comment about an investigation, a trial or a sentence "untill they saw the motivations". The expectation of this following step, of the "explanation", plays a part in the meaning of all real-time aspects of an ongoing trial, in how they are regarded and considered. Very rarely something appears "obvious" nor important detail is spotted in real time during a trial.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:15 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
Is this a difference between the rights of appeal in a shortened trial and those in a first degere trial?


Ehm, no there is no difference abut appeals. The only difference could be that a shorthned trial might have more options for a different kind of appeal: the right to win a new "long" trial. This happens in the case the shortned trial is a "condizionato", in which the prosecutor "brakes" the rule of the no-more-new evidence. If the prosecutor agrees to go further with a new investigation and call for new evidence, this can be the ground for a "special" appeal which is in fact only a shifting to a new "regular" trial.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
do you think it's possible that one of them may be guilty and the other innocent?


I was wondering this too. I don't know how court cases work with two people charged at once,sitting in the same room.

That Paul Ciocellini or whoever, (that guy people make fun of here)...said he thought AK would have high chances of being found guilty and RS would be acquitted. So I assume from this comment, it can happen.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
\
I was concentrating on Amanda as she is the one on trial and any evidence against Raffaele has nothing to do with her. I'm not trying to be argumentative or disrupt the board, I was simply stating that I have read nothing that PROVES her guilt, which is not to say that I think she is innocent. I think the defense experts will offer information as to the possibilities that exist for her dna to be mixed with Meredith's in Filomena's room, the trial I was on was mostly blood related evidence and I've heard those arguments. We did, by the way, find that defendant guilty.
I do think it is possible that one may be guilty and not the other. Raffaele could have left the apartment with her sleeping there, or vice versa.


but did that defendant live in the house and take showers? probably not, I'll assume...reading your comments.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:38 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I'm a computer dummy, thus no quotes. In thoughtfuls translation of tape #6, Amanda says something to the effect: I found the front door open...I called to see if anyone was home...I left the door open in case someone should return...I went to my room and got undressed...I went into the bathroom and took a shower...I had forgotten my towel so I hopped down the hall on the bathmat to my room...I got dressed.

If I came home to an open front door and no response from other residents of the house, the last thing I would have done is gotten undressed and taken shower. I might, if I wasn't completely freaked out by the open door and no response from my roommates, have taken a very cautious look around the place to see if everything was alright. Which Amanda apparently did not do since she didn't notice Filomena's door being open and the "break in". But leaving the door open, getting undressed and parading back and forth to the bathroom like Amanda said she did--that's inconceivable!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:41 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Let me first say that my "instincts" would normally be against my posting a link to the publication with this article but I can't resist the headline or the story, so here it is:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher

Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:45 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian wrote:

Quote:
Let me first say that my "instincts" would normally be against my posting a link to the publication with this article but I can't resist the headline or the story, so here it is:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher


This is the first time in my life I agree with Anne Coulter. Wow!!!

Welcome Beans. Yay-)

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:50 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
ks1 wrote:
A footprint with her dna and blood of the victim to me says nothing. She admits that she showered, and there was blood present at that time.


There was a mixture of Amanda Knox's DNA and Meredith's blood on the floor in Filomena's room. Barbie Nadeau highlighted the significance of this evidence on The Daily Beast website:

"But perhaps more damning even than the knife was Stefanoni’s testimony that a mix of Knox’s DNA and Kercher’s blood was found on the floor in the bedroom of a third roommate, Filomena Romanelli. While it might not be noteworthy to find mixed genetic traces of residents of the same house, Romanelli’s room is critical in this crime. Her window was broken with a large rock that prosecutors believe was used to stage a break-in. The mixed Knox-Kercher trace was found after investigators used luminol, a substance used in forensic science to bring out blood that had been cleaned up."



interesting,

From a defense point of view, the mixed blood could have traveled from the Bathroom to Filomena's. How the blood got in the bathroom was Rudys washing up and spreading it around. There's the point of mixture. the bathroom.
just a thought?

but AK's timeline, did she go intop Filomenas room during the "Shower timeline"?

With all this confusing evidence, as it sits, I think the defense "Rudy did it alone", is going to be hard.
I think its still an open case but...

Disputing the autopsy.
It seems the defense will have to focus on this, in order to sell the Solo-Rudy scenario. right? I only found one autopsy <snip> in their favor.

pro-defense-
The Autopsy was done by Dr. Luca Lalli.
1) "Under cross-examination, defense attorneys asked if he could exclude the possibility that she was killed by a single attacker, and he said he could not."
This was from the April 2008 hearing supposedly.

Anti-defense-
1) There has been 10 judges, supposedly, who have reviewed the same evidence and they moved forward with the case.
2) Dr. Luca Lalli, also commented, the crime was most likely committed by more than one person, to the prosecution.


Last edited by jfk1191 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:56 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

JFK wrote:

Quote:
That Paul Ciocellini or whoever, (that guy people make fun of here)...said he thought AK would have high chances of being found guilty and RS would be acquitted. So I assume from this comment, it can happen.


If I started to make a list of all the idiotic things Paul Ciolino has said, it would take all night. And I haven't got time for that. If this happens, it won't be because Paul Ciolino says so.

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:57 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
JFK wrote:

Quote:
That Paul Ciocellini or whoever, (that guy people make fun of here)...said he thought AK would have high chances of being found guilty and RS would be acquitted. So I assume from this comment, it can happen.


If I started to make a list of all the idiotic things Paul Ciolino has said, it would take all night. And I haven't got time for that. If this happens, it won't be because Paul Ciolino says so.


the original question was "can it happen?"
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

but did that defendant live in the house and take showers? probably not, I'll assume...reading your comments.[/quote]

No, he didn't. And if she didn't live in the house and shower, I guess I wouldn't have any reason for doubt as to why her footprints were there. Someone commented earlier that there are jurors that reach a verdict and never look back. That has not been the case with me. I have to say sending a son, a brother and a father to prison for life was the most difficult thing I have ever done. I felt no sorrow for him, but seeing his family there day after day, watching them pray before the verdict was announced, and their reaction afterward was heartbreaking. Maybe I let my sympathy for her family, her friends and her youth detract from the obvious.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

JFK wrote:

Quote:
From a defense point of view, the mixed blood could have traveled from the Bathroom to Filomena's. How the blood got in the bathroom was Rudys washing up and spreading it around. There's the point of mixture. the bathroom.
just a thought?

but AK's timeline, did she go intop Filomenas room during the "Shower timeline"?


No DNA from Rudy in the small bathroom.

And

AK wrote in her detailed email home that Filomena's door was shut. She repeated that on the stand under questioning.

_________________
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 Jun 18, 2009 2:09 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
JFK wrote:

Quote:
That Paul Ciocellini or whoever, (that guy people make fun of here)...said he thought AK would have high chances of being found guilty and RS would be acquitted. So I assume from this comment, it can happen.


If I started to make a list of all the idiotic things Paul Ciolino has said, it would take all night. And I haven't got time for that. If this happens, it won't be because Paul Ciolino says so.


the original question was "can it happen?"


In theory, Yes.

I think that's why Sollecito hasn't in the past given a statement changing his assertion that AK went out at 9:00pm while he stayed at home. He maintained that stance at his appeal for release from detention in April 2008. Nor will he stand up in this court and give AK an alibi.

In practice, I don't think it's likely.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:23 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
but did that defendant live in the house and take showers? probably not, I'll assume...reading your comments.

Quote:
No, he didn't. And if she didn't live in the house and shower, I guess I wouldn't have any reason for doubt as to why her footprints were there. Someone commented earlier that there are jurors that reach a verdict and never look back. That has not been the case with me. I have to say sending a son, a brother and a father to prison for life was the most difficult thing I have ever done. I felt no sorrow for him, but seeing his family there day after day, watching them pray before the verdict was announced, and their reaction afterward was heartbreaking. Maybe I let my sympathy for her family, her friends and her youth detract from the obvious.
[/quote]


I can't imagine your experience, thanks for sharing it.

the fact these are bare-footprints, no shoes, doesn't allow any excuses for the Nov 2., so thats going to be a difficult issue to explain. I'll guess the defense just argue its not her footprint. what else is there? the Forensic people ran around and contaminated everything?

on one hand, there is always the scenario, the clean-up was interrupted when the Postal Police showed up with the two cellphones. thats why the washer was running, and the cleanup wasn't completed.
however a cellphone call to Filomena, before the POstal Police arrive, stands in the defense favor, yes?

think the case is hard, try to explain how the Postal Police jhust showed up at the cottage when they did? too bizarre.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:29 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Brian wrote:

Quote:
Let me first say that my "instincts" would normally be against my posting a link to the publication with this article but I can't resist the headline or the story, so here it is:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher


This is the first time in my life I agree with Anne Coulter. Wow!!!

Welcome Beans. Yay-)


Yeah, same here. I thought I would ex-) before ever admitting to agreeing with something written by Anne Coulter!

Beans, your name makes me laugh. :) From Boston, perhaps?

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:43 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian wrote:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher

Brian that is actually a pretty good article. Ann Coulter is generally Pro American everything. In fact she is a very loud voice in that regard. But here she is taking a neutral view and takes Egan to task for his article, and does a pretty good job of debunking it. Ann Coulter was an attorney at one time, and I think this Egan (liberal NYT) article gave her a reason to express her opinions. And appears that she did some actual research on this case. Good for her!!

Edit: I, apparently along with Skep and TS, usually just tunes her out. But she has quite a following.


Last edited by DLW on Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline karuna


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:01 am

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:08 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

New to the thread.

Just wanted to correct a statement made earlier that 65% of women in prison are psychopaths. I am a clinician who has worked in prisons and have administered the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) to women prisoners. Let me first emphasize that Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) are not equivalent terms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy. ASPD is a clinical, DSM-IV-TR diagnosis. Psychopathy is not.

Also, there's no way that 65% of the US women prison population meet criteria for psychopathy. First, a background. Many of the women in US prisons are there because of the War on Drugs (e.g. many are there for drug-related issues). Up to 85% of the women in a typical women's prison have a history of having experienced childhood physical and/or sexual abuse as well as domestic violence. Not surprisingly, many have mostly untreated comorbid psychiatric disorders (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Mood/Anxiety Disorders, Substance Abuse). Some are seriously mentally ill (e.g. schizophrenia) while others suffer from low IQ or brain trauma -- more reasons why people end up in prisons. Yes, some of these women will also meet criteria for ASPD (the incidence would be higher in men). But more are likely to have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Almost all will have some type of trauma history.

I became interested in this case because of my interest in trauma, which affect memory consolidation, and memory, which is really an ongoing reconstruction of events.

I'm also fascinated by what Amanda Knox has come to represent for many people as she seems to attract a multitude of reactions which says more about the people making the judgments than Amanda Knox herself. One common thread seems to be about what is appropriate and/or acceptable behavior, e.g. how people would have behaved in her stead. I don't know Amanda Knox so I can't make assumptions about her, let alone make a diagnosis, suggestive or not -- which would be unethical and irresponsible. Meanwhile, I will follow the case and believe in her presumed innocence until incontrovertible evidence is presented.

Carry on. I'll mostly read.

We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are. - Anais Nin
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:31 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
No, he didn't. And if she didn't live in the house and shower, I guess I wouldn't have any reason for doubt as to why her footprints were there. Someone commented earlier that there are jurors that reach a verdict and never look back. That has not been the case with me. I have to say sending a son, a brother and a father to prison for life was the most difficult thing I have ever done. I felt no sorrow for him, but seeing his family there day after day, watching them pray before the verdict was announced, and their reaction afterward was heartbreaking. Maybe I let my sympathy for her family, her friends and her youth detract from the obvious.


Ks1, I've said this before on the forum but I'll repeat it now because it's relevant to your comment. I think I would be the world's worst juror for the prosecution on a serious criminal case. I know the proper standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," but I suspect that it would be hard for me to convict someone of a serious felony unless I had basically "no doubt." The experience of sending someone to prison for life would weigh on my conscience a lot, I'm sure. If I get called for jury duty on a serious felony I am going to try my best to get excused for cause!

The interesting thing is that the Italian system, as far as I know, doesn't have a voir dire process to screen out potential jurors like me - lol. But I suspect that the existence of two professional judges on the panel helps to "sort everything out," so to speak.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:38 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

DLW wrote:
Ann Coulter is generally Pro American everything. In fact she is a very loud voice in that regard.


That might be the understatement of the decade right there. :lol:

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:43 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

karuna wrote:


I'm also fascinated by what Amanda Knox has come to represent for many people as she seems to attract a multitude of reactions which says more about the people making the judgments than Amanda Knox herself.


That's an interesting observation that I do think has some merit.

Anyway, welcome, and thanks for the insights.

Love your sig. line, btw. :)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:47 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

karuna wrote:
New to the thread.

Just wanted to correct a statement made earlier that 65% of women in prison are psychopaths. I am a clinician who has worked in prisons and have administered the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) to women prisoners. Let me first emphasize that Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) are not equivalent terms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy. ASPD is a clinical, DSM-IV-TR diagnosis. Psychopathy is not.

Also, there's no way that 65% of the US women prison population meet criteria for psychopathy. First, a background. Many of the women in US prisons are there because of the War on Drugs (e.g. many are there for drug-related issues). Up to 85% of the women in a typical women's prison have a history of having experienced childhood physical and/or sexual abuse as well as domestic violence. Not surprisingly, many have mostly untreated comorbid psychiatric disorders (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Mood/Anxiety Disorders, Substance Abuse). Some are seriously mentally ill (e.g. schizophrenia) while others suffer from low IQ or brain trauma -- more reasons why people end up in prisons. Yes, some of these women will also meet criteria for ASPD (the incidence would be higher in men). But more are likely to have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). Almost all will have some type of trauma history.

I became interested in this case because of my interest in trauma, which affect memory consolidation, and memory, which is really an ongoing reconstruction of events.

I'm also fascinated by what Amanda Knox has come to represent for many people as she seems to attract a multitude of reactions which says more about the people making the judgments than Amanda Knox herself. One common thread seems to be about what is appropriate and/or acceptable behavior, e.g. how people would have behaved in her stead. I don't know Amanda Knox so I can't make assumptions about her, let alone make a diagnosis, suggestive or not -- which would be unethical and irresponsible. Meanwhile, I will follow the case and believe in her presumed innocence until incontrovertible evidence is presented.

Carry on. I'll mostly read.

We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are. - Anais Nin


Hello.
Your career sounds interesting. I was just searching for similar cases wondering if AK fits any "common" profile?
Could you comment on this?

It just is hard to comprehend someone with so much going for them, doing this crime, and add, 21 years of a perfectly clean record.

BTW, I have no professional expertise, just an interest in how the case is put together, dismantled, and a conclusion is made.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:57 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:

It is *not* correct.

An appeal is not made against the reasoning and the logic of the first degree verdict. Instead, an appeal in the Italian system is an entirely new process. It does not require the quesioning nor use of the verdict's motivation.
A serious failure in the logic of the written verdict, instead, leads to an appeal to the Supreme Court by which the defendant can win a right to a new *first degree* trial. The "questioning of the verdict's motivation" is a Supreme Court appeal. The direct questioning of evidence - no matter what the motivation was - is a second degree appeal. The previous motivations are usually disallowed by the court of appeal, who refuses to read them.


Yummi, so there's basically a "two-route" appeal system, then?

1) You have the "second-degree appeal" that involves looking at the evidence anew? But with limitations as to new evidence being introduced, etc.?

2) You can appeal to the Supreme Court for a re-do of the trial, just like what happens in the U.S. when a verdict is overturned and a case is remanded for a new trial? So all previous evidence and any new evidence can be introduced?

Can both these appeals be pursued at the same time? Also, are they automatic? For example, in a lot of cases in the U.S. a defendant or other party must be granted permission to even have the appeal heard. The judges look at the record and then basically decide whether it merits a closer look, i.e., a full appeal. Does that happen in Italy or are the appeals automatic so long as a party seeks them?

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:03 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
Thoughtful - once again, many thanks for your translated court transcripts. These are very revealing I think and provides much more detail than found in the usual media outlets.


over and above...great posts, the best! gb-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:19 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't know of many murder cases where there is an eyewitness placing the suspects at the scene when the crime is committed. By nature, murder is a crime committed without eye witnesses.


Gotta disagree with you there Skep, but it shouldn't bother you too much since you know I agree with you on Coulter and Bush. :lol: Anyway, in my work I see a ton of murder cases (mostly involving drugs and gangs) that have eyewitnesses.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:18 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mutley wrote:
I have a feeling that she is telling an approximation of the truth. The questions were getting uncomfortable and she needed to throw them a name to send them off in another direction. She raced candidates through her mind and imagined how plausible they might sound or 'imagined' how they could have done it. Patrick's name on SMS. Black man. Site for lost job. Superficial resmblance to Guede if somebody saw him running away. Tick boxes. Q the hysterical story and head hitting for effect. A bit of time to think out the details in the quiet and hey presto a 'gift' to the police of a more elaborate written scenario. All imagined. We used to call that lying. The jury may. Liars lie for advantage so what was she covering?


The interrogation...I found this here on the forum, I ahve to give AK the benefit of the doubt she was forced to say anything, something. Especially after reading this? This case isn't making any sense?

Patrick's INterrogation (per an article on this forum- In Their Own words, )

At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.

"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

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

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

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

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that ? still handcuffed and unfed ? he was shown the evidence against him,



:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: pf-))
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jetlagged


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:17 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:27 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
The first thing I did was,
I went into my room and undressed, and then I went into the bathroom, took
out my earrings, and washed my ears...

So this was around 11:00 more or less, maybe?

More or less, maybe.

Okay.

Yes.

You undressed in your own room? as you just said?

Yes.

You also took off your shoes in your own room?

Yes.

And you went barefoot into the bathroom?

Yes.

Go on.

Okay. I can't remember if I brushed my teeth before or after taking a shower.
I think...before...I don't remember. I did brush my teeth, but I don't know
if it was before or after the shower. Anyway, I got into the shower, took
the shower, and then, getting out of the shower, I used the bathmat to
kind of hop over to my room, because I had forgotten my towel. Then I took
my towel, returned to the bathroom, dried myself and put my earrings back in.
Then I went into my room, got some clothes and dressed


A similar point was made above by beans, but this issue is troubling me, too. The lawyer didn't specifically ask, but I infer from the testimony above that AK stripped off completely in her room and then walked naked to the bathroom, showered, bathmat-shuffled naked back to her room, put a towel around her, bathmat-shuffled back to the bathroom and dried off. Wouldn't any normal person have wrapped a towel around themselves before leaving their room? I'd be interested to see if it was her habit to walk around naked on a normal day, let alone a day when the door was left unlocked. I have to say I find a lot of her testimony to be fairly persuasive, but this point seems almost impossible to believe. I wished they'd pressed it further. Or am I misinterpreting it?


Last edited by jetlagged on Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:40 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jetlagged wrote:
The first thing I did was,
I went into my room and undressed, and then I went into the bathroom, took
out my earrings, and washed my ears...

So this was around 11:00 more or less, maybe?

More or less, maybe.

Okay.

Yes.

You undressed in your own room? as you just said?

Yes.

You also took off your shoes in your own room?

Yes.

Quote:
And you went barefoot into the bathroom?

Yes.

Go on.

Okay. I can't remember if I brushed my teeth before or after taking a shower.
I think...before...I don't remember. I did brush my teeth, but I don't know
if it was before or after the shower. Anyway, I got into the shower, took
the shower, and then, getting out of the shower, I used the bathmat to
kind of hop over to my room, because I had forgotten my towel. Then I took
my towel, returned to the bathroom, dried myself and put my earrings back in.
Then I went into my room, got some clothes and dressed


A similar point was made above by beans, but this issue is troubling me, too. The lawyer didn't specifically ask, but I infer from the testimony above that AK stripped off completely in her room and then walked naked to the bathroom, showered, bathmat-shuffled naked back to her room, put a towel around her, bathmat-shuffled back to the bathroom and dried off. Wouldn't any normal person have wrapped a towel around themselves before leaving their room? I'd be interested to see if it was her habit to walk around naked on a normal day, let alone a day when the door was left unlocked. I have to say I find a lot of her testimony to be fairly persuasive, but this point seems almost impossible to believe. I wished they'd pressed it further. Or am I misinterpreting it?


Jetlagged, I obviously don't know for sure, but based on what we know about Amanda, I suspect she was a person who was quite comfortable with being naked, probably even when there were other people around. Of course, that doesn't mean I believe her story, but I'm not sure the "naked" issue is particularly significant.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:43 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
"An appeal is not made against the reasoning and the logic of the first degree verdict. Instead, an appeal in the Italian system is an entirely new process. It does not require the quesioning nor use of the verdict's motivation. A serious failure in the logic of the written verdict, instead, leads to an appeal to the Supreme Court by which the defendant can win a right to a new *first degree* trial."

Neither option is good news for the defendants.
They mean doubling or tripling the legal costs and further years of litigation with only a small chance of winning.
Top Profile 

Offline jetlagged


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:17 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:57 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:

Jetlagged, I obviously don't know for sure, but based on what we know about Amanda, I suspect she was a person who was quite comfortable with being naked, probably even when there were other people around. Of course, that doesn't mean I believe her story, but I'm not sure the "naked" issue is particularly significant.


You may be right, TS: she is a bit of an exhibitionist and it probably wouldn't be out of character for her to flaunt herself. But aside from the nakedness, it makes no sense that she would "forget" her towel. Maybe so if she'd gone to the bathroom fully clothed, but in this case surely the sensation of freezing cold skin would have reminded her that she'd forgotten something...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:59 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

TS wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't know of many murder cases where there is an eyewitness placing the suspects at the scene when the crime is committed. By nature, murder is a crime committed without eye witnesses.


Gotta disagree with you there Skep, but it shouldn't bother you too much since you know I agree with you on Coulter and Bush. Anyway, in my work I see a ton of murder cases (mostly involving drugs and gangs) that have eyewitnesses.



I would guess that both drug-related and gang-related murders have eye witnesses - I almost made that qualification in my post.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:01 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jetlagged wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

Jetlagged, I obviously don't know for sure, but based on what we know about Amanda, I suspect she was a person who was quite comfortable with being naked, probably even when there were other people around. Of course, that doesn't mean I believe her story, but I'm not sure the "naked" issue is particularly significant.


You may be right, TS: she is a bit of an exhibitionist and it probably wouldn't be out of character for her to flaunt herself. But aside from the nakedness, it makes no sense that she would "forget" her towel. Maybe so if she'd gone to the bathroom fully clothed, but in this case surely the sensation of freezing cold skin would have reminded her that she'd forgotten something...


Hmmm . . . good point, especially if it was chilly in the cottage.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:04 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
TS wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I don't know of many murder cases where there is an eyewitness placing the suspects at the scene when the crime is committed. By nature, murder is a crime committed without eye witnesses.


Gotta disagree with you there Skep, but it shouldn't bother you too much since you know I agree with you on Coulter and Bush. Anyway, in my work I see a ton of murder cases (mostly involving drugs and gangs) that have eyewitnesses.



I would guess that both drug-related and gang-related murders have eye witnesses - I almost made that qualification in my post.


Yeah. As I work in the state that includes DETROIT, we've sadly got a lot of 'em to deal with.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:13 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.

"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

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

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

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

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that, still handcuffed and unfed, he was shown the evidence against him.



I had forgotten about this but I am not in the least surprised. And I am 100% certain that all ten policepeople involved in this interrogation would swear on the stand that they treated Patrick properly. They wouldn't be lying or perjuring themselves. There are legal bounds that they are not supposed to cross, and if they don't cross them, then they are treating the person properly.

I think Amanda's interrogation that finished at 1:45 on the morning of Nov 5th was actually much less intense than this, because for quite some time she was not herself being considered officially as a suspect or accused murderer. Plus, she's a girl. So no punching or kicking. But the interrogation by ten people shouting about remembering, I'd say this passage renders her claims entirely believable.

Nonetheless, Patrick didn't break down and confess or imagine anything, let alone finger anyone else.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:47 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Mutley wrote:
I have a feeling that she is telling an approximation of the truth. The questions were getting uncomfortable and she needed to throw them a name to send them off in another direction. She raced candidates through her mind and imagined how plausible they might sound or 'imagined' how they could have done it. Patrick's name on SMS. Black man. Site for lost job. Superficial resmblance to Guede if somebody saw him running away. Tick boxes. Q the hysterical story and head hitting for effect. A bit of time to think out the details in the quiet and hey presto a 'gift' to the police of a more elaborate written scenario. All imagined. We used to call that lying. The jury may. Liars lie for advantage so what was she covering?


The interrogation...I found this here on the forum, I ahve to give AK the benefit of the doubt she was forced to say anything, something. Especially after reading this? This case isn't making any sense?

Patrick's INterrogation (per an article on this forum- In Their Own words, )

At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.

"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

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

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

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

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that ? still handcuffed and unfed ? he was shown the evidence against him,



:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: pf-))


JFK,

Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press .

I was hoping that I didn't have to repeat this for the umpteenth time but I guess it's not over yet, Oceania's pet myth still survives.

Since you have digged out the reference from this board, it would have taken you a very little effort to read a bit further and find out that Patrick denied having said that he was abused etc.

He said the police was harsh but not abusive, and that they wouldn't tell him what the matter was until he arrived to the police station. Where is the abuse?

Sorry do disappoint you, the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent, even when suspects are black as strange as it may seem to you. This is Italy, Europe you know, a place where the death penalty was abolished in 1947.

However, I haven't the slighest hope that this will get across: "Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuol sentire"

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:18 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

"This is Italy, Europe you know, a place where the death penalty was abolished in 1947."

It was a big mistake, though. :D
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:34 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Patrick's interogation   

Thoughtful,

If this account from Patrick is true, which Nicki disputes, then I don't think that Knox's account of her own interogration is 'entirely believable' but it would certainly make her account of her interogation more credible. If true, it would be ironic if her account is supported by Patrick himself?. We need to be sure on what Patrick has said?
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:08 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nicki is absolutely right - Patrtick Lumumba has been interviewed on that bogus article several times and has flatly denied that there's any truth in it. There's no point discussing it further, nor basing any analysis on it.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:19 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox the sociopath   

From the postings overnight, it looks like Knox was prematurely diagnosed as a sociopath ?, and then by people not qualified?.

A discussion as to her possible mental condition is helpful, but even then don't we have to look at Knox:

1. Before November 2nd - Not the type of girl I'd marry, but certainly not unusual for American girls studying in Italy. On TJMK are listed numerous cases of 'Knoxs' and the things they get up to in Italy. I've known hundreds in Florence and Siena (8 yrs) plus 3 groups of 20 english girls from Meredith's University, who did a years work experience in Olivetti Ivrea. (always known as the 'leeds girls'). Knox's pre Nov 2nd behaviour would hardly have merited comment, I remember some girls being 'schocked' at one who went with 30 guy's in the first month, thats about all. The important thing is that none of them commited murder?.

2. From Nov 2nd to Nov 5th - This is where the 'strange behaviour' comes in ? I think this is where we could do with the analysis, for me, it suggests guilt that she was involved, but of what exactly?.

3. After Nov 5th - we can't really say, for example it was shown that she did tell her lawyers, in a letter dated the 9th Nov, that Patrick was not gulity, the lawyers got the letter on the 12th, but seem not to have told the police.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:27 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Patrick's interogation   

kevin wrote:
Thoughtful,

If this account from Patrick is true, which Nicki disputes, then I don't think that Knox's account of her own interogration is 'entirely believable' but it would certainly make her account of her interogation more credible. If true, it would be ironic if her account is supported by Patrick himself?. We need to be sure on what Patrick has said?


Kevin-

Nicki is right!

If you need to hear it from Patrick himself here is some video link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ixJXwdz ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRNXb-l6Nk

These are just two but there are lots more.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:13 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin, judging from what was presented in court, AK's 'strange behaviour' began on November 1st.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:48 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Just had a thought - there is plenty of evidence that a clean up was affected in the house of the murder. I believe that Rudy Guede also left the house that night and was seen in town, (which witnesses have testified to? times, anyone please?) Presumably the clean up would have taken some time - would he have had the time? In addition, if it had been Rudy who had cleaned up, would he have left his own testimony behind (the faeces etc) yet cleaned up fingerprints all over the house? If he acted alone (ie committed the murder), who else would have bothered to clean up evidence of the crime? And why? sh-)))
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:56 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Patrick's interogation   



Patrick comes over as a lovely guy in this superfast interview. The other link didn't work for me.

Also, Patrick is asked to describe Amanda, and he says she's egocentric.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:17 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Patrick's interogation   

kevin wrote:
Thoughtful,

If this account from Patrick is true, which Nicki disputes, then I don't think that Knox's account of her own interogration is 'entirely believable' but it would certainly make her account of her interogation more credible. If true, it would be ironic if her account is supported by Patrick himself?. We need to be sure on what Patrick has said?

Nicki disputes it because Nicki has seen the talk shows and TV interviews where Lumumba absolutely denies what reported by some press.

Before insinuating that I report untruthful things on this board you're kindly requested to check your facts.
I don't expect you to take what I say at face value, but a polite way to put it would have been "can you tell me where and when Patrick said that?"
sp-))

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

Offline mistercrunch


Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Posts: 160

Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:19 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

observer wrote:
Just had a thought - there is plenty of evidence that a clean up was affected in the house of the murder. I believe that Rudy Guede also left the house that night and was seen in town, (which witnesses have testified to? times, anyone please?) Presumably the clean up would have taken some time - would he have had the time? In addition, if it had been Rudy who had cleaned up, would he have left his own testimony behind (the faeces etc) yet cleaned up fingerprints all over the house? If he acted alone (ie committed the murder), who else would have bothered to clean up evidence of the crime? And why? sh-)))


AND...if Ak and RS had nothing to do with the clean up-job, why do they give an alibi (RS´s broken pipe) for the wet mob that must have been in the cottage as the police arrives . Why at all mention that there was a broken pipe at Rafs place and that they used THE mob (of the girls) in that morning? Why at all tell a story of walking thru half-the-city with a mob in your hand? Just because you need a reason for a wet und freh-used mob in that morning, i think.

And with what cleaning rag does RS normally clean his flat? He´s got bleach at home, but no cleaning rag/mob? Whats that? sh-)))
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:22 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nowo,

Up until 2110 1st November, Knox seemed not unlike many American girls studying in Italy. Perhaps the most important thing concerning the murder, as Micheal stresses, is that it is very easy to believe that she could have let Guede into the house? We would be saying that should any of the numerous American girls who are similar to her if thay were charged with the murder ?. Micheli, in his report, talks more generally about young people in general not needing an appointment and 3 weeks notice to hook up. I believe, like Micheli, that knox very likely hooked up with Guede and let him in.

Between 2110 1st and 1235 2nd November, everything points to her, RS and RG being involved in the murder. Whether she 'only' opened the door and was present at the murder hasn't been established. If so, she is still guilty of murder even if she didn't wield a Knife. Her 'strange behaviour' Between midday 2nd Nov and her interogation on 5th Nov, indicates to me that she was involved.

After hearing last weekends testimony, I really had to rethink the case, .... all lot of what Knox said was believable, however as things stand, my own guess would be that:

- Most likely RG RS and AK were present at the murder.

- The is a lesser possiblity that only RG and AK were present at the murder, more than one person was involved in the attack according to forensics, but I have not yet heard any discussion of the fact that RG is a big fella (size 46 shoes) .... I'd imagine that he could do as much 'restraining' with one hand as others could do with two?. After the murder we know Guede scooted. Did Knox return to RS's place at 0100 as he said, but then took RS to the cottage?. A witness heard a man and woman arguing in the cottage at about 0200, could that be RS saying 'what the F*** have you done?' ... would he have been so besotted with her and so stupid to help her with a cleanup?. He does seem to be an arrogant 'Filgio di Papa' .... (told his dad he thought the cops were stupid and ignored dad's advise not to carry his knofe to the station) .... I'd have this as a possible senario not the probable?

After Nov 5th, we can't really say much about the way either RS or AK behaved, both were already in it 'up to the neck' and lawyers were in control.
Top Profile 

Offline ks1


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:32 pm

Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:26 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

observer wrote:
Just had a thought - there is plenty of evidence that a clean up was affected in the house of the murder. I believe that Rudy Guede also left the house that night and was seen in town, (which witnesses have testified to? times, anyone please?) Presumably the clean up would have taken some time - would he have had the time? In addition, if it had been Rudy who had cleaned up, would he have left his own testimony behind (the faeces etc) yet cleaned up fingerprints all over the house? If he acted alone (ie committed the murder), who else would have bothered to clean up evidence of the crime? And why? sh-)))


I think I read that he was seen in a nightclub at 2:00 a.m.
Has it been stated anywhere what items were found in the washing machine that was still running when the police arrived?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:41 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ah, so Patrick's quoted words were actually some kind of tabloid journalism? Shoot! But how about this, then? Patrick's sworn testimony from April 4, reported by Stewart Home:

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


It still doesn't sound like a piece of cake -- or a tea party!
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:47 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nicki,

As you know, I didn't say that you said anything untruthful.

I've looked at the videos and it looks like Patrick's interogation was 'harsh but fair'. I think jurors would conclude that Knox's was as well (understandable in a murder invetigation). I also think they would conclude that her statements were at least partly in response to fear.

There has been a lot of comments that Knox was 'theatrical' when giving evidence. Could anyone honestly say that she waved her hands around anywhere as much as Patrick did in his interview?.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:52 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Washing machine information:

Stewart Home wrote:
Quote:
The squadra mobile report dated Nov 7, 2007, listed (in summary) the following items taken from the washing machine that day, which they described as "still humid". About 8 shirts (various tees with print "beatles", universita per stranieri, pop art london, polo, zara, etc.), three towels, a number of pairs of sox, and underwear. The contents were reviewed by Romanelli and she separated and accounted for the items indicating to whom each belonged. Only Meredith's and Amandas items were in the machine. No rags or "stracci" found.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:08 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hi Kevin, let's not forget Kokomeni and Curatolo. Whatever the lifestyles of these individuals (shame they're not professors, or lawyers, even!), the most fundamental and therefore most believable/verifiable aspect of their respective testimonies places AK and RS, at the very least, in close proximity to the cottage at the time of the murder, and not where they claim to have been at the time. They are being tried together and face the same charges (obviously an additional one for AK), and there are good reasons for that.
The behavioural aspects are not really my subject, so I'll leave that for others.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:18 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Another thought - if Filomena's window pane was broken, then surely Amanda would have seen it as she appoached the house from the driveway on two separate occasions on the morning of November 2nd, without having to "check" from inside the house? The window is plainly visible as you approach the house -

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06r ... d/610x.jpg

She could argue that the shutters were closed, I suppose. I guess someone broke in through the window and then closed the shutters behind them...

Also, if Filomina was away for the holidays, would she likely have left the shutters closed during her absence? This is common practice in Italy, and she's Italian. I wonder if she was asked about that. If so, then it's unlikely a burgler could have opened them from the outside and then thrown a rock through the glass. Also, if someone had climbed up to the high window somehow, they would have left some kind of evidence, IMO, like scratches and scrape marks. Could they have even entered through the hole left by the broken glass?

And if the window entry was indeed merely staging, who would have need of that, if not a perpetrator who actually lived in the house and wanted to point to it being someone from "outside".


Last edited by observer on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:19 pm   Post subject: Introna   

As mentioned in some earlier posts, Doctor Francesco Introna is the new defence expert witness medico legale (UK/Aus: forensic pathologist; US: medical examiner, coroner, pathologist, etc).

He worked on the sad Ciccio and Tore case, two young children from Gravina in Puglia whose bodies had been found down a well in June 2006. [ Nazione ] 16 June 2009

He’s from the University of Bari and concluded that the two boys, Francesco and Salvatore Pappalardi, died of cold and hunger. [ Blog ] MadameWeb blog, 27 February 2008. Many more news links here: [ TGCOM ] 26 February 2008.

So, he is local (that is, I mean, via-a-vis the Sollecitos) and already has a media presence (like Bongiorno already has, though of course different flavour).

So, in addition to his technical expertise of course, I expect he ought to have a beneficial effect for the defence, on paper. Perhaps in reality, too.

There's more than one way to run a PR campaign. (Just a thought: perhaps the Marriott PR could merge with the Puglia one? For efficiency, say?)


Brian,
Another string, perhaps?
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:27 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nowo wrote:
Hi Kevin, let's not forget Kokomeni and Curatolo. Whatever the lifestyles of these individuals (shame they're not professors, or lawyers, even!), the most fundamental and therefore most believable/verifiable aspect of their respective testimonies places AK and RS, at the very least, in close proximity to the cottage at the time of the murder, and not where they claim to have been at the time.


Yes but, it is probably because of who they were, that they happened to be in the position of witnessing things near the house on the night. A homeless man, sitting on a public bench late at night and quietly minding his own business was able to observe things, apparently unobserved himself. Less likely a professor or lawyer would have found himself or herself there.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:31 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

observer wrote:
Another thought - if Filomena's window pane was broken, ....

... if someone had climbed up to the high window somehow, they would have left some kind of evidence, IMO, like scratches and scrape marks. Could they have even entered through the hole left by the broken glass?

And if the window entry was indeed merely staging, who would have need of that, if not a perpetrator who actually lived in the house and wanted to point to it being someone from "outside".


Observer,
If you haven't already, have a look at Kermit's powerpoint presentations about the window. They show the cat-burglar theory doesn't hold much water, in terms of logistics, physics and mechanics. Plus, getting the broken glass on top of the thrown-about clothes and things is a bit difficult from that side of the window.

Also, just to add: a newspaper report I translated a fair while mentioned the embarassing fact (embarassing to the defence, that is) that in the forensics video of the outside of the crime scene (i.e., the cottage is the crime scene, not just Meredith's room), the grass under the window hadn't even been trampled by the hypothetical cat burglar.

If the newspaper report is accurate, there may be a possible defence explanation of this, but I'll leave that to them - it's their job, after all.


Last edited by Catnip on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:34 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Ah, so Patrick's quoted words were actually some kind of tabloid journalism? Shoot! But how about this, then? Patrick's sworn testimony from April 4, reported by Stewart Home:

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


It still doesn't sound like a piece of cake -- or a tea party!


What is notable is that through all of this, he never once thought to pin the blame on someone else, and name an innocent person.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:37 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nowo,

I don't think anyone knows what to make of Kolomani ? ..... perhaps he was involved in some way? ..... sells drugs, beats his woman etc. It was his testomony, reported by Michael, that sounded garbled and incomprehensible? I don't think the prosecution can give it much wieght either ... they asked her about the incident, she dismissed it as absurd and that was that.

The professor who did testify that he saw Knox (in a red coat) with Guede .... but Guede was partly hidden by other people ... again was asked about, Knox dismissed it, and that was that.

Come to think of it, I don't think Curatolo's testimony was asked about at all? Only in general terms like 'people saw you near the cottage'

This is what I'm saying about having to rethink the things we knew before Knox's testimony, I wouldn't give these these as much wieght now as I would have last Thursday.

Anyway, its Knox facing 30 years, and even if we are sure she was involved in the murder, I think we should try to be scrupulously fair to her, as it sounded like the court was doing?.
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:51 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Observer, don't get me wrong! My confidence in those two witnesses is way above average I would say!
Filomena's window. I'm not sure if the windows and shutters are as found.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:56 pm   Post subject: TheProfessor   

observer wrote:
A homeless man, sitting on a public bench late at night and quietly minding his own business was able to observe things, apparently unobserved himself. Less likely a professor or lawyer would have found himself or herself there.


Curatolo has rather a professorial air about him (the beard, and the wisdom of years),
and like any professor he has his chair or cathedra (the park bench)
and his reference library (Espresso magazine)
and is an astute observer (he knew Raffaele and Amanda well enough to know that that night
was the first time he had seen them together - there's something significant in this, I think)
and is alert (he mentioned in a TV interview that Rudy is the one who can shed most light on the case).

He might have been a real professor once.
Someone should go and ask him.

P.S. Being ignored by the outer world (i.e. students etc) also happens to professors,
so there is another point of comparison with him. :)
Top Profile 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin, AK may well have dismissed Kokomeni's tale as absurd, that doesn't necessarily make it so. If Curotolo's testimony had come up she would have dismissed it too (impossible, I was at RS's place with RS). AK also stated somewhere that MK's death was 'absurd'.
Everyone's free to have their own take on her testimony. I saw it as absurd!
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:34 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nowo,

It was the fact that the prosecution didn't press her in any way on these 'sightings', I think that if they were really confident in what thier own witnesses testified, they would have pressed more?. These 'sightings' were never going to have much value on their own; I'd give them less wieght now. Eye witness accounts are known to be unreliable at the best of times.

Had Kolomani's testimony sounded more coherent and the 'prof''s statement been backed up by producing the 'red coat', I'd be more convinced.
Top Profile 

Offline kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:46 pm   Post subject: gotta love Ann Coulter   

Ann hits the nail on the head in her article about U.S. reporting. It is amazing how perceptive she is. It was easy for me to enjoy the article she wrote because I agree with what she wrote. I was beginning to think I was on an Island here in the U.S. with the slipshod reporting by the Times, CNN,... finally it took someone like Ann Coulter to call out the shoddy, biased reporting by the press. Keep up the great work, Ann. I look forward to your next article. You are always right on the money.
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

ks1 wrote:
observer wrote:
Just had a thought - there is plenty of evidence that a clean up was affected in the house of the murder. I believe that Rudy Guede also left the house that night and was seen in town, (which witnesses have testified to? times, anyone please?) Presumably the clean up would have taken some time - would he have had the time? In addition, if it had been Rudy who had cleaned up, would he have left his own testimony behind (the faeces etc) yet cleaned up fingerprints all over the house? If he acted alone (ie committed the murder), who else would have bothered to clean up evidence of the crime? And why? sh-)))


I think I read that he was seen in a nightclub at 2:00 a.m.
Has it been stated anywhere what items were found in the washing machine that was still running when the police arrived?


There is this Guardian article from Filomena's testimony during the trial..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox


"Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm. She later identified most of the clothes inside as those of the victim, Meredith Kercher, a student at Leeds University."
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:05 pm   Post subject: Re: gotta love Ann Coulter   

kredsox wrote:
Ann hits the nail on the head in her article about U.S. reporting. It is amazing how perceptive she is. It was easy for me to enjoy the article she wrote because I agree with what she wrote. I was beginning to think I was on an Island here in the U.S. with the slipshod reporting by the Times, CNN,... finally it took someone like Ann Coulter to call out the shoddy, biased reporting by the press. Keep up the great work, Ann. I look forward to your next article. You are always right on the money.


Ms. Coulter has more of a beef with the New York Times than Tim Egan. I don't have much of a beef for the New York Times for publishing it. I have more of a beef with Tim Egan for recreating a Pacific Northwest version of a Faustian Bargain. Instead of knowledge, he got his gym membership and Subaru payments paid off for writing that piece at the behest of Marriott et company.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nowo


Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:35 pm

Posts: 186

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hi Kevin, we can't really take these things in isolation. Curotolo gave his testimony in court, placing AK and RS in the environs of the cottage at the time of the murder. Other evidence undermines the alibi's of the defendants (I know they don't match but let's keep it simple) that they were at RS's place, and a considerable amount of forensic evidence places them at the scene. There was really no point in the prosecution soliciting a series of 'impossible' answers from AK when there was a wealth of stuff 10.30am onwards to question her about. For AK, the night of the 1st is a blank and has to remain that way from her point of view, whereas thereafter her situation becomes more complicated/treacherous as there were multiple interactions with others, things got 'busy'. The prosecution has sought to prove the following:
They were not at RS's
They were near the cottage
They were at the scene
I'm sure that in this context Curotolo's testimony was noted by the court.
Top Profile 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:16 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Grrr, this is a totally tedious post, but I just realised I wrote something wrong -

"Just had a thought - there is plenty of evidence that a clean up was affected in the house of the murder."

Should have been -

"Just had a thought - there is plenty of evidence that a clean up was effected in the house of the murder."

Thanks for your patience. th-)
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:20 pm   Post subject: Re: gotta love Ann Coulter   

kredsox wrote:
Ann hits the nail on the head in her article about U.S. reporting. It is amazing how perceptive she is. It was easy for me to enjoy the article she wrote because I agree with what she wrote. I was beginning to think I was on an Island here in the U.S. with the slipshod reporting by the Times, CNN,... finally it took someone like Ann Coulter to call out the shoddy, biased reporting by the press. Keep up the great work, Ann. I look forward to your next article. You are always right on the money.



Ditto that, Kredsox.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:22 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

So tomorrow is Edda's day.

Concerning the first phone call:
- How the 12:47 data was concluded?
- What is the source of this time? A European network operator company? Amanda's American operator? Does anybody know?
- Was the difference in the end of the of daylight saving seasons properly accounted for?

Because in the early report it was at 4 in the morning when Edda was called while this Italian 12:47 corresponds to 4:47 on that day..

Neither the prosecution nor the defense seems to care much about times.
They all should know them by heart. :D
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:27 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nowo wrote:
Kevin, AK may well have dismissed Kokomeni's tale as absurd, that doesn't necessarily make it so. If Curotolo's testimony had come up she would have dismissed it too (impossible, I was at RS's place with RS). AK also stated somewhere that MK's death was 'absurd'.
Everyone's free to have their own take on her testimony. I saw it as absurd!


Kevin wrote:

It was the fact that the prosecution didn't press her in any way on these 'sightings', I think that if they were really confident in what thier own witnesses testified, they would have pressed more?. These 'sightings' were never going to have much value on their own; I'd give them less wieght now. Eye witness accounts are known to be unreliable at the best of times.

Had Kolomani's testimony sounded more coherent and the 'prof''s statement been backed up by producing the 'red coat', I'd be more convinced.


They pressed enough Kevin. And it is Kokomani, with a 'k' at the second place. Kokomani. He said, what he said. He resisted quite well the attacks of Bongiorno, etc...


Last edited by Hungarian on Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

There has been much talk about unqualified observers trying to diagnose AK with some psychiatric problems. I am guilty of this myself. I think it's because the crime was so horrific and the violence involved in it unimaginable. For me, I want to label AK as having a mental disorder to feel safe that an average kid wouldn't hurt people in this way. It makes it feel a more isolated case and safely contained. Of course, this would be of no comfort to the Kercher family.

At the moment, in the area of London I live in, there is a serial rapist who is breaking in to people's houses at night. They think he's been doing this since 1990 and the reason he's not been caught is that he just carries on his normal life in the daytime. That is a horrifying thought. If he can carry on a normal life, he can't have the debilitating mental illnesses I would like to label him with to explain his behaviour.

So I can totally 'get' people's need to want to pigeonhole AK into one or another mental disorder. It's a natural human instinct to want to understand how something as tragic and extreme as this could happen.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nowo,

Exactly, the evidence that there was no internet or phone activity at RS's place from 2110 to 0530 is what I'd give a lot of wieght to. The physical evidence at the crime scene .... not sure we have seen it all and had it all interpreted by experts yet ... I'd also give a lot of wieght to. For me, and probably the jurors, the 'sightings' are not forgotten, just seems like I'd like to see how the case hangs together without them. I've done the same with a lot of evidence after last weekends hearings, shift through what sounds 100% reliable, and what not.

For me, Knox was convincing on a whole lot of things, and like Michael said the other day, you need to clear your mind and go back over the case from Meredith's death. (otherwise why waste money on a trial?, you'd just convict now?).
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:04 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin wrote:

Quote:
Nowo,

It was the fact that the prosecution didn't press her in any way on these 'sightings', I think that if they were really confident in what thier own witnesses testified, they would have pressed more?. These 'sightings' were never going to have much value on their own; I'd give them less wieght now. Eye witness accounts are known to be unreliable at the best of times.

Had Kolomani's testimony sounded more coherent and the 'prof''s statement been backed up by producing the 'red coat', I'd be more convinced.


Eye witness accounts may be unreliable in many respects, but they can also provide important corroboration of other elements that make up the body of evidence in any case. I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning that since AK was not pressed more on this eye witness testimony, then it means the prosecution is not confident in its witness testimony. What would you expect AK to say other than this witness is wrong, that witness is lying, etc.? Which is exactly what she has said. I don't see a straightforward denial as being necessarily persuasive. Is it possible that every single witness is either mistaken or lying?

_________________
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 Jun 18, 2009 3:10 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Observer wrote:

Quote:
Thoughtful wrote:
Ah, so Patrick's quoted words were actually some kind of tabloid journalism? Shoot! But how about this, then? Patrick's sworn testimony from April 4, reported by Stewart Home:


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


It still doesn't sound like a piece of cake -- or a tea party!


What is notable is that through all of this, he never once thought to pin the blame on someone else, and name an innocent person.



And to think that had his accuser issued a formal retraction he might have been spared the three days in solitary confinement. Lucky for Patrick, no forensic evidence placed him in the cottage, which in fact he had never set foot in, and no fewer than 26 or 27 people came forward to vouch for his presence at the bar on the night of the murder.

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:

JFK,

Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press .

I was hoping that I didn't have to repeat this for the umpteenth time but I guess it's not over yet, Oceania's pet myth still survives.

Since you have digged out the reference from this board, it would have taken you a very little effort to read a bit further and find out that Patrick denied having said that he was abused etc.

He said the police was harsh but not abusive, and that they wouldn't tell him what the matter was until he arrived to the police station. Where is the abuse?

Sorry do disappoint you, the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent, even when suspects are black as strange as it may seem to you. This is Italy, Europe you know, a place where the death penalty was abolished in 1947.

However, I haven't the slighest hope that this will get across: "Non c'è peggior sordo di chi non vuol sentire"


I went back and didn't see him retract or disregard the statement on this forums article.
I don't doubt you and will read a bit more, and will surely see where he denies this. None have popped up easily on a search.

It is interesting how some believe AK, 100%, during the Interrogation and yet refuse to believe anything else she spews from her mouth.


I believe what I hear on the stand, in public, more so than the interrogation.
Maybe next time they'll film the murder interrogations.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Fast Pete


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:06 pm

Posts: 869

Location: New York

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

BellaDonna wrote:
There has been much talk about unqualified observers trying to diagnose AK with some psychiatric problems. I am guilty of this myself. I think it's because the crime was so horrific and the violence involved in it unimaginable. For me, I want to label AK as having a mental disorder to feel safe that an average kid wouldn't hurt people in this way. It makes it feel a more isolated case and safely contained. Of course, this would be of no comfort to the Kercher family.

At the moment, in the area of London I live in, there is a serial rapist who is breaking in to people's houses at night. They think he's been doing this since 1990 and the reason he's not been caught is that he just carries on his normal life in the daytime. That is a horrifying thought. If he can carry on a normal life, he can't have the debilitating mental illnesses I would like to label him with to explain his behaviour.

So I can totally 'get' people's need to want to pigeonhole AK into one or another mental disorder. It's a natural human instinct to want to understand how something as tragic and extreme as this could happen.


Hi BellaDonna

Interesting post. There is at least one book out in Italy on this dimension, the one that Corriere was being sued for, so I guess we will not see any late-stage psychological defense.

Psychological tests were conducted in prison but the results were never revealed other than to the judges. Remarks they made in the various hearings - hurdles the prosecution had to jump to get to a trial - did not sound sympathetic at all. Several seemed to see possible danger lurking if the defendant was let loose on the streets.

The questiona arise:

1) If there is some problem, how did it occur? Born with, inflicted, or just happened?

2) Did it show up sufficiently at any point for someone to speak up and say, help her?

There was a lot of chat about early warnings after the horrific mass-shooting at the university in western Virginia where the guy had clearly needed some help.

Italian prisons shoot for reform and the treatment of any ailments so if there is a conviction her possible needs would not be ignored.

Peter Quennell
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:17 pm   Post subject: Re: gotta love Ann Coulter   

Ferret wrote:
kredsox wrote:
Ann hits the nail on the head in her article about U.S. reporting. It is amazing how perceptive she is. It was easy for me to enjoy the article she wrote because I agree with what she wrote. I was beginning to think I was on an Island here in the U.S. with the slipshod reporting by the Times, CNN,... finally it took someone like Ann Coulter to call out the shoddy, biased reporting by the press. Keep up the great work, Ann. I look forward to your next article. You are always right on the money.


Ms. Coulter has more of a beef with the New York Times than Tim Egan. I don't have much of a beef for the New York Times for publishing it. I have more of a beef with Tim Egan for recreating a Pacific Northwest version of a Faustian Bargain. Instead of knowledge, he got his gym membership and Subaru payments paid off for writing that piece at the behest of Marriott et company.


Yeah. I respect the New York Times as a publication. We should keep in mind that Egan's piece was an "Outposts"/Opinion piece. (Not that I condone the piece, but I think it's a point to keep in mind.)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Fast Pete wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
There has been much talk about unqualified observers trying to diagnose AK with some psychiatric problems. I am guilty of this myself. I think it's because the crime was so horrific and the violence involved in it unimaginable. For me, I want to label AK as having a mental disorder to feel safe that an average kid wouldn't hurt people in this way. It makes it feel a more isolated case and safely contained. Of course, this would be of no comfort to the Kercher family.

At the moment, in the area of London I live in, there is a serial rapist who is breaking in to people's houses at night. They think he's been doing this since 1990 and the reason he's not been caught is that he just carries on his normal life in the daytime. That is a horrifying thought. If he can carry on a normal life, he can't have the debilitating mental illnesses I would like to label him with to explain his behaviour.

So I can totally 'get' people's need to want to pigeonhole AK into one or another mental disorder. It's a natural human instinct to want to understand how something as tragic and extreme as this could happen.


Hi BellaDonna

Interesting post. There is at least one book out in Italy on this dimension, the one that Corriere was being sued for, so I guess we will not see any late-stage psychological defense.

Psychological tests were conducted in prison but the results were never revealed other than to the judges. Remarks they made in the various hearings - hurdles the prosecution had to jump to get to a trial - did not sound sympathetic at all. Several seemed to see possible danger lurking if the defendant was let loose on the streets.

The questiona arise:

1) If there is some problem, how did it occur? Born with, inflicted, or just happened?

2) Did it show up sufficiently at any point for someone to speak up and say, help her?

There was a lot of chat about early warnings after the horrific mass-shooting at the university in western Virginia where the guy had clearly needed some help.

Italian prisons shoot for reform and the treatment of any ailments so if there is a conviction her possible needs would not be ignored.

Peter Quennell



I think because Amanda was a good performer in school and extracurricular activities some of her "issues" may have been overlooked. This happens a lot. Leopold and Loeb were odd ducks, but they were exceptional students and I think their behavior was chalked up to "the eccentricity of brilliance." I don't know how anyone could deem Amanda brilliant, except perhaps her parents, but I would say that, by American standards, she would definitely be considered "gifted."

It's very easy for a sociopath to fit into society and never be "diagnosed" as anything at all. We all have our faults and quirks, to be sure...sometimes it takes a real crisis to show the world what we are made of. AK has had her crisis, and whether innocent or guilty, she has responded in ways that indicate she has a personality disorder. If she is guilty, then she is a sociopath; because her ability to lie calmly and even convincingly is first rate (and even sociopaths probably need practice to get that good). If she is innocent, maybe she is just an extremely egotistical, spoiled brat.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:25 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
So tomorrow is Edda's day.

Concerning the first phone call:
- How the 12:47 data was concluded?
- What is the source of this time? A European network operator company? Amanda's American operator? Does anybody know?
- Was the difference in the end of the of daylight saving seasons properly accounted for?

Because in the early report it was at 4 in the morning when Edda was called while this Italian 12:47 corresponds to 4:47 on that day..

Neither the prosecution nor the defense seems to care much about times.
They all should know them by heart. :D


The source of the time is the cellphone records from Amanda's phone company - it started at 12:47:23 and lasted for 88 seconds.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...
Top Profile 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:32 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Brian wrote:

Quote:
Let me first say that my "instincts" would normally be against my posting a link to the publication with this article but I can't resist the headline or the story, so here it is:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher


This is the first time in my life I agree with Anne Coulter. Wow!!!

Welcome Beans. Yay-)


Yeah, same here. I thought I would ex-) before ever admitting to agreeing with something written by Anne Coulter!

Beans, your name makes me laugh. :) From Boston, perhaps?



Coulter lost me in her first paragraph.... How are "abortionists" enemies of America? It's just her typical hate, hate, hate speach. She's only saying this about Knox so she can take a shot at the New York Times. Yes, that article by Egan was ill-informed and never should have been published. But Coulter is the same lady who said Islam is a "car burning cult" and Muslims are have "a predilection for violence." I'm a Muslim and I have *never* *ever* burned a car, hoped for anything less than the best for the United States, or incited hate. I try not to take politics too personally, but I'll be damned if I stand for someone advocating hatred towards all practictioners of *any* religion.

BTW - I'm increasing disturbed by the trend at truejustice.org by one commenter to somehow shoehorn insults to Obama or Obama supporters in every comment. Politics shouldn't be a part of this. Hatred towards someone shouldn't be a part of this. This should be about discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher and the trial going on right now to find the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.

And while I'm on my soapbox, can we please not insult people who may not agree with us??? So what, ks1 doesn't feel swayed to think Knox is guilty. She has her reasons and I'd rather hear them and have a discussion with her about them than insult her.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:33 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Belladonna,

You are probably right about why people would make a diagnosis when they aren't qualified to ....... it has been several posters on this board not just one. The problem is that if it gets repeated enough times it is accepted as fact?. Once this starts to happen, feelings of sympathy for Meredith and her family change to one person wanting to to outdo the other, making more and more outrageous claims about the accused?. In the end, we get a 'lynchmob' mentality?.

If we look back over the posts since Sunday, how many people have said that after 11 hours of testimony from Knox, that they believe anything she has said, or even 'maybe I not so sure about that point anymore'?. Michael said he'd have to think through it again, but really, that is about it.

We're not at the same level of debate as Perugia Shock, but if we're not careful ........

PS keep forgetting to ask how you include a highlighted quote? Could you tell me ... Thanks
Top Profile 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:39 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jetlagged wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

Jetlagged, I obviously don't know for sure, but based on what we know about Amanda, I suspect she was a person who was quite comfortable with being naked, probably even when there were other people around. Of course, that doesn't mean I believe her story, but I'm not sure the "naked" issue is particularly significant.


You may be right, TS: she is a bit of an exhibitionist and it probably wouldn't be out of character for her to flaunt herself. But aside from the nakedness, it makes no sense that she would "forget" her towel. Maybe so if she'd gone to the bathroom fully clothed, but in this case surely the sensation of freezing cold skin would have reminded her that she'd forgotten something...


About all this towel business....I'm an engineer, so some would say I'm bright, but honestly, I've forgotten to bring a towel with me into the bathroom more times than I can count. And every time, when I get out of the shower, yes, I'm freezing and naked, but I make a mad dash for my room.

My point is simply I can believe her forgetting her towel. It happens. It certainly doesn't make someone guilty of murder. I'm still much more troubled by her 3 or 4 conflicting alibis, none of which match the phone records.....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:41 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin wrote:

Quote:
Belladonna,

You are probably right about why people would make a diagnosis when they aren't qualified to ....... it has been several posters on this board not just one. The problem is that if it gets repeated enough times it is accepted as fact?. Once this starts to happen, feelings of sympathy for Meredith and her family change to one person wanting to to outdo the other, making more and more outrageous claims about the accused?. In the end, we get a 'lynchmob' mentality?.

If we look back over the posts since Sunday, how many people have said that after 11 hours of testimony from Knox, that they believe anything she has said, or even 'maybe I not so sure about that point anymore'?. Michael said he'd have to think through it again, but really, that is about it.

We're not at the same level of debate as Perugia Shock, but if we're not careful ........

PS keep forgetting to ask how you include a highlighted quote? Could you tell me ... Thanks


This board functions well because most posters refrain from making comments about other posters and their supposed failings. The board is not about its posters and people are free to express their opinion, including their opinion about the testimony. If you disagree with something a specific person has said, then you can state your disagreement. But general comments about "the board" are best left to the two moderators who, as you may have noticed, generally refrain from making comments of this kind.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:46 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Finn wrote:
"The source of the time is the cellphone records from Amanda's phone company - it started at 12:47:23 and lasted for 88 seconds."

But is it 100% sure that it is converted to Perugia time correctly?
I like to double check data, if possible, before building theories on them.

It seems that tomorrow's testimony will raise the stakes, because it will surely back the pair's latest versions that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived.
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:50 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Brian wrote:

Quote:
Let me first say that my "instincts" would normally be against my posting a link to the publication with this article but I can't resist the headline or the story, so here it is:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher


This is the first time in my life I agree with Anne Coulter. Wow!!!

Welcome Beans. Yay-)


Yeah, same here. I thought I would ex-) before ever admitting to agreeing with something written by Anne Coulter!

Beans, your name makes me laugh. :) From Boston, perhaps?



Coulter lost me in her first paragraph.... How are "abortionists" enemies of America? It's just her typical hate, hate, hate speach. She's only saying this about Knox so she can take a shot at the New York Times. Yes, that article by Egan was ill-informed and never should have been published. But Coulter is the same lady who said Islam is a "car burning cult" and Muslims are have "a predilection for violence." I'm a Muslim and I have *never* *ever* burned a car, hoped for anything less than the best for the United States, or incited hate. I try not to take politics too personally, but I'll be damned if I stand for someone advocating hatred towards all practictioners of *any* religion.

BTW - I'm increasing disturbed by the trend at truejustice.org by one commenter to somehow shoehorn insults to Obama or Obama supporters in every comment. Politics shouldn't be a part of this. Hatred towards someone shouldn't be a part of this. This should be about discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher and the trial going on right now to find the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.

And while I'm on my soapbox, can we please not insult people who may not agree with us??? So what, ks1 doesn't feel swayed to think Knox is guilty. She has her reasons and I'd rather hear them and have a discussion with her about them than insult her.


I must have missed something. These boards seem to me characterized by their civility and good sense. I haven't noticed anyone insulting anyone. As far as the expression of politics, most people on these boards have expressed opinions that appear to coincide with your own (several people expressed their dislike of Anne Coulter). If someone on the other side expresses their opinion now and then, that shouldn't worry you too much.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:52 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
jetlagged wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

Jetlagged, I obviously don't know for sure, but based on what we know about Amanda, I suspect she was a person who was quite comfortable with being naked, probably even when there were other people around. Of course, that doesn't mean I believe her story, but I'm not sure the "naked" issue is particularly significant.


You may be right, TS: she is a bit of an exhibitionist and it probably wouldn't be out of character for her to flaunt herself. But aside from the nakedness, it makes no sense that she would "forget" her towel. Maybe so if she'd gone to the bathroom fully clothed, but in this case surely the sensation of freezing cold skin would have reminded her that she'd forgotten something...


About all this towel business....I'm an engineer, so some would say I'm bright, but honestly, I've forgotten to bring a towel with me into the bathroom more times than I can count. And every time, when I get out of the shower, yes, I'm freezing and naked, but I make a mad dash for my room.

My point is simply I can believe her forgetting her towel. It happens. It certainly doesn't make someone guilty of murder. I'm still much more troubled by her 3 or 4 conflicting alibis, none of which match the phone records.....


I can understand forgetting, or not worrying about a towel if you are showering at home with family and close friends, but she was in a house with people she'd only known for a month, with a potential burglar waiting to jump out at her. I would definitely make sure I'd remembered my towel in that situation! No wait, scratch that, I wouldn't have a shower until I'd made sure that there wasn't a burglar lurking in Meredith or Filomena's closed rooms waiting to jump out at me!! bf-))

You're right that it doesn't make her guilty of murder, but I think that it is quite unbelievable and makes the rest of her testimony more difficult to believe.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:54 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Bolint wrote:

Quote:
Finn wrote:
"The source of the time is the cellphone records from Amanda's phone company - it started at 12:47:23 and lasted for 88 seconds."

But is it 100% sure that it is converted to Perugia time correctly?
I like to double check data, if possible, before building theories on them.

It seems that tomorrow's testimony will raise the stakes, because it will surely back the pair's latest versions that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived.


If the time is wrong by an hour, then the time for all other calls would be as well. In the official phone company records, which begin with the night before, there is a record of the SMS with Patrick that gives the time indicated and agreed to by one and all. The calls (incoming and outgoing) are all listed in order, including the subsequent calls home. So either all the times are right or they are all off by an hour, which really makes no sense. I hope this is clear.

_________________
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: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Having read the article of Ann Coulter, i must admit i'm scared. The way of reporting in the US is simply disgusting. Though Ann Coulter seems to be one of the few who actually does research before writing, she uses this knowledge and her platform not to inform people, but to bash the New York Times and all the liberals there. sh-))) Isn't there one reporter over there, who isn't on a personal crusade or simply wants to look good on the telly (the CNN LAdy was horrifying btw) and just reports bona fide what's happening in Perugia. I usually don't praise german and french media, but they seem so much more laid back and reputable to me compared to this.

sorry for s-(( . Had a hard week...
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Kevin wrote:

Quote:
Belladonna,

You are probably right about why people would make a diagnosis when they aren't qualified to ....... it has been several posters on this board not just one. The problem is that if it gets repeated enough times it is accepted as fact?. Once this starts to happen, feelings of sympathy for Meredith and her family change to one person wanting to to outdo the other, making more and more outrageous claims about the accused?. In the end, we get a 'lynchmob' mentality?.

If we look back over the posts since Sunday, how many people have said that after 11 hours of testimony from Knox, that they believe anything she has said, or even 'maybe I not so sure about that point anymore'?. Michael said he'd have to think through it again, but really, that is about it.

We're not at the same level of debate as Perugia Shock, but if we're not careful ........

PS keep forgetting to ask how you include a highlighted quote? Could you tell me ... Thanks


This board functions well because most posters refrain from making comments about other posters and their supposed failings. The board is not about its posters and people are free to express their opinion, including their opinion about the testimony. If you disagree with something a specific person has said, then you can state your disagreement. But general comments about "the board" are best left to the two moderators who, as you may have noticed, generally refrain from making comments of this kind.



By the way Skep, you and Michael rock. And not to make unprofessional psychological diagnoses, but you’re both so sane, it’s refreshing.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:03 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Finn wrote:
"The source of the time is the cellphone records from Amanda's phone company - it started at 12:47:23 and lasted for 88 seconds."

But is it 100% sure that it is converted to Perugia time correctly?
I like to double check data, if possible, before building theories on them.

It seems that tomorrow's testimony will raise the stakes, because it will surely back the pair's latest versions that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived.


Hi, Bolint - yes, I'm also very cautious about the data. But the phone records are the Perugia ones (for both Amanda and Raffaele) and there's no doubt about them. (I don't know why Commodi quoted "mezzogiorno" as the time for the call - whether it was a trap, or incompetence, I'm not sure.)

However, I'm not an expert on Seattle time, except I think they would have still been in Daylight Savings Time at that point - 0447 sounds okay to me, though. But I don't think the exact Seattle time is so important.

The questions I think are most interesting are:
- did Amanda mention whether Raffaele was with her?
- did Amanda mention breaking down a door?
- did Edda really tell her to hang up and call the police?

The answers I'm expecting are no, no, and yes, but I'd like to wait until I hear her say that before I get into too much detail about analyzing the answer.

I'm with you on the old "caution"!

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin wrote:

Quote:
If we look back over the posts since Sunday, how many people have said that after 11 hours of testimony from Knox, that they believe anything she has said, or even 'maybe I not so sure about that point anymore'?. Michael said he'd have to think through it again, but really, that is about it.


What I have mainly seen here amounts to this:

Hard work by Thoughtful to transcribe and translate the testimony.
Discussion of various translation points.
An examination of the testimony in light of other testimony, records, and previous statements by the various protagonists.
Questions about same and helpful responses and links.
Some speculation about psychology and psycho-pathology.
Comments about the media coverage in Italy, the US and the UK.

Pretty much what has been going on here for about a year-and-a-half. I don't keep score as to how many people or which people have re-examined their views, changed their minds, etc. And I would ask you not to either, or at least not to post the results of your scoring. It just disrupts our discussion and encourages people to turn on one another rather than discuss the case. I assume that is not your aim?

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

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Wallabee wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Brian wrote:

Quote:
Let me first say that my "instincts" would normally be against my posting a link to the publication with this article but I can't resist the headline or the story, so here it is:

NYT: Duke Lacrosse Players Killed Meredith Kercher


This is the first time in my life I agree with Anne Coulter. Wow!!!

Welcome Beans. Yay-)


Yeah, same here. I thought I would ex-) before ever admitting to agreeing with something written by Anne Coulter!

Beans, your name makes me laugh. :) From Boston, perhaps?



Coulter lost me in her first paragraph.... How are "abortionists" enemies of America? It's just her typical hate, hate, hate speach. She's only saying this about Knox so she can take a shot at the New York Times. Yes, that article by Egan was ill-informed and never should have been published. But Coulter is the same lady who said Islam is a "car burning cult" and Muslims are have "a predilection for violence." I'm a Muslim and I have *never* *ever* burned a car, hoped for anything less than the best for the United States, or incited hate. I try not to take politics too personally, but I'll be damned if I stand for someone advocating hatred towards all practictioners of *any* religion.

BTW - I'm increasing disturbed by the trend at truejustice.org by one commenter to somehow shoehorn insults to Obama or Obama supporters in every comment. Politics shouldn't be a part of this. Hatred towards someone shouldn't be a part of this. This should be about discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher and the trial going on right now to find the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.

And while I'm on my soapbox, can we please not insult people who may not agree with us??? So what, ks1 doesn't feel swayed to think Knox is guilty. She has her reasons and I'd rather hear them and have a discussion with her about them than insult her.


I must have missed something. These boards seem to me characterized by their civility and good sense. I haven't noticed anyone insulting anyone. As far as the expression of politics, most people on these boards have expressed opinions that appear to coincide with your own (several people expressed their dislike of Anne Coulter). If someone on the other side expresses their opinion now and then, that shouldn't worry you too much.



Go to truejustice.org, read the comments from the past two days, and you'll see potshots from " kredsox" and "LIBBY," and you'll see ad hominem attacks on "liberals" and Obama being brought into the discussion.

Further, as for Coulter, in the article she wrote, her first paragraph is her typical hate speech against anyone who isn't in agreement with her. So, by her first paragraph, she brings all her previous views into the piece, including when on Feb 8, 2006, she said *all* of us Muslims are "car burning cultists" and have a "prediliction for violence." I won't stand for that.

I disagree with *anyone* promoting someone who spews hate speech against me or my family. I hope you can understand that.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:08 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

First my apologies who have been reading the forum and to whom this is old news. But in referencing Kokomani’s testimony and its importance and credibility, I found the following series of posts from Brian S. to be very helpful. Previous to reading this, given his rambling, nearly incoherent testimony, I could not see the reason for his inclusion in the witnesses for the prosecution.

On June 13th at 5:39, Brian S. wrote:

Kokomani is the key witness for the police

He may be useless on the witness stand but he's the reason the police "understand who was involved in this crime". He's the reason Migini felt able to tell the press "he knew all three were there".

Kokomani: A semi-literate alcoholic who also uses drugs. He barely speaks Italian and doesn't do much better in Albanian, but he held down a job and owned a car. He told a garbled story to the police and jury.


Kokomani - He first called his lawyer towards the end of November. He said he had witnessed a crime but he was frightened to go to the police and wanted some advice on what he should do. He said he had heard on the grapevine that he was being offered a large sum of money to go back to Albania and stay there. He said he was frightened of what could happen since his identity was obviously known to "someone".

I suspect that his lawyer thought that maybe Koko had gone CooCoo again and told him he was busy. He asked Kokomani if he could contact him again at a later date. Kokomani told him that he was going back to Albania for Christmas anyway, he'd contact his lawyer when he came back in the new year.

I suspect that his lawyer was really surprised when Kokomani actually contacted him again in January and told him the same story. He told Kokomani to come in and tell him what had happened. After hearing Kokomani's story, his lawyer realised just how inportant Kokomani's information was. He phoned the police and arranged that he would accompany Kokomani when he came to tell his story.

Why would anyone believe what Kokomani said?

The police carry out "rescontri". They check they witness out.

1)Kokomani drove past the cottage regularly. It was his route into Perugia.

2)His phone was pinged near the cottage that night.

3)He told his friends at the cafe what he had witnessed when he arrived there after the "incident" outside the cottage.

4)He witnessed the breakdown near the gate and bins at the cottage. He told the police all the details. By December the police had traced all the owners of the cars who had been in the car park and identified by it's cctc system. The broken down car was just off the shot covered by the CCTV although the breakdown truck does make an appearance. There were no rumours, leaks or reports of any breakdown until after Kokomani went to the police. The car driver and the breakdown truck driver weren't identified and interiewed until March/April/May time. Kokomani may have even given them the evidence they needed to do this.

5)Kokomani's car must have gone past the line of sight of the car park CCTV.

6)Some of Kokomani's manouverings in his car related to him getting around the broken down car.

Consequence - The police absolutely believe Kokomani was outside that cottage at the time of the crime. It's just the details are probably a bit hazy because he'd had a few drinks.

(I'm doing this in chunks--it doesn't seem to want to post as one entry)

Beans
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:10 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Finn wrote:
"The source of the time is the cellphone records from Amanda's phone company - it started at 12:47:23 and lasted for 88 seconds."

But is it 100% sure that it is converted to Perugia time correctly?
I like to double check data, if possible, before building theories on them.

It seems that tomorrow's testimony will raise the stakes, because it will surely back the pair's latest versions that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived.


Bolint,

We know that evidence concerning dates, times and cell receiving details has been given by the telco which operates the network in Perugia. I wouldn't worry about the details being correct in Perugia time.

What I've found interesting is re-reading Filomena's evidence about the first call she received from Amanda. 12:07 if I recall correctly. Amanda says she was at the cottage and describes the scene she's found, Filomena asks her to check it out once more and then ring her back. Amanda says that she'll go back to his house and get Raffaele.

Acoording to Amanda's evidence given in court by 12:00 she had already returned to Raffaele's and was descibing her worries to him over breakfast.


Last edited by Brian S. on Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:12 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skep wrote:
"If the time is wrong by an hour, then the time for all other calls would be as well. In the official phone company records, which begin with the night before, there is a record of the SMS with Patrick that gives the time indicated and agreed to by one and all. The calls (incoming and outgoing) are all listed in order, including the subsequent calls home. So either all the times are right or they are all off by an hour, which really makes no sense. I hope this is clear."

Yes. I expected something like this. Thank you.

So we can take it fixed that the first mom call was at 12:47 Perugia time / 4:47 Seattle time.

Thus the million dollar question is now: When did the postals arrive?

I suspect it was not before 12:36.
I can't imagine that the postals are standing there, Amanda is just being called by Filomena and Raffaele suddenly starts to recharge his phone account.
The postals would have noticed it, surely.
Top Profile 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:13 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

petafly wrote:
Having read the article of Ann Coulter, i must admit i'm scared. The way of reporting in the US is simply disgusting. Though Ann Coulter seems to be one of the few who actually does research before writing, she uses this knowledge and her platform not to inform people, but to bash the New York Times and all the liberals there. sh-))) Isn't there one reporter over there, who isn't on a personal crusade or simply wants to look good on the telly (the CNN LAdy was horrifying btw) and just reports bona fide what's happening in Perugia. I usually don't praise german and french media, but they seem so much more laid back and reputable to me compared to this.

sorry for s-(( . Had a hard week...


Yeah, the state of US reporting is sad. Anymore, it's all charactarized by a lot of needless attacks from people at those who disagree with them. It's just both extremes with very little in the middle. Ironically enough, one of Rupert Murdoch's papers, the Wall Street Journal, is probably the best source of US reporting.

Personally, I tend to enjoy the Economist - a paper from London. It does a marvellous job of covering the world's news each week. For the most part it's unbiased, except they are very bullish on free trade...and they usually try to find some scandal in France to report on, but I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:14 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

petafly wrote:
Having read the article of Ann Coulter, i must admit i'm scared. The way of reporting in the US is simply disgusting. Though Ann Coulter seems to be one of the few who actually does research before writing, she uses this knowledge and her platform not to inform people, but to bash the New York Times and all the liberals there. sh-))) Isn't there one reporter over there, who isn't on a personal crusade or simply wants to look good on the telly (the CNN LAdy was horrifying btw) and just reports bona fide what's happening in Perugia. I usually don't praise german and french media, but they seem so much more laid back and reputable to me compared to this.

sorry for s-(( . Had a hard week...



As an American, I can say one problem with my fellow citizens is that they are armchair experts on just about everything. Americans get most of their information from the mainstream media, and as you can see, the mainstream media rarely investigates or gathers good, hard evidence, but takes the evidence that fits their agenda; sometimes our media is just plain lazy.

Alternative news sources are indispensable if you wish to remain truly informed in the United States, but most people don't bother. I think this is why I like the Internet so much; you can actually get some decent information.

Americans just need to have higher standards when it comes to reporting and view the news less as "entertainment" and more as a source of enlightenment.

I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


Last edited by mrsdarcy on Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:16 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Wallabee wrote:



And while I'm on my soapbox, can we please not insult people who may not agree with us??? So what, ks1 doesn't feel swayed to think Knox is guilty. She has her reasons and I'd rather hear them and have a discussion with her about them than insult her.


I must have missed something. These boards seem to me characterized by their civility and good sense. I haven't noticed anyone insulting anyone. As far as the expression of politics, most people on these boards have expressed opinions that appear to coincide with your own (several people expressed their dislike of Anne Coulter). If someone on the other side expresses their opinion now and then, that shouldn't worry you too much.


Mrsdarcy, I believe Wallabee is referring to the "ignorant" comment aimed at Ks1, which I too thought was a tad harsh.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:19 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

petafly wrote:
Having read the article of Ann Coulter, i must admit i'm scared. The way of reporting in the US is simply disgusting. Though Ann Coulter seems to be one of the few who actually does research before writing, she uses this knowledge and her platform not to inform people, but to bash the New York Times and all the liberals there. sh-))) Isn't there one reporter over there, who isn't on a personal crusade or simply wants to look good on the telly (the CNN LAdy was horrifying btw) and just reports bona fide what's happening in Perugia. I usually don't praise german and french media, but they seem so much more laid back and reputable to me compared to this.

sorry for s-(( . Had a hard week...


Petafly, please do not judge U.S. media based on Anne Coulter. She is an extremist who mostly spews her rhetoric on Fox News, a right-leaning news network (to put it mildly). I know a lot of *conservatives* who can't stand that woman.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline beans


Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:00 am

Posts: 220

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:20 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

More re Kokomani:
At 6:42 Brian S. wrote:
Gut Instinct 2

What was Kokomani's evidence?

A couple of things out of the way first:

The broken down car did not come out of the car park else its owners would have been traced from it's registration plate as were all the others by December.

I don't know in which direction it was facing - out of town, towards the cottage or facing towards Piazza Grimana. I'll give you a guess - it was facing towards Piazza Grimana and had broken down when it stopped at the junction by the bins. Either way, it's occupants didn't see anything untoward but I suspect they were well occupied with their own problems at the time.

Kokomani says he was stopped back where the vegetation came over the car park wall, very near the cottage. His headlights would have blinded the scene behind the front of Kokomani's car if the occupants of the broken down car looked in that direction and people don't make a habit of looking into car headlights anyway.

I don't believe the breakdown truck was there at the time, I believe that the car had only just broken down. This places the time at just after 10:30pm. Kokomani makes no mention of the breakdown truck in his testimony, just the broken down car.

The occupants of the broken down car were traced first. I suspect that the owner of the breakdown truck was traced from information given by them.

Relevent information from Kokomani's testimony(forget about the olives and phones):

1)He stopped because he thought he saw a black bin liner in the road. It transpired it was Amanda crouching down in the shadows. Rudy and Raffaele were out of sight. I don't know from where Raffaele made his appearance when Kokmani stopped but Rudy came up from the bank which went down to the cottage car park.

I think they had all just hidden because a car had just broken down at the junction and maybe someone got out to lift the bonnet etc. Whatever, I think the breakdown of the car caused the situation into which Kokomai stumbled.

2)Both Raffaele and Amanda had large knives and were threatening. There were two knives. He didn't see Rudy with a knife. It was Rudy who calmed the situation.

3)He said there was a banging noise coming from inside the cottage(Meredith wasn't dead yet). He asked Rudy what it was. Rudy just said there was a bit of a party going on.

4)Make what you will of Rudy's offer of E200 to borrow Kokomani's car. Either way Kokomani wasn't playing their game. RS and AK had just threatened him with knives.

5)Two or three minutes after he stopped, Kokmani drove off and manouvered around the broken down car. He went to the cafe where he met his friends and told them what had just happened.

More to come.

At 8:41 he added:
Kokomani is absolutely useless on the witness stand.

But that isn't his contribution to the case.

I'll try and say it clearer so that you will understand Kokomani's contribution to enabling the prosecution to move forward with this case.

Because of "rescontri" his story checks out.

They absolutely believe that he saw the three outside the cottage on Nov 1st. He drove on to a cafe and told his friends all about what had just happened. Nobody knew that Meredith was murdered. Kokomani didn't know that anyone had been murdered. Kokomani just told his friends about 3 nutcases, two wielding knives, who had threatened him when he stopped in his car near the cottage by the car park in Via Della Pergola.

It's because he told them that his identity became known "to he who pays". As he told his lawyer only three weeks after the murder, he was frightened because he had witnessed part of a crime andAnd just so's I head something off which I can see happening after my posts tonight on Kokomani.

The friends that Kokomani met in the cafe and told his story to on the 1st Nov may not be called as witnesses at the trial, but you can bet there are statements from them confirming Kokomani's story as told to them in the 10,000 page file which Mignini presented to the court.

That's what constitutes rescontri evidence. he had heard that someone was offering a lot of money for him to go back to Albania and stay there.

Need I say more?????

He's useless on the witness stand.

BUT: Mignini "knows" the three were at the cottage that night. He just doesn't know exactly what happened. Unless one of them tells him. It's what he's been saying since early last year.


At 10:35 he summed it up this way:And just so's I head something off which I can see happening after my posts tonight on Kokomani.

The friends that Kokomani met in the cafe and told his story to on the 1st Nov may not be called as witnesses at the trial, but you can bet there are statements from them confirming Kokomani's story as told to them in the 10,000 page file which Mignini presented to the court.

That's what constitutes rescontri evidence.

I'm sorry this post is so long and that my locating it and my bumbling efforts at posting took so long that topic had moved on, but these posts provided a real "light-bulb moment" about the importance and validity of Kokomani's testimony which seemed so questionable before.

Beans (no not from Boston)

Thanks to Brian S. and everyone else for all their insightful comments--and especially to thoughtful for her translations which bring so much information to all of us who don't speak Italian!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:22 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

JVM-June-15 Part1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2v0cVhe464

JVM-June-15 Part2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6WM8tt29dM
Top Profile 

Offline jetlagged


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:17 am

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

One of the things I find so curious about this case is that I cannot conceive of a narrative that would ring true, although obviously the murder took place and there is a set of facts (although we may never discover it) that describes exactly what happened. I found AK’s testimony for the most part to be pretty believable and to me she gave a good impression of an innocent girl caught up in a horror story, answering questions as helpfully as she could and with total sincerity. At the same time, I find it a huge stretch to believe that AK and RS’s documented reactions and statements can be those of innocent people, not to mention the problem of the evidence that would have to be erroneous for them to be innocent. I therefore thought it might be an interesting experiment to come at this from the two extremes (completely innocent and completely guilty) and take a look at what this would mean.

Let’s assume they are innocent, the following must also therefore be true
RS genuinely can’t remember whether Amanda was with him that night, hence his inability to provide an alibi or RS panicked when being questioned by police and told a lie, with subsequent further lies making things worse
Numerous police and interpreter witnesses are lying when they swear that AK was not badly treated during the first interview or they have a different definition of ill treatment and AK overreacted to normal police procedure
AK crumbled under intense questioning, saw visions and named Patrick in error
The tramp in the square was mistaken about seeing AK and RS that night
The Albanian saw someone else brandishing knives in the road or he’s lying (although this is unlikely as he reported it to friends immediately)
The storekeeper is mistaken about seeing AK in the morning
RS’s DNA on the bra strap was caused by contamination
The analysis that showed MK’s DNA on the knife in RS’s kitchen is wrong, because the sample size was too small
AK went ahead with her shower despite noticing bloodstains
AK forgot to take a towel when she walked naked from her room to the shower, despite the front door being open
AK performed an elaborate bathmat shuffle, to her room and back, after showering
The mixed bloodstains are due to blood from AK’s pierced ears
The footprint that fits that of RS was made by someone else
The clean up was done by someone other than AK and RS, perhaps Rudy or an unidentified person
On the day that the body was found there was a Benny-Hill style five minutes of frenzied activity or there is a mistake in the timing of certain phone calls/events
AK behaved strangely in the days after the murder because a) it is in her character to lighten the atmosphere when stressed, b) she was scared and RS was comforting her, and c) she was confused
RS is not testifying in this trial because, although innocent, he feels there’s a danger that me may be tripped up on his recollections of the precise details or although innocent, he doesn’t know how to explain that he has given conflicting testimony
They are both victims of this investigation and have had their lives almost destroyed by police and prosecutors who were barking up the wrong tree

Let’s assume they are guilty, what must also therefore be true
AK, the friendly self-assured girl we have seen in court over the last few months, is capable of murdering someone in an unimaginatively brutal way or she is capable of sitting back and letting it happen
RS, who looks so shy and innocent, is capable of the same
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, these two individuals nonetheless together took part in this terrible crime
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, one of them is protecting the other or they are both as deeply involved as each other and they know it
If they prearranged this with Rudy they managed to do so without using their telephone or they met Rudy by chance on the way to the cottage
There was no obvious reason for the murder: one thing just led to another and they found themselves killing her.

There is little room for an in-between scenario here (e.g. witnessing the crime and failing to call the police; participating in the clean up only). So I believe that one of the above scenarios is close to the truth. Which one seems more likely to you?
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:25 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

During discussions of news I often think of this bit from William Carlos Williams:

From Asphodel, That Greeny Flower


My heart rouses
thinking to bring you news
of something
that concerns you
and concerns many men. Look at
what passes for the new.
You will not find it there but in
despised poems.
It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there.


Last edited by Shirley on Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:27 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:

Americans just need to have higher standards when it comes to reporting and view the news less as "entertainment" and more as a source of enlightenment.

I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


Mrsdarcy, I have to agree with your point that U.S. news outlets need to focus less on entertainment and more on enlightenment.

However, I'll have to disagree with your assessment of "political correctness." :) I view this concept as noble - in my opinion, it leads to a respectful manner of speaking and discussion that in turns helps to foster an atmosphere of respect for all groups, whether based on race, religion, gender, creed, etc. etc. etc. I'm proud to consider myself a person who employs the concept of "political correctness."

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:28 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Petafly wrote:

Quote:
Having read the article of Ann Coulter, i must admit i'm scared. The way of reporting in the US is simply disgusting. Though Ann Coulter seems to be one of the few who actually does research before writing, she uses this knowledge and her platform not to inform people, but to bash the New York Times and all the liberals there. Isn't there one reporter over there, who isn't on a personal crusade or simply wants to look good on the telly (the CNN LAdy was horrifying btw) and just reports bona fide what's happening in Perugia. I usually don't praise german and french media, but they seem so much more laid back and reputable to me compared to this.

sorry for . Had a hard week...



Hi Petafly.
Sorry you're having a bad week. The mainstream television and radio media people in America are generally in the entertainment business. Indeed, many mainstream television organizations have merged their news and entertainment outfits to save money and, one hopes unintentionally, in the process have helped to blur the distinction between news and entertainment even more. A cultural reverence for free speech means that the stars/journalists can play fast and loose with the facts, apparently. And many of them do, obviously.

Are there any good American reporters on this case? I can identify at least two, and both are based in Italy, have the necessary linguistic skills and are present in the courtroom. I'm talking about Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. Their reporting has been factual and objective. Ann Wise has been doing a good job for ABC. So it isn't all bad. But these reporters seem to keep a fairly low profile and stick to doing their job. They aren't up on a soapbox grinding an axe or commanding attention. In other words, they are easy to miss.

I have been wondering if it is such a good idea for newspapers like the NY Times to affiliate themselves with op-ed blogs written by journalists. I think it just muddies the waters. On the Vanity Fair blog, a certain Andrew Cohen linked to Egan's piece, stating that the NY Times is now "covering" the case. Egan's opinion piece is hardly coverage; besides Rachel Donadio has been covering this case for the NY Times.

The same confusion reigns at the Seattle PI: some people fail to distinguish between Andrea Vogt's bona fide and professional coverage of the case and Candace's Dempsey's "reader" blog, which has been a defense blog from the start. Candace Dempsey has made things worse by insisting on her journalistic credentials when things get tough. For people who are easily confused, Dempsey makes Vogt look bad.

As bad as it is, Frank's blog is at least not affiliated with a newspaper or media outlet, at least not openly. His claims to a journalistic past are just noise and easy to ignore.

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

Offline allsburg


Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:40 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jetlagged wrote:
Let’s assume they are guilty, what must also therefore be true
AK, the friendly self-assured girl we have seen in court over the last few months, is capable of murdering someone in an unimaginatively brutal way or she is capable of sitting back and letting it happen
RS, who looks so shy and innocent, is capable of the same
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, these two individuals nonetheless together took part in this terrible crime
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, one of them is protecting the other or they are both as deeply involved as each other and they know it
If they prearranged this with Rudy they managed to do so without using their telephone or they met Rudy by chance on the way to the cottage
There was no obvious reason for the murder: one thing just led to another and they found themselves killing her.

There is little room for an in-between scenario here (e.g. witnessing the crime and failing to call the police; participating in the clean up only). So I believe that one of the above scenarios is close to the truth. Which one seems more likely to you?


I think you discount what I think is the real scenario here: there was no premeditation or plan to kill Meredith. It was the unanticipated conclusion of a series of bad decisions, the last of which involved an unthinking descent into the dark side. Thus, there was no need to "prearrange" anything, and no need for a "reason." The fact that they (initially, at least) covered for each other is not due to some "soul connection" that they made in the short time they had known each other, but due to a recognition that they were both sunk unless they covered for each other. And as for having to believe that these people are "capable of murder", this goes back to something I said the other day: it's a comforting myth that people who kill are somehow intrinsically different from people who don't. This may be true of serial killers, or real premeditated killings, but for murders that happen in the spur of the moment or in the heat of passion, it's really more about an unlikely combination of circumstances and emotions than it is about some kind of serious personality flaw or inherent evilness. We don't need to believe that AK is a sociopath or a psychopath. All we need to believe is that she is a bit impulsive, and that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong people, and smoking the wrong drugs.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian wrote:
"We know that evidence concerning dates, times and cell receiving details has been given by the telco which operates the network in Perugia. I wouldn't worry about the details being correct in Perugia time."

The prosecution seems not to worry either. :D
I really don't understand how they could flop with that wrong 12:00 time.

Anyway, the cell info is missing from what has been published.
- Amanda receives Lumumba's SMS in cell 622 (servicing Raffaele's place)
- The 22:13 phone internet connection of Meredith's English phone is also made from this cell 622.
- Raffaele's recharge call and the confirmation SMS are in cell Piazza Lupatelli servicing the cottage.

But that's all I know.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:

Quote:
Go to truejustice.org, read the comments from the past two days, and you'll see potshots from " kredsox" and "LIBBY," and you'll see ad hominem attacks on "liberals" and Obama being brought into the discussion.

Further, as for Coulter, in the article she wrote, her first paragraph is her typical hate speech against anyone who isn't in agreement with her. So, by her first paragraph, she brings all her previous views into the piece, including when on Feb 8, 2006, she said *all* of us Muslims are "car burning cultists" and have a "prediliction for violence." I won't stand for that.

I disagree with *anyone* promoting someone who spews hate speech against me or my family. I hope you can understand that.


You are right, Wallabee and in fact I have sent Peter Quennell an email asking him to do something about this before his non-profit site becomes a repository for comments from people who are dissatisfied with Obama. I made a comment the other day about Egan and Preston which referred to the 2004 US Presidential election and apparently upset a Bush supporter in the process. When I did not take the bait over there, he came here. I asked him to contact me privately for a political discussion and not pollute the board with it. The trouble with people like Ann Coulter and Timothy Egan is that they bring a political agenda with them, which focuses people's attention away from the real issue. Coulter's lead-in paragraph was unforgiveable, in my opinion. It detracts from her substantive claims. It also explains why I personally ignore her as much as possible, though I would never require anyone else to do so.

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

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:43 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


With this, I will agree with you. I don't like Ms. Coulter and I for sure have very real issues with some of what she says, however, I think it's awesome she does say the stuff she says because it prompts discussion. Political correctness is (was?) a senseless trend. If you or I believe something that might somewhere, somehow offend someone else, then we should feel free to say it anyway. I know I've had my share of opinions and thoughts change over the years from meaningful discourse.

BTW - I'm more than open to hearing from people who don't like my politics, my religion, or what have you. I just don't like when people shoehorn in wide sweeping insults or sneak the President in. Like, just like I'm mystified how someone would view the murder of Meredith Kercher as a platform for attacking Obama, I would be just as mystified to see someone use it as a means of attacking former President Bush.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:46 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Mrsdarcy, I believe Wallabee is referring to the "ignorant" comment aimed at Ks1, which I too thought was a tad harsh.


Yes, I was. That was a bit jarring to me. ks1 needs more proof. That is perfectly fair in this sort of discussion. We all came to this case with our own opinions and criteria for how we determine the culpability of Ms. Knox, if any. If, say, ks1 and I had the exact same criteria, there would be no point in discussion, would there?

Wow..... Sorry, I feel like I'm creating all this drama now.....
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:47 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:

Americans just need to have higher standards when it comes to reporting and view the news less as "entertainment" and more as a source of enlightenment.

I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


Mrsdarcy, I have to agree with your point that U.S. news outlets need to focus less on entertainment and more on enlightenment.

However, I'll have to disagree with your assessment of "political correctness." :) I view this concept as noble - in my opinion, it leads to a respectful manner of speaking and discussion that in turns helps to foster an atmosphere of respect for all groups, whether based on race, religion, gender, creed, etc. etc. etc. I'm proud to consider myself a person who employs the concept of "political correctness."


I think you are speaking of politeness rather than political correctness. You are very polite and considerate, I agree; but you are not "politically correct." People who are "politically correct" treat anyone who does not agree with them very rudely; they attempt to silence the expression of opinion through the use of certain "sacred cow" ideas and falsely identify people as racist, etc., for expressions which are not really racist. For example, I can criticize Obama without being a racist; but for the "politically correct" the two become one, and people therefore will hesitate to criticize a political leader when he has black skin for fear of being labeled a racist. It stifles public debate.

Now as for insults...to call someone "ignorant" is deliberate insult and not called for under the circumstances on these boards. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about most things, and the guilt of AK is certainly something reasonable people can disagree about. And I don't think how one feels about this case really has anything to do with one's political views...I myself am a conservative (and, no, I don't always think Ann Coulter should say whatever comes into her mind or say things just to be inflammatory, which she does), and you are not...but we seem to have pretty similar ideas about this case. And I also think you are a fine person...(but maybe this is too personal for these boards, so sorry).
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Petafly, please do not judge U.S. media based on Anne Coulter. She is an extremist who mostly spews her rhetoric on Fox News, a right-leaning news network (to put it mildly). I know a lot of *conservatives* who can't stand that woman.


In all fairness, the left has its share of extremists, too. I can easily see where a more right leaning individual would have a hard time tolerating Bill Mahr or Michael Moore.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

allsburg wrote:

jetlagged wrote:
Let’s assume they are guilty, what must also therefore be true
AK, the friendly self-assured girl we have seen in court over the last few months, is capable of murdering someone in an unimaginatively brutal way or she is capable of sitting back and letting it happen
RS, who looks so shy and innocent, is capable of the same
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, these two individuals nonetheless together took part in this terrible crime
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, one of them is protecting the other or they are both as deeply involved as each other and they know it
If they prearranged this with Rudy they managed to do so without using their telephone or they met Rudy by chance on the way to the cottage
There was no obvious reason for the murder: one thing just led to another and they found themselves killing her.

There is little room for an in-between scenario here (e.g. witnessing the crime and failing to call the police; participating in the clean up only). So I believe that one of the above scenarios is close to the truth. Which one seems more likely to you?


I think you discount what I think is the real scenario here: there was no premeditation or plan to kill Meredith. It was the unanticipated conclusion of a series of bad decisions, the last of which involved an unthinking descent into the dark side. Thus, there was no need to "prearrange" anything, and no need for a "reason." The fact that they (initially, at least) covered for each other is not due to some "soul connection" that they made in the short time they had known each other, but due to a recognition that they were both sunk unless they covered for each other. And as for having to believe that these people are "capable of murder", this goes back to something I said the other day: it's a comforting myth that people who kill are somehow intrinsically different from people who don't. This may be true of serial killers, or real premeditated killings, but for murders that happen in the spur of the moment or in the heat of passion, it's really more about an unlikely combination of circumstances and emotions than it is about some kind of serious personality flaw or inherent evilness. We don't need to believe that AK is a sociopath or a psychopath. All we need to believe is that she is a bit impulsive, and that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong people, and smoking the wrong drugs.


Although I obviously don't know for sure whether there had been a plan in place to kill Meredith, I agree that for me, the most likely scenario is a sort of spontaneous explosion, fueled by drugs (for all three), jealousy/insecurity (for AK), lust (for RG) and repressed sadism/violence (for RS).

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:54 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Wallabee wrote:

Quote:
Go to truejustice.org, read the comments from the past two days, and you'll see potshots from " kredsox" and "LIBBY," and you'll see ad hominem attacks on "liberals" and Obama being brought into the discussion.

Further, as for Coulter, in the article she wrote, her first paragraph is her typical hate speech against anyone who isn't in agreement with her. So, by her first paragraph, she brings all her previous views into the piece, including when on Feb 8, 2006, she said *all* of us Muslims are "car burning cultists" and have a "prediliction for violence." I won't stand for that.

I disagree with *anyone* promoting someone who spews hate speech against me or my family. I hope you can understand that.


You are right, Wallabee and in fact I have sent Peter Quennell an email asking him to do something about this before his non-profit site becomes a repository for comments from people who are dissatisfied with Obama. I made a comment the other day about Egan and Preston which referred to the 2004 US Presidential election and apparently upset a Bush supporter in the process. When I did not take the bait over there, he came here. I asked him to contact me privately for a political discussion and not pollute the board with it. The trouble with people like Ann Coulter and Timothy Egan is that they bring a political agenda with them, which focuses people's attention away from the real issue. Coulter's lead-in paragraph was unforgiveable, in my opinion. It detracts from her substantive claims. It also explains why I personally ignore her as much as possible, though I would never require anyone else to do so.


Skeptical, you are right. It is wrong of me to imply in any way that MrsDarcy or the other people who enjoy Coulter shouldn't listen to her because I myself am offended by her comments towards practicing Muslims. I mean, geez, religion has about as much to do with this conversation as politics, and it was certainly wrong of me to force that in there.

My honest feelings are I'm so sad about this murder that it just stirs a lot of emotions in me. I'm going to try much harder to keep those emotions a bit more under my control.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:56 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

MrsDarcy, and any other fans of Ms. Coulter, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have implied you don't have a right to listen to and enjoy the commentary of Ms. Coulter. That was wrong of me.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

From my net experience one thing is sure.
When politics enters as a topic, forums deteriorate quickly. :D
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


With this, I will agree with you. I don't like Ms. Coulter and I for sure have very real issues with some of what she says, however, I think it's awesome she does say the stuff she says because it prompts discussion. Political correctness is (was?) a senseless trend. If you or I believe something that might somewhere, somehow offend someone else, then we should feel free to say it anyway. I know I've had my share of opinions and thoughts change over the years from meaningful discourse.

BTW - I'm more than open to hearing from people who don't like my politics, my religion, or what have you. I just don't like when people shoehorn in wide sweeping insults or sneak the President in. Like, just like I'm mystified how someone would view the murder of Meredith Kercher as a platform for attacking Obama, I would be just as mystified to see someone use it as a means of attacking former President Bush.


Good points...and, since you are a Muslim, I guess I wouldn't expect you to think much of Ann Coulter, since she has said some crazy things on that subject. She makes sweeping generalizations (I see her more as a comic entertainer than a true political commentator), which I know she doesn't really mean, but that's no excuse. This may sound lame, but I bet she has lot of Muslim friends. In fact, many of my Muslim friends are even more conservative on social and economic issues than I am...and charming in ways I don't have time to describe. It all comes down to individual people being able to love each other, whatever their origins. I am sure many people from other countries dislike Americans in general, but love many Americans when they meet them personally. We are all a bit "off" when it comes to stereotypes and generalizations.

I would drag out the beating the dead smiley emoticon at this point, if there were one. Sorry everyone...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:

Americans just need to have higher standards when it comes to reporting and view the news less as "entertainment" and more as a source of enlightenment.

I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


Mrsdarcy, I have to agree with your point that U.S. news outlets need to focus less on entertainment and more on enlightenment.

However, I'll have to disagree with your assessment of "political correctness." :) I view this concept as noble - in my opinion, it leads to a respectful manner of speaking and discussion that in turns helps to foster an atmosphere of respect for all groups, whether based on race, religion, gender, creed, etc. etc. etc. I'm proud to consider myself a person who employs the concept of "political correctness."


I think you are speaking of politeness rather than political correctness. You are very polite and considerate, I agree; but you are not "politically correct." People who are "politically correct" treat anyone who does not agree with them very rudely; they attempt to silence the expression of opinion through the use of certain "sacred cow" ideas and falsely identify people as racist, etc., for expressions which are not really racist. For example, I can criticize Obama without being a racist; but for the "politically correct" the two become one, and people therefore will hesitate to criticize a political leader when he has black skin for fear of being labeled a racist. It stifles public debate.

Now as for insults...to call someone "ignorant" is deliberate insult and not called for under the circumstances on these boards. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about most things, and the guilt of AK is certainly something reasonable people can disagree about. And I don't think how one feels about this case really has anything to do with one's political views...I myself am a conservative (and, no, I don't always think Ann Coulter should say whatever comes into her mind or say things just to be inflammatory, which she does), and you are not...but we seem to have pretty similar ideas about this case. And I also think you are a fine person...(but maybe this is too personal for these boards, so sorry).


Aw, I think you are a fine person, too, Mrsdarcy, even if you're a conservative. lol.
ghu-)) And I agree that political views don't have much, if any, bearing on how one feels about guilt or innocence in this case.

I guess I was just defining political correctness differently. For example, there is a popular coffee chain in Michigan called Biggby Coffee (awwwwwwesome coffee, by the way), but in the recent past it was called "Beaners." The company changed the name because it was expanding into Texas (I think?) and knew that the term "Beaners" would be offensive to a lot of people there of Mexican origin. (I'm sure the name change was more motivated by profit than any particular sensitivity/niceness, but anyway, those are the facts.) So - a lot of people around here were outraged that "Beaners" fell victim to "political correctness" and changed their name. My thoughts were, "If it's possible to phrase something in a way that will be less likely to offend people, why not do so?"

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki


Last edited by Truth Seeker on Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:03 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jetlagged wrote:
One of the things I find so curious about this case is that I cannot conceive of a narrative that would ring true, although obviously the murder took place and there is a set of facts (although we may never discover it) that describes exactly what happened. I found AK’s testimony for the most part to be pretty believable and to me she gave a good impression of an innocent girl caught up in a horror story, answering questions as helpfully as she could and with total sincerity. At the same time, I find it a huge stretch to believe that AK and RS’s documented reactions and statements can be those of innocent people, not to mention the problem of the evidence that would have to be erroneous for them to be innocent. I therefore thought it might be an interesting experiment to come at this from the two extremes (completely innocent and completely guilty) and take a look at what this would mean.


YES!! That's exactly how I feel, too! I have that same conflict, a hard time believing any narrative they committed the murder, yet there's all this evidence pointing right at them!

Thank you for the two scenarios. When you look at it like that, I feel the second scenario is clearly more likely, that they are both guilty despite some misgivings about why AK, RS, and RG would be together in the house at the same time. Then again, my concern is the pesky "why," and that isn't as important as the "how," "where," etc.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:05 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Petafly, please do not judge U.S. media based on Anne Coulter. She is an extremist who mostly spews her rhetoric on Fox News, a right-leaning news network (to put it mildly). I know a lot of *conservatives* who can't stand that woman.


In all fairness, the left has its share of extremists, too. I can easily see where a more right leaning individual would have a hard time tolerating Bill Mahr or Michael Moore.


Oh - for sure. I was just responding, though, to Petafly's specific comments about Anne. :)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:

Quote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Mrsdarcy, I believe Wallabee is referring to the "ignorant" comment aimed at Ks1, which I too thought was a tad harsh.


Yes, I was. That was a bit jarring to me. ks1 needs more proof. That is perfectly fair in this sort of discussion. We all came to this case with our own opinions and criteria for how we determine the culpability of Ms. Knox, if any. If, say, ks1 and I had the exact same criteria, there would be no point in discussion, would there?

Wow..... Sorry, I feel like I'm creating all this drama now.....


Sometimes you just have to trust the instincts of the moderators. Michael and I have been doing this for well over a year now. This board and previous iterations of it have been visited by people over time whose agenda is to disrupt the discussion and hopefully shut it down. Naturally, they don't state that upon arrival. Often, they begin by saying "I just started studying this case three minutes ago" and then go on to reveal more than passing familiarity with the FOA talking points. Some of them are paid to post; it is part of the PR campaign. They can wreak havoc if left unchallenged. The goal here is to have an open and free-ranging discussion and - sometimes - the only way to do that is to encourage some posters to go elsewhere. This is true in real life, so it should come as no surprise here. We don't like to delete posts, and have opted for a different strategy whose aim is to keep things civil and on topic.

Some of you may have noticed that, for whatever reason, this case has polarized people. I find it very distasteful that in some places this has become like a horse race: Who are you backing? Whose going to win? What is the prize?

Michael and I try our best to keep that from happening here. If you read the board rules, you'll get a sense of how we hope things will work. One of the those rules is that if you don't like the way the board is being run or you don't like a comment made by a particular poster, you should either contact the poster via PM and/or share your grievance with one or both moderators.

I don't like to make a distinction between "new" and "old" posters either. However, over time we get to know people, what they are like, their personality quirks and so on. It is dangerous for anyone to step into an ongoing discussion and single out individuals for attack. I also don't like it when people call others ignorant and have developed a way of dealing with it. I contact the offender privately and ask them to cease and desist. It always works until the next time it happens.

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

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:09 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:

Americans just need to have higher standards when it comes to reporting and view the news less as "entertainment" and more as a source of enlightenment.

I would also add that, if it were not for political correctness, there would be no Anne Coulter. She has made a fortune off this ridiculous and dangerous trend; and if she has managed to bring down one brick in the wall of political correctness, I think she should be celebrated for that. Where political correctness exists, there is no true freedom of thought or speech, and these are the essence of freedom.


Mrsdarcy, I have to agree with your point that U.S. news outlets need to focus less on entertainment and more on enlightenment.

However, I'll have to disagree with your assessment of "political correctness." :) I view this concept as noble - in my opinion, it leads to a respectful manner of speaking and discussion that in turns helps to foster an atmosphere of respect for all groups, whether based on race, religion, gender, creed, etc. etc. etc. I'm proud to consider myself a person who employs the concept of "political correctness."


I think you are speaking of politeness rather than political correctness. You are very polite and considerate, I agree; but you are not "politically correct." People who are "politically correct" treat anyone who does not agree with them very rudely; they attempt to silence the expression of opinion through the use of certain "sacred cow" ideas and falsely identify people as racist, etc., for expressions which are not really racist. For example, I can criticize Obama without being a racist; but for the "politically correct" the two become one, and people therefore will hesitate to criticize a political leader when he has black skin for fear of being labeled a racist. It stifles public debate.

Now as for insults...to call someone "ignorant" is deliberate insult and not called for under the circumstances on these boards. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about most things, and the guilt of AK is certainly something reasonable people can disagree about. And I don't think how one feels about this case really has anything to do with one's political views...I myself am a conservative (and, no, I don't always think Ann Coulter should say whatever comes into her mind or say things just to be inflammatory, which she does), and you are not...but we seem to have pretty similar ideas about this case. And I also think you are a fine person...(but maybe this is too personal for these boards, so sorry).


Aw, I think you are a fine person, too, Mrsdarcy, even if you're a conservative. lol.
ghu-)) And I agree that political views don't have much, if any, bearing on how one feels about guilt or innocence in this case.

I guess I was just defining political correctness differently. For example, there is a popular coffee chain in Michigan called Biggby Coffee (awwwwwwesome coffee, by the way), but in the recent past it was called "Beaners." The company changed the name because it was expanding into Texas (I think?) and knew that the term "Beaners" would be offensive to a lot of people there of Mexican origin. (I'm sure the name change was more motivated by profit than any particular sensitivity/niceness, but anyway, those are the facts.) So - a lot of people around here were outraged that "Beaners" fell victim to "political correctness" and changed their name. My thoughts were, "If it's possible to phrase something in a way that will be less likely to offend people, why not do so?"



Okay, I see your point. Yes, I am all in favor of that kind of politeness and just common decency. Going out of one's way to be offensive or failing to see how offensive certain things might be to certain people is not a good thing. Sort of like the "my people killed your people" comment Amanda made to somebody Jewish. Just boorish.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:12 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Bolint wrote:

Quote:
From my net experience one thing is sure.
When politics enters as a topic, forums deteriorate quickly.


Which is exactly why the subject here is the murder of Meredith Kercher. Well and succinctly put, Bolint, as usual. gb-)

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:18 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:


Like, just like I'm mystified how someone would view the murder of Meredith Kercher as a platform for attacking Obama, I would be just as mystified to see someone use it as a means of attacking former President Bush.


Well, in some ways I can sort of see the relevance, in that it might have some bearing when discussing the polarized reactions in this case. For example, a lot of people see Bush's actions as creating a fair amount of anti-American sentiment in other parts of the world, and this lingering resentment --- or conversely, the idea that such resentment is unjustified --- *might* play into some of the polarizing sentiments expressed on either side.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:21 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
Are there any good American reporters on this case? I can identify at least two, and both are based in Italy, have the necessary linguistic skills and are present in the courtroom. I'm talking about Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. Their reporting has been factual and objective. Ann Wise has been doing a good job for ABC. So it isn't all bad. But these reporters seem to keep a fairly low profile and stick to doing their job. They aren't up on a soapbox grinding an axe or commanding attention. In other words, they are easy to miss.

th-) Skep, TF, msdarcy and Wallabee for your insights. I think the PR campaign of the FOA is built up on just these weaknesses of the US-media. In Europe such a spin would not have that much impact imho.

Skep, yes, i forgot Barbie Nadeau and especially Andrea Vogt (she actually has"Grandezza"!). In my brain they count as froeign correspondents, and correspondents are always pretty aware of their reputation, arent they? They know about their huge responsibility!

And please don't mention political correctness no more! I'm already too agressive for my own good. st-))
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:22 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Brian wrote:
"We know that evidence concerning dates, times and cell receiving details has been given by the telco which operates the network in Perugia. I wouldn't worry about the details being correct in Perugia time."

The prosecution seems not to worry either. :D
I really don't understand how they could flop with that wrong 12:00 time.


What I noticed from the court is a lot of focus on the failed breaking down of the door, as well as on the call to Edda. And actually, if you look at Amanda's accounts of breaking down the door, but not succeeding, then it must take place at more or less the time when she is phoning her mother (I mean, according to Amanda's narrative).

This is because the cellphone records show what looks like a series of straightforward causative links:

1247 AK to Edda -> 1250 RS to Vanessa -> 1251 RS 1st 112 call -> 1254 RS 2nd 112 call.

However, Amanda and Raffaele both identify the failed breaking down of the door as their real trigger to call the police - not the phone call to Edda.

So, assuming they are telling the truth, the call to Edda must be at more or less the same time as the breaking down of the door. Which makes tomorrow's testimony from Edda interesting on that point.

Actually, I think that if Edda admits tomorrow that she did not say, "Hang up and call the police", then the defense will be in a stronger position. However, if she does reiterate this claim that she has made several times in public, then I think it causes problems for the defense - problems which she has not intended.

I think possibly describing the call as "midday" might in fact be an attempt not to flag up too strongly the very real dangers that surround this particular call. (Or possibly they're just sloppy about timings, I don't know.)

I think the police are likely to have arrived earlier than 1236. Let's say, for example, that they are examining the break-in at the point when Amanda's phone rings. Let's say that Raffaele also thinks this might be a good time to remove himself from the scene by innocently topping up the credit on his phone. Because it can be quite difficult to control your reactions when you are talking to a policeman who is investigating a break-in that you yourself have faked. (I know this from personal experience, of course. I think we've all been there, if we're honest.)

And then Luca and Marco arrive - and Luca testified to seeing a post-it note on the kitchen table that Amanda had already given to Battistelli. This post-it note is quite important, alongside the cellphone records, in determining the timeframes that are possible in those moments.

And while Luca and Marco are talking to the police, it is possible that Amanda and Raffaele withdraw to Amanda's bedroom. And then they make that disastrous series of phone calls.

That's a scenario that strikes me as quite plausible, given what we know. It fits in with a lot of testimonies, even accidental testimony such as Amanda claiming "everything was happening so fast" with regard to the 1247 call, even though if we accept her own narrative, there's not very much at all that is happening at that point. Everything is happening so fast only if we accept the "other" version of events, which I think is more or less the one I just described.

_________________
Me voici devant tous, un homme vide de sens...
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
petafly wrote:
Having read the article of Ann Coulter, i must admit i'm scared. The way of reporting in the US is simply disgusting. Though Ann Coulter seems to be one of the few who actually does research before writing, she uses this knowledge and her platform not to inform people, but to bash the New York Times and all the liberals there. sh-))) Isn't there one reporter over there, who isn't on a personal crusade or simply wants to look good on the telly (the CNN LAdy was horrifying btw) and just reports bona fide what's happening in Perugia. I usually don't praise german and french media, but they seem so much more laid back and reputable to me compared to this.

sorry for s-(( . Had a hard week...


Yeah, the state of US reporting is sad. Anymore, it's all charactarized by a lot of needless attacks from people at those who disagree with them. It's just both extremes with very little in the middle. Ironically enough, one of Rupert Murdoch's papers, the Wall Street Journal, is probably the best source of US reporting.

Personally, I tend to enjoy the Economist - a paper from London. It does a marvellous job of covering the world's news each week. For the most part it's unbiased, except they are very bullish on free trade...and they usually try to find some scandal in France to report on, but I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?


Me Gustan "El Pais" de Madrid, "La Jornada" de Mexico DF y "La Opinion" de Los Angeles. A veces, El Mercurio en Santiago de Chile esta bueno.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:31 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:

I think you are speaking of politeness rather than political correctness. You are very polite and considerate, I agree; but you are not "politically correct." People who are "politically correct" treat anyone who does not agree with them very rudely; they attempt to silence the expression of opinion through the use of certain "sacred cow" ideas and falsely identify people as racist, etc., for expressions which are not really racist. For example, I can criticize Obama without being a racist; but for the "politically correct" the two become one, and people therefore will hesitate to criticize a political leader when he has black skin for fear of being labeled a racist. It stifles public debate.

Now as for insults...to call someone "ignorant" is deliberate insult and not called for under the circumstances on these boards. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about most things, and the guilt of AK is certainly something reasonable people can disagree about. And I don't think how one feels about this case really has anything to do with one's political views...I myself am a conservative (and, no, I don't always think Ann Coulter should say whatever comes into her mind or say things just to be inflammatory, which she does), and you are not...but we seem to have pretty similar ideas about this case. And I also think you are a fine person...(but maybe this is too personal for these boards, so sorry).


Yes, yes, yes, all this!!! I think it's important to criticize the President, any President, without having the criticisms be dismissed as being racist or whatever. I mean, sure, if someone is making attacks on Obama based on his race, that's one thing, but if someone were to say, "I don't like his health care plans, and here's why...." then yes, that person should be allowed to say that stuff without being labeled a racist.

Both you and Truth Seeker are seemingly kind, polite people. That's all that is needed, you know? Politeness and civility.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline satorimoon


Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 am

Posts: 24

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Will a complete video (with English translation) of Amanda's testimony in court ever be released in its entirety? Seeing her body language and facial expressions while testifying seem important when trying to determine the veracity of her statements.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:40 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

petafly wrote:

And please don't mention political correctness no more! I'm already too agressive for my own good. st-))


:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm going to give you this: ghu-))

So you can avoid this: ex-)

;)

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:48 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
allsburg wrote:

jetlagged wrote:
Let’s assume they are guilty, what must also therefore be true
AK, the friendly self-assured girl we have seen in court over the last few months, is capable of murdering someone in an unimaginatively brutal way or she is capable of sitting back and letting it happen
RS, who looks so shy and innocent, is capable of the same
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, these two individuals nonetheless together took part in this terrible crime
Despite knowing each other for less than a week, one of them is protecting the other or they are both as deeply involved as each other and they know it
If they prearranged this with Rudy they managed to do so without using their telephone or they met Rudy by chance on the way to the cottage
There was no obvious reason for the murder: one thing just led to another and they found themselves killing her.

There is little room for an in-between scenario here (e.g. witnessing the crime and failing to call the police; participating in the clean up only). So I believe that one of the above scenarios is close to the truth. Which one seems more likely to you?


I think you discount what I think is the real scenario here: there was no premeditation or plan to kill Meredith. It was the unanticipated conclusion of a series of bad decisions, the last of which involved an unthinking descent into the dark side. Thus, there was no need to "prearrange" anything, and no need for a "reason." The fact that they (initially, at least) covered for each other is not due to some "soul connection" that they made in the short time they had known each other, but due to a recognition that they were both sunk unless they covered for each other. And as for having to believe that these people are "capable of murder", this goes back to something I said the other day: it's a comforting myth that people who kill are somehow intrinsically different from people who don't. This may be true of serial killers, or real premeditated killings, but for murders that happen in the spur of the moment or in the heat of passion, it's really more about an unlikely combination of circumstances and emotions than it is about some kind of serious personality flaw or inherent evilness. We don't need to believe that AK is a sociopath or a psychopath. All we need to believe is that she is a bit impulsive, and that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong people, and smoking the wrong drugs.


Although I obviously don't know for sure whether there had been a plan in place to kill Meredith, I agree that for me, the most likely scenario is a sort of spontaneous explosion, fueled by drugs (for all three), jealousy/insecurity (for AK), lust (for RG) and repressed sadism/violence (for RS).


This is something I've been struggling with since I first started reading about this case, maybe a few weeks ago. If Amanda Knox, a person with no record of violent criminal behavior is guilty of murder, that only leads to one question - am I capable of murder? Like, if I were in the wrong situation, and things got out of hand, is it possible I would snap and murder someone? It's a terrifying question to ask yourself.

I'm not one for assaulting Ms. Knox's personal character, like, I don't care what the number of men she's slept with is (although I do see the relevance thanks to the posts by Michael). I mean, like, for the most part, she seems mostly like any other young woman I've known over the years. So, in a manner of speaking, she and I are a lot alike. So, the question of her guilt is a way of asking am I capable of murder in the heat of the moment?

I think, if nothing else, it goes to show how important making good judgments are. Making sure your friends are decent people and staying away from potential bad situations is so important.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:52 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Wallabee wrote:

Quote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Mrsdarcy, I believe Wallabee is referring to the "ignorant" comment aimed at Ks1, which I too thought was a tad harsh.


Yes, I was. That was a bit jarring to me. ks1 needs more proof. That is perfectly fair in this sort of discussion. We all came to this case with our own opinions and criteria for how we determine the culpability of Ms. Knox, if any. If, say, ks1 and I had the exact same criteria, there would be no point in discussion, would there?

Wow..... Sorry, I feel like I'm creating all this drama now.....


Sometimes you just have to trust the instincts of the moderators. Michael and I have been doing this for well over a year now. This board and previous iterations of it have been visited by people over time whose agenda is to disrupt the discussion and hopefully shut it down. Naturally, they don't state that upon arrival. Often, they begin by saying "I just started studying this case three minutes ago" and then go on to reveal more than passing familiarity with the FOA talking points. Some of them are paid to post; it is part of the PR campaign. They can wreak havoc if left unchallenged. The goal here is to have an open and free-ranging discussion and - sometimes - the only way to do that is to encourage some posters to go elsewhere. This is true in real life, so it should come as no surprise here. We don't like to delete posts, and have opted for a different strategy whose aim is to keep things civil and on topic.

Some of you may have noticed that, for whatever reason, this case has polarized people. I find it very distasteful that in some places this has become like a horse race: Who are you backing? Whose going to win? What is the prize?

Michael and I try our best to keep that from happening here. If you read the board rules, you'll get a sense of how we hope things will work. One of the those rules is that if you don't like the way the board is being run or you don't like a comment made by a particular poster, you should either contact the poster via PM and/or share your grievance with one or both moderators.

I don't like to make a distinction between "new" and "old" posters either. However, over time we get to know people, what they are like, their personality quirks and so on. It is dangerous for anyone to step into an ongoing discussion and single out individuals for attack. I also don't like it when people call others ignorant and have developed a way of dealing with it. I contact the offender privately and ask them to cease and desist. It always works until the next time it happens.



I trust you guys, and I'm sorry. For me, it was a crescendo of reading the two comments on Mr. Quennell's blog about politics, and then reading the opening paragraph of the Coulter article, and then that comment, and it was like "enough!" I think petfly and I are having the same sort of day!
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:54 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Fast Pete wrote:
BellaDonna wrote:
There has been much talk about unqualified observers trying to diagnose AK with some psychiatric problems. I am guilty of this myself. I think it's because the crime was so horrific and the violence involved in it unimaginable. For me, I want to label AK as having a mental disorder to feel safe that an average kid wouldn't hurt people in this way. It makes it feel a more isolated case and safely contained. Of course, this would be of no comfort to the Kercher family.

At the moment, in the area of London I live in, there is a serial rapist who is breaking in to people's houses at night. They think he's been doing this since 1990 and the reason he's not been caught is that he just carries on his normal life in the daytime. That is a horrifying thought. If he can carry on a normal life, he can't have the debilitating mental illnesses I would like to label him with to explain his behaviour.

So I can totally 'get' people's need to want to pigeonhole AK into one or another mental disorder. It's a natural human instinct to want to understand how something as tragic and extreme as this could happen.


Hi BellaDonna

Interesting post. There is at least one book out in Italy on this dimension, the one that Corriere was being sued for, so I guess we will not see any late-stage psychological defense.

Psychological tests were conducted in prison but the results were never revealed other than to the judges. Remarks they made in the various hearings - hurdles the prosecution had to jump to get to a trial - did not sound sympathetic at all. Several seemed to see possible danger lurking if the defendant was let loose on the streets.

The questiona arise:

1) If there is some problem, how did it occur? Born with, inflicted, or just happened?

2) Did it show up sufficiently at any point for someone to speak up and say, help her?

There was a lot of chat about early warnings after the horrific mass-shooting at the university in western Virginia where the guy had clearly needed some help.

Italian prisons shoot for reform and the treatment of any ailments so if there is a conviction her possible needs would not be ignored.

Peter Quennell



I think because Amanda was a good performer in school and extracurricular activities some of her "issues" may have been overlooked. This happens a lot. Leopold and Loeb were odd ducks, but they were exceptional students and I think their behavior was chalked up to "the eccentricity of brilliance." I don't know how anyone could deem Amanda brilliant, except perhaps her parents, but I would say that, by American standards, she would definitely be considered "gifted."

It's very easy for a sociopath to fit into society and never be "diagnosed" as anything at all. We all have our faults and quirks, to be sure...sometimes it takes a real crisis to show the world what we are made of. AK has had her crisis, and whether innocent or guilty, she has responded in ways that indicate she has a personality disorder. If she is guilty, then she is a sociopath; because her ability to lie calmly and even convincingly is first rate (and even sociopaths probably need practice to get that good). If she is innocent, maybe she is just an extremely egotistical, spoiled brat.


Loeb wasn't a gifted student, he barely graduated from University of Michigan, and showed some serious behavioral problems from his time at University of Michigan, no matter if he was one of the youngest University of Michigan graduates or not. Leopold was the very gifted student.

You can't deduce a personality disorder diagnosis from a legal verdict. It has to be deduce from as close to behavioral scientific testing and to a medical diagnosis as possible, which isn't congruent to legal judgements. It is a different format.

As I said before, you need to read up on ASPD, read the works of Dr. Robert Hare PhD, like "Without of Conscience" or his "psychopathy checklist". I am being critical of your use of sociopath, because you don't seemed to understand that if a woman is suspected of murder, it doesn't mean she is a sociopath, and evil acts don't translate to sociopathy. I tend to think that female sociopaths or women who have been diagnose with ASPD are so rare, it is very difficult to quantify them as a percentage of the population.

If Amanda did have an ASPD, there would be some really strange behaviors reported by her friends and classmates growing up, as she developed her "mask" to be used to deal with everday life.

If Amanda does have a personality disorder, I am more leaning she has a histrionic personality disorder, mainly for her constant need for attention, however she could have something else, but some of her behavior before and after the murder point to a histrionic personality disorder. Much like Susan Smith, the infamous mother in South Carolina who killed her two children and blame it on someone else, looks like an example of a borderline personality disorder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:59 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Wallabee wrote:


Like, just like I'm mystified how someone would view the murder of Meredith Kercher as a platform for attacking Obama, I would be just as mystified to see someone use it as a means of attacking former President Bush.


Well, in some ways I can sort of see the relevance, in that it might have some bearing when discussing the polarized reactions in this case. For example, a lot of people see Bush's actions as creating a fair amount of anti-American sentiment in other parts of the world, and this lingering resentment --- or conversely, the idea that such resentment is unjustified --- *might* play into some of the polarizing sentiments expressed on either side.


You know, I was thinking about that, too, but I think it's still a bit of a stretch. I mean, like, *if* we're discussing the polarized reactions, and *if* we credit lingering resentment to Americans as a direct consequence of the actions of President Bush, then maybe....

But now we sound like an Amanda Knox alibi! :lol:

No, hers are more of this: p-)) la-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Wallabee


Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:24 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

FinnMacCool wrote:
bolint wrote:
Brian wrote:
"We know that evidence concerning dates, times and cell receiving details has been given by the telco which operates the network in Perugia. I wouldn't worry about the details being correct in Perugia time."

The prosecution seems not to worry either. :D
I really don't understand how they could flop with that wrong 12:00 time.


What I noticed from the court is a lot of focus on the failed breaking down of the door, as well as on the call to Edda. And actually, if you look at Amanda's accounts of breaking down the door, but not succeeding, then it must take place at more or less the time when she is phoning her mother (I mean, according to Amanda's narrative).

This is because the cellphone records show what looks like a series of straightforward causative links:

1247 AK to Edda -> 1250 RS to Vanessa -> 1251 RS 1st 112 call -> 1254 RS 2nd 112 call.

However, Amanda and Raffaele both identify the failed breaking down of the door as their real trigger to call the police - not the phone call to Edda.

So, assuming they are telling the truth, the call to Edda must be at more or less the same time as the breaking down of the door. Which makes tomorrow's testimony from Edda interesting on that point.



I hope I don't sound more dense than I already have today, which would be difficult to do, but, here's something I don't understand - why does this sequence of time matter so much? Why is this scenario not allowed to be true:

- Amanda and RS try breaking the door down.
- Amanda calls the police.
- The police arrive and then Amanda calls her mom at 1247

Did Amanda testify the police weren't there yet when she called her mom?

I mean, yes, I realize there's a wealth of info out there, but I keep getting confused over the phone calls and when who said what happened.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline skywatcher


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:47 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

This has probably been answered, but if Filomena's phone was the one discovered in the garden and taken by the postal police, how did Amanda call her to report the events at the cottage?

Also, don't the postal police have an official report about the time they arrived at the cottage? Has that already been brought up in testimony?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:36 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

skywatcher wrote:
This has probably been answered, but if Filomena's phone was the one discovered in the garden and taken by the postal police, how did Amanda call her to report the events at the cottage?

Also, don't the postal police have an official report about the time they arrived at the cottage? Has that already been brought up in testimony?

Hi Skywatcher,
Filomena had loaned one of her phones to Meredith , so she was still able to receive calls on her other phone.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
This is something I've been struggling with since I first started reading about this case, maybe a few weeks ago. If Amanda Knox, a person with no record of violent criminal behavior is guilty of murder, that only leads to one question - am I capable of murder? Like, if I were in the wrong situation, and things got out of hand, is it possible I would snap and murder someone? It's a terrifying question to ask yourself.

I'm not one for assaulting Ms. Knox's personal character, like, I don't care what the number of men she's slept with is (although I do see the relevance thanks to the posts by Michael). I mean, like, for the most part, she seems mostly like any other young woman I've known over the years. So, in a manner of speaking, she and I are a lot alike. So, the question of her guilt is a way of asking am I capable of murder in the heat of the moment?

I think, if nothing else, it goes to show how important making good judgments are. Making sure your friends are decent people and staying away from potential bad situations is so important.


Hi Wallabee,

It's important to understand that Meredith's murder wasn't the result of normal people getting angry, snapping and then going too far in the heat of the moment. Meredith was sexually assaulted, tortured with a knife or knives, and strangled before someone plunged a knife through her neck. It was an exceptionally brutal and sadistic attack. The people responsible are psychologically disturbed and/or evil.

Preliminary Judge Claudia Mattenini noted the following:

"The homicide of Meredith was certainly not an impulsive act. On the contrary, all of the small wounds with the last fatal one demonstrate cold calculation within the context of pre-planned conduct, the characteristics of which are clear signs of perversion demonstrated by a 'strange' enjoyment of her suffering.
Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who --for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints-- was subjected to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person."

Several judges who looked at the evidence refused to grant Knox and Sollecito bail on the grounds that they are dangerous and could reoffend. I don't agree that Amanda Knox seems like any other young woman. There is clearly something seriously wrong with her.

Bear in mind, that some of the most vicious killers had no previous record of violent criminal behaviour before they committed their first murder.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:43 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
I hope I don't sound more dense than I already have today, which would be difficult to do, but, here's something I don't understand - why does this sequence of time matter so much? Why is this scenario not allowed to be true:

- Amanda and RS try breaking the door down.
- Amanda calls the police.
- The police arrive and then Amanda calls her mom at 1247

Did Amanda testify the police weren't there yet when she called her mom?

I mean, yes, I realize there's a wealth of info out there, but I keep getting confused over the phone calls and when who said what happened.


Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:56 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
For me, Knox was convincing on a whole lot of things


Hi Kevin,

I didn't find Knox convincing at all. She is a compulsive liar who lied from the very beginning when she first spoke to the postal police at the cottage, she lied to her friends in the e-mail she wrote on 4 November and she lied to the police before she was questioned formally. This is a crucial point; she cannot attribute these lies to being pressurised or being beaten by the police.

Knox and Sollecito still don't have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempts each. Knox has been flatly contradicted by the following witnesses:

Officers from the postal police
Officers from the Perugia Flying Squad
Officers from the Murder Squad
Officers from the Narcotics Squad
The interpreters
Italian housemates
Meredith's English friends
Antonio Curatolo
Fabrizio Gioffredi
Marco Quintovalle
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I wonder if the reason AK and RS were outside when the postal police arrived was because they'd just smashed it and were looking up at Filomena's window to check it looked like someone had broken in? Surely if they were going to break a window they would do it in the morning when the noise would be less obvious than in the dead of night, where, like Meredith's scream, someone would hear it and possibly inform the police.

This could explain why it seemed as if they were finished with the clean up - being outside wasn't the end of the clean up and staging, it was part of it.

I don't know what it's like in Italy but in the UK, if you call the police because of a break in, you are in for a long wait for then to arrive! So maybe they thought they had time to start calling people at that point and then finish the last bits of the clean up, like the washing machine and bath mat, before the police actually arrived?? Risky strategy though.
Top Profile 

Offline siri


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:56 am

Posts: 12

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:31 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?



LMAO.

Oh Wallabee...the French and the British have been sniping at each other for longer than the US has existed....it mostly amuses most of us these days tbh.

France v. UK.....a can of worms my friend, trust me.



I've never heard of Ann Coulter, some of her points on the case were good but I'm not sure I agree with her stance on pretty much everything else.

I just watched the CNN report on Youtube though. And it's RIP to objective reporting once again.



Words cannot express my disgust.

And do news reporters ALWAYS shout like that??

I think we should put a nasty email together. It shouldn't be allowed to pass without protest....I imagine a piece like that on the BBC would prompt gazillions of pissed off letters into "Points of View"

ft-))

_________________
ABOYNE (vb.)
To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

siri wrote:
Wallabee wrote:
I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?



LMAO.

Oh Wallabee...the French and the British have been sniping at each other for longer than the US has existed....it mostly amuses most of us these days tbh.

France v. UK.....a can of worms my friend, trust me.


:lol:


siri wrote:

I've never heard of Ann Coulter, some of her points on the case were good but I'm not sure I agree with her stance on pretty much everything else.

I just watched the CNN report on Youtube though. And it's RIP to objective reporting once again.



Words cannot express my disgust.

And do news reporters ALWAYS shout like that??

I think we should put a nasty email together. It shouldn't be allowed to pass without protest....I imagine a piece like that on the BBC would prompt gazillions of pissed off letters into "Points of View"

ft-))


Are you talking about the Jane Velez-Mitchell show? That's pretty much a trashy tabloid show and shouldn't be mistaken for serious reporting. Don't get me wrong --- I'm not excusing its content --- but I don't want you to get the impression that her show would generally be viewed as serious news.

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:45 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

siri wrote:
Wallabee wrote:
I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?



LMAO.

Oh Wallabee...the French and the British have been sniping at each other for longer than the US has existed....it mostly amuses most of us these days tbh.

France v. UK.....a can of worms my friend, trust me.



I've never heard of Ann Coulter, some of her points on the case were good but I'm not sure I agree with her stance on pretty much everything else.

I just watched the CNN report on Youtube though. And it's RIP to objective reporting once again.



Words cannot express my disgust.

And do news reporters ALWAYS shout like that??

I think we should put a nasty email together. It shouldn't be allowed to pass without protest....I imagine a piece like that on the BBC would prompt gazillions of pissed off letters into "Points of View"

ft-))


Ah yes "Outraged from Scunthorpe" would have a field day. Bring back Terry Wogan!! :)
Top Profile 

Offline siri


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:56 am

Posts: 12

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:52 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:

Are you talking about the Jane Velez-Mitchell show? .



Terrifying woman? Perma-tanned with bad hair? *shudders*

Yes I think it was. Well at least it wasn't a mainstream news show. But then again in the same way Egan (NY times) and Dempsey (Seatle PI) are merely opinion bloggers, the fact that these respected (right?) papers/broadcasters are allowing such rubbish out under their own banners is still worrying.

That said....the BBC still keep hold of Jonathon Ross and Jeremy Clarkson...though the latter usually makes me laugh.

_________________
ABOYNE (vb.)
To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:01 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

siri wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

Are you talking about the Jane Velez-Mitchell show? .



Terrifying woman? Perma-tanned with bad hair? *shudders*



Yep, that would be Jane. I guess it's like a modern-day mullet? :lol:

_________________
We have two eyes to see two sides of things, but there must be a third eye which will see everything at the same time and yet not see anything. That is to understand Zen. -D.T. Suzuki
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

This is something I've been struggling with since I first started reading about this case, maybe a few weeks ago. If Amanda Knox, a person with no record of violent criminal behavior is guilty of murder, that only leads to one question - am I capable of murder? Like, if I were in the wrong situation, and things got out of hand, is it possible I would snap and murder someone? It's a terrifying question to ask yourself.

I'm not one for assaulting Ms. Knox's personal character, like, I don't care what the number of men she's slept with is (although I do see the relevance thanks to the posts by Michael). I mean, like, for the most part, she seems mostly like any other young woman I've known over the years. So, in a manner of speaking, she and I are a lot alike. So, the question of her guilt is a way of asking am I capable of murder in the heat of the moment?

I think, if nothing else, it goes to show how important making good judgments are. Making sure your friends are decent people and staying away from potential bad situations is so important.[/quote]

Hi Wallabee
I don't think anybody truly knows what they are capable of. But if you know who you are you should have a pretty good idea. I think there are very few people who are unable or unwilling to kill under any circumstances. The world wars showed us this. Pulling levers and pressing buttons or just signing forms is not gruesome but can be as deadly and as an essential part of the process as the squeezing of the trigger. But as they use to ask the conscientious objectors of WW1 when they told the recruiting sergeant that they would not kill, ''Well what if the hun were molesting your wife?'' I would like to think that under some circumstances when it is necessary, however repugnant, I WOULD be able to. I sometimes wonder how the youngest of the objectors of WW1 reacted to WW2 as they would have been young enough to serve, an altogether different moral scenario.

But we should remember what this murder was NOT.
It was NOT self defence.
It was NOT committed from fear of the victim (although the tragic last act could concievably have been taken because the perpetrators thought they were past the point of no return )
It was NOT provoked in any sense that a normal human being would recognize.
It was NOT committed in a single moment of madness and anger. The whole disgusting scenario took some time.
It was NOT the act of a single person finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Normal people would have either attempted to help Meredith Kercher or run for help.

That rules out the vast majority of the reasons that most people would need to kill.. What we are left with are the darkest and most repulsive aspects of our souls. If they are there in any measure I think you know, if only secretly. RS' fantasies are indicated by his sadistic and gruesome manga interest. Does he fantasise over his knives too I wonder?

Before the 2001 terrorist attacks a fire awareness video that circulated in offices used footage of I think a Brazilian hotel where some trapped people were faced with the choice of jumping or burning. I saw it once when a girl I very much fancied was in the group ahead of me. Gorgeous she was. Long red hair, a body and face that turned heads. When the video got to the point where the jumper bounces against the side of the building she laughed. She and her cromies went back to watch it again. I kind of stopped finding her attractive. It was a real human suffering a horrible end and all she could do was laugh at the bouncing cartwheel and moan that the final crunching impact wasn't shown or heard. She did not seem to distinguish between real people in real events and a cheap horror film. Or if she did she didn't care. So outwardly attractive and intelligent but missing something so very essential in a human being. A lot of people preferred not to watch it at all. Some watched it and contained their emotion in varying degrees. We may look the same but we never are. For horror it is of course surpassed by the 2001 events because of the numbers. I wonder how she watched that. With fascination I suspect. I wonder about Knox and Sollecito.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:28 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mutley,

Your post above sat me straight up in my chair.

Excellent, and thank you.

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:31 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

siri wrote:
Wallabee wrote:
I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?



LMAO.

Oh Wallabee...the French and the British have been sniping at each other for longer than the US has existed....it mostly amuses most of us these days tbh.

France v. UK.....a can of worms my friend, trust me.



Siri speaketh the truth :). Us Brits have had wars with the French for at least a thousand years, and probably longer. Understandable really when you consider our proximity to each other. It's only in the last century or so that we've been 'allies'.

Having said that, I love the French and their attitude to life and work and love. They know how to live life to the full. Lots of Brits live or have second homes in France these days purely for the quality of life/food/wine. I also worked in Italy for a brief period and they also have a great attitude towards those important things. It's just us Brits and Yanks who chase the dollar and miss out on how you're supposed to work to live rather than live to work. Lots of important lessons to be learned in this case...

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:46 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Justolooking wrote:

Quote:
siri wrote:
Wallabee wrote:
I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?



LMAO.

Oh Wallabee...the French and the British have been sniping at each other for longer than the US has existed....it mostly amuses most of us these days tbh.

France v. UK.....a can of worms my friend, trust me.




Siri speaketh the truth . Us Brits have had wars with the French for at least a thousand years, and probably longer. Understandable really when you consider our proximity to each other. It's only in the last century or so that we've been 'allies'.

Having said that, I love the French and their attitude to life and work and love. They know how to live life to the full. Lots of Brits live or have second homes in France these days purely for the quality of life/food/wine. I also worked in Italy for a brief period and they also have a great attitude towards those important things. It's just us Brits and Yanks who chase the dollar and miss out on how you're supposed to work to live rather than live to work. Lots of important lessons to be learned in this case...


Well, you know, 1066 and all that!

_________________
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: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:59 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
So outwardly attractive and intelligent but missing something so very essential in a human being. A lot of people preferred not to watch it at all. Some watched it and contained their emotion in varying degrees. We may look the same but we never are. For horror it is of course surpassed by the 2001 events because of the numbers. I wonder how she watched that. With fascination I suspect. I wonder about Knox and Sollecito.

Hey Mutley,
great post. Thank you for this one!
cu
Peter
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:01 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Loeb wasn't a gifted student, he barely graduated from University of Michigan, and showed some serious behavioral problems from his time at University of Michigan, no matter if he was one of the youngest University of Michigan graduates or not. Leopold was the very gifted student.

You can't deduce a personality disorder diagnosis from a legal verdict. It has to be deduce from as close to behavioral scientific testing and to a medical diagnosis as possible, which isn't congruent to legal judgements. It is a different format.

As I said before, you need to read up on ASPD, read the works of Dr. Robert Hare PhD, like "Without of Conscience" or his "psychopathy checklist". I am being critical of your use of sociopath, because you don't seemed to understand that if a woman is suspected of murder, it doesn't mean she is a sociopath, and evil acts don't translate to sociopathy. I tend to think that female sociopaths or women who have been diagnose with ASPD are so rare, it is very difficult to quantify them as a percentage of the population.

If Amanda did have an ASPD, there would be some really strange behaviors reported by her friends and classmates growing up, as she developed her "mask" to be used to deal with everday life.

If Amanda does have a personality disorder, I am more leaning she has a histrionic personality disorder, mainly for her constant need for attention, however she could have something else, but some of her behavior before and after the murder point to a histrionic personality disorder. Much like Susan Smith, the infamous mother in South Carolina who killed her two children and blame it on someone else, looks like an example of a borderline personality disorder.[/quote]




FERRET:

First, Richard Loeb was considered very bright, both by himself and by others, at an early age. He was mentally lazy and didn't score tremendously high on IQ tests which were conducted by Clarence Darrow's defense team, but that doesn't mean he wasn't perceived as being "brilliant" or "special." My point was that these two were probably not seen as being "major problems" and thus some of their behavior was overlooked. It was considered pretty extraordinary at the time that these two young men should murder a young boy for no apparent reason; nobody had any real reason to think they were capable of such a thing. We learned a lot more about their behavior and internal make-up AFTER they were arrested for murder, but very little of this was known BEFORE the murder occurred.

I recognize that evil acts don't translate to sociopathy; and perhaps I use the term too loosely (certainly too loosely for you)...Sociopath has become a term of common parlance, it means something to the layperson which it may not mean to the psychiatrist; I am speaking as a layperson, not as one who puts herself in a position of diagnosing a personality disorder in a medical or legal context.

A sociopath, in my view and in the view of others, usually means someone who does very destructive things without seeming to have any empathy for those they hurt; whose primary purpose seems to be to save their own skin, whatever the consequences to others; a person who lies coollly and reflexively to get what they want and seems to have no moral qualms about lying; a person who is sometimes very successful at what they do, but often at the expense of compassion or moral values. These attributes may be more or less what most people who are not trained professionals comprehend in the meaning of the word "sociopath." It's nice to have one word to describe such a complex of characteristics.

Now whether other personality disorders share these same traits (and I would suspect to some degree they overlap and blend), I don't know. But if you say someone has a histrionic personality disorder, most of your listeners are going to say: Huh? But if you describe someone as a sociopath, the average person will have an idea of what you mean.

And your comment that I don't seem to understand that if a woman is suspected of murder it doesn't mean she is a sociopath is a straw man if ever I heard one, since I never said such a thing, nor would I. I quite understand that; I think I have a little more experience in this area than you think I do, since for many years I represented suspected female criminals, both as a public defender and in private practice. Were some of my female clients sociopaths? Yes. Were some of my female clients not sociopaths? Yes. However, I didn't discount the sociopathic features and tendencies of certain of my clients solely on the grounds of statistical improbability. Whether very few women suspected of crimes or convicted of crimes are true sociopaths has NO bearing at all on whether Amanda Knox is a sociopath, since she might very well be one of the rare ones.

And just one more thing: There is often disagreement even amongst professionals as to how a person's medical condition or disorder should be characterized. One psychiatrist might diagnose Amanda one way; another another way. That's just the nature of psychiatry, which is why I referred to it as an art more than a hard science.


Last edited by mrsdarcy on Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline siri


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:56 am

Posts: 12

Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:07 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hey,

This is fairly OT but I've been reading lot bout the tabloid press during this case and was just on youtube watching funny videos and found one comedians take on how ridiculous the British press can be.

I'd imagine that his joke holds true with the press in most countries!


_________________
ABOYNE (vb.)
To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Kent County lad


Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:48 pm

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:19 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hi everyone, I've been very busy over the past few weeks, so regrettably I have had no opportunity to contribute to the forum until now.

It seemed to me that Ms Knox's opinion of Meridith became more detestable during the course of her cross examination.
Also, she had a noticeable (and suspect) habit of remembering what she wanted to remembered, whilst "forgetting" incidences (in her timelines), which would have posed her further problems under further questioning.

Incidently, Curt Knox provides an absurd notion in proving his daughter's innocence - on the grounds that she remained in Italy (the 'nothing to hide' scenario). The truth is, that Ms Knox and her clan could not take the risk in Mr Sollecito hanging her out to dry, should she have uprooted immediately backed to West Seattle. He would have dropped her right in the mire - (probably and mainly at the behest of his dad and sister) and indicate that the murder was a Guede/Knox affair.
The Italian authorities would have sought an extradition order for Ms Knox, with the likelyhood of it being granted - even though she is "an
all american kid".

I am no fan of Ann Coulter and her detestation of anything even slightly "liberal" could be seen as being warped. However, she nails this case right on it's head and appropriately highlights the absurdities of the Knox clan and their odd ball disciples.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:23 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nina Burleigh has written a balanced article about the case for Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 25,00.html
Top Profile 

Offline armadilla


Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:51 pm

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hello hello everyone,
I just noticed there has been some reporting of the case on truecrimelibrary, which wasn't there before, as far as I know. For those who are interested / haven't seen it yet:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... ate/1.html

As usual, great discussion. This might not be the most renowned source :oops: but something I read in one of Agatha Christie's mysteries, I think by Poirot, always stuck in my mind: it was a case of a mother killing to protect her children (I trust that there are so many of Christie's books, I'm not ruining it for any of you - I hope oop-) ), and Poirot explained to Watson - sorry - Hastings - that there actually wasn't anyone he could think of who wouldn't be capable of murder. It stuck in my mind because it seemed to have a true ring to it. I believe that most mothers would kill an intruder intending to harm their child(ren) if they had no other choice, and I don't know what I would do if someone was seriously threatening, say, my little sister ... ft-))

However, those are musings of killings out of love; but they might explain why even gentle, mild-tempered people *might* kill.

Of course, that is not what happened here. I am convinced (99%) that AK and RS play an important role in the brutal killing of Meredith Kercher, mainly because of the contradicting stories/alibis/lies (you just *don't* do that as an innocent person) and because of blood and DNA evidence. What caused them to do it - ... difficult to say.

Logic tells me they are guilty, or at least capable of Meredith's murder. And it amazes me why people can't believe AK is guilty because she is young or because of how she is appearing (normal, "sweet" college kid). Maybe it is because I am just a few years older than her, and female, but I don't see this as a valid criteria for innocence. There are just so many examples of seemingly very nice people who are plain crazy / serial killers. Isn't it always the nice, friendly guy remembered by his neighbors? There was this case of the 10-year-old, who killed other children, just for the heck of it, it seems - Mary Bell.
Look at Susan Atkins! Or, as someone on here pointed out a while ago, the case of Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme. I don't think being young and white and somewhat attractive should be valid excuses. As we have learned by the case of the pretty redhead who laughed at people plunging to their death: the real "you" might look very, very different to the outward appearance ...
Top Profile 

Offline Hubie


Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:25 pm

Posts: 5

Location: Haw River

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Nina Burleigh has written a balanced article about the case for Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 25,00.html



That quote in Time by Amanda about knowing Meredith only short time and moving on with her life was pretty cold


Last edited by Hubie on Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
Nina Burleigh has written a balanced article about the case for Time magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 25,00.html


I thought the article, though as you say balanced, was a bit lightweight. Nina also implies that Rudi had sex with Meredith, when that is only his statement and is unfounded. I won't comment on the 'lack of motive' as we've discussed this ad nauseam already :).

Is this an actual Time article - i.e. it will appear in the printed edition? If so, I'd have expected a bit more detail and analysis than this.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:14 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
I thought the article, though as you say balanced, was a bit lightweight. Nina also implies that Rudi had sex with Meredith, when that is only his statement and is unfounded. I won't comment on the 'lack of motive' as we've discussed this ad nauseam already :).

Is this an actual Time article - i.e. it will appear in the printed edition? If so, I'd have expected a bit more detail and analysis than this.


Hi JL,

I completely agree with your sentiments. Some posters expect one clear cut Miss Marple type motive. However, sociopaths kill people for the most trivial of reasons or just because they felt like it at the time.
Top Profile 

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:18 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hubie wrote:
That quote in Time by Amanda about knowing Meredith only short time and moving on with her life was pretty cold


Hi Hubie,

You should read Amanda Knox's e-mail in the In Their Own Words section of PMF. She's more concerned about convincing her friends of her story than she is about the brutal murder of her friends and housemate.
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:00 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
... when that is only his statement and is unfounded.


That is only his admission - as the journalist correctly reports - but his statement is not unfounded. There is a "riscontro" to the objective analysis which has a compatibility to this statement. We don't know if sexual contact had any consensual element, we only know there was at least a sexual contact, therfore I would say the journalist is completely correct and truthful in her report.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:20 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
... when that is only his statement and is unfounded.


That is only his admission - as the journalist correctly reports - but his statement is not unfounded. There is a "riscontro" to the objective analysis which has a compatibility to this statement. We don't know if sexual contact had any consensual element, we only know there was at least a sexual contact, therfore I would say the journalist is completely correct and truthful in her report.


Yummi,
The medical examiner report says "violent sex" and the multiple bruises speak for themselves. Not surprisingly, the only people claiming sex was consensual are Rudy and his lawyers.

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

Offline The Machine


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 10:43 pm

Posts: 2310

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Quote:
That is only his admission - as the journalist correctly reports - but his statement is not unfounded. There is a "riscontro" to the objective analysis which has a compatibility to this statement. We don't know if sexual contact had any consensual element, we only know there was at least a sexual contact, therfore I would say the journalist is completely correct and truthful in her report.


Meredith did not consent to any of the horrors that were inflicted upon on that night. There were 47 separate wounds on Meredith's body. Nina Burleigh should have pointed out that Rudy Guede has been convicted of sexually assaulting Meredith.

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

Upon arrival, the Kercher family quietly took seats in the courtroom behind their Florentine lawyers, Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna, who opened their case with two expert witnesses: a coroner, and a leading forensic geneticist from a Florence hospital.

Mr Maresca told the court that the expert witnesses “sustained the prior results and valuations of the coroner who performed the autopsy and the forensic evidence specialists who already testified”. He added: “And for the first time today, we also heard that the bruises on the victim’s hips were consistent with a sexually violent approach.”
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mutley wrote:
I don't think anybody truly knows what they are capable of. But if you know who you are you should have a pretty good idea. I think there are very few people who are unable or unwilling to kill under any circumstances. The world wars showed us this.


yes, in war there is a motive, Humans believe in their purpose.
In self defense killing, the motive is there to protect and live.
Robbery, theft...money motive. etc..etc..
Sexual motive, possesion motives...ritual motives..gang initiation motive.(did I leave any out?)

I can only imagine drugs as a seed to this murder, if it goes that way.

All three can't be a sociopaths, right? There were three people. Intelligent enough to know the consequences.
I can, definitely, NOT imagine three sober people drinking Starbucks coffee going out and committing a murder with each other. Especially people that don't really know each other that well..less than a year.

A toxic mixture of personalities? a combined chemistry that fed off each other, while using mind altering drugs and drinking? a twisted perverted thrill game, while the drugs took over and the adrenaline increased, things went out of control. then there is the reason it doesn't really make sense, and that seems to fit better than calling AK some Genius Psycopathic monster who can trick entire Interrogation and Prosecution departments into arresting the wrong man, powerful enough to brainwash 2 men who don't know each other into blood letting gore, and so cunning she can lie in front of a room full of Judges and get them smiling and laughing.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I perfectly know, as you know, the different medical reports, thir objective content and their discussion and also the interpretation given by judge Micheli, the report which I refer to.
From this content, it is infered that "a sexual violence must be infered by the violence of the context in regards to the situation in which the victim is found and from the other traces of violence of different kind, not from the physical traces directly linked to physical violence".
That is all, nothing more, nothing less. Non consensual sex is an inference.
This said, what I wrote above, is that there is *no* sufficient physical element to discharge the possibility that also a kind of consensual sex had occurred some time before the violence. If it has, this has zero importance in regards to the sexual violence charge.
But Rudy "admitting having had sex with the victim" is just a correct report by the journalist. I am not defending Rudy of course nor claiming anything on his side, but I am defending the author of the Times article. As in my judgmenet, her report of facts is perfect.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
I perfectly know, as you know, the different medical reports, thir objective content and their discussion and also the interpretation given by judge Micheli, the report which I refer to.
From this content, it is infered that "a sexual violence must be infered by the violence of the context in regards to the situation in which the victim is found and from the other traces of violence of different kind, not from the physical traces directly linked to physical violence".
That is all, nothing more, nothing less. Non consensual sex is an inference.
This said, what I wrote above, is that there is *no* sufficient physical element to discharge the possibility that also a kind of consensual sex had occurred some time before the violence. If it has, this has zero importance in regards to the sexual violence charge.
But Rudy "admitting having had sex with the victim" is just a correct report by the journalist. I am not defending Rudy of course nor claiming anything on his side, but I am defending the author of the Times article. As in my judgmenet, her report of facts is perfect.


You seem to forget that Rudy has been found guilty of sexual violence and to write that "he admitted having sex with the victim" is completely misleading as it implies that the sex was consensual. Therefore the author is not correct.

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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:08 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
bolint wrote:
Finn wrote:
"The source of the time is the cellphone records from Amanda's phone company - it started at 12:47:23 and lasted for 88 seconds."

But is it 100% sure that it is converted to Perugia time correctly?
I like to double check data, if possible, before building theories on them.

It seems that tomorrow's testimony will raise the stakes, because it will surely back the pair's latest versions that they had called the carabinieri before the postals arrived.


Bolint,

We know that evidence concerning dates, times and cell receiving details has been given by the telco which operates the network in Perugia. I wouldn't worry about the details being correct in Perugia time.

What I've found interesting is re-reading Filomena's evidence about the first call she received from Amanda. 12:07 if I recall correctly. Amanda says she was at the cottage and describes the scene she's found, Filomena asks her to check it out once more and then ring her back. Amanda says that she'll go back to his house and get Raffaele.

According to Amanda's evidence given in court by 12:00 she had already returned to Raffaele's and was descibing her worries to him over breakfast.


Yes, the fact AK called Filomena and discussed the cottage situation before the postals arrived, kind of ruined my "clean up was interrupted by the Postal" theory....

What confuses me now is the early Defense arguments, to keep them out of prison and out of the trial and even for house arrest failed, by the Defense.
So whats the point of going to trial?
What new evidence does the Defense have they didn't have the first hearings, that failed?

The Defense pretty much stated their arguments early on and it didn't seem to be accepted by the Judges.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:27 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

The Machine wrote:
kevin wrote:
For me, Knox was convincing on a whole lot of things


Hi Kevin,

I didn't find Knox convincing at all. She is a compulsive liar who lied from the very beginning when she first spoke to the postal police at the cottage, she lied to her friends in the e-mail she wrote on 4 November and she lied to the police before she was questioned formally. This is a crucial point; she cannot attribute these lies to being pressurised or being beaten by the police.

Knox and Sollecito still don't have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempts each. Knox has been flatly contradicted by the following witnesses:

Officers from the postal police
Officers from the Perugia Flying Squad
Officers from the Murder Squad
Officers from the Narcotics Squad
The interpreters
Italian housemates
Meredith's English friends
Antonio Curatolo
Fabrizio Gioffredi
Marco Quintovalle


Thats a hard one. I tend to forget the Interrogatoin as pressured BS. I think it smells of forced testimony.
I think Patrick knows it happened to him too. But he benefits financially if she's found guilty now, as I understand it. (not to mention book deals he's probably already got offers for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
Forced "theatrical" Interrogations happen here too.

but even if I ignore the "interrogation vision" as coerced, they still have other alibis and mis-communicating stories which is needing to be addressed on the stand.
I guess I beleive in listening to her state her story and then let it stand up against all the evidence etc...

Its frustrating RS won't be forced to say something, like WHERE WERE YOU THE NIGHT OF NOV. 1?

AK said she was at the apartment all night. Very clearly. whew....finally. She turned off her cellphone to not be interrupted and to save her battery, very normal things to say.
She called Filomena before the Postals arrived.

So soon I guess the Knife DNA will be argued.
The Defense made a comment they can prove PC activity.
They say the footprint is nothing. And there's no AK DNA in the bedroom.

All the witnesses will be heresay, drug addicts, unemployed drunks..I would imagine.

The Autopsy...they have on erecord Dr Lalli stating he can't rule out it was one person.
Violent crimes. What if Rudy had Meredith all night....what if AK surprised Rudy that morning she showed up?NOv2.

How long does shit stay floating in water before submerging?

According to AK and RS the crap was seen, then she thought it was gone, but then they said it was there but had "fallen". So this might suggest the Rudy shit was recently crapped in the toilet.

I think I'll go run that test right now....how long does a log float?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:34 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

She wasn't convincing to me either -- she was going around by the rules, set by her lawyers -- and when she popped into a problem -- telephone home, door of Meredith open or closed -- she started to be redundant and confusing -- but I think she did the only thing she had to -- she talked in person -- but she wasn't convincing to me either -- she knows much more than she tells --
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:42 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:
...Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press...
...the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent...


Because you're so well informed, I'm sure it's correct that he's denying it now. But has it been established that he never said it in the first place? What say the person who wrote the original article that attributed the quotes to him?

...I'm not sure how the Italian police would rank amongst other countries in terms of police violence. But regardless of whether *this* incident was accurately reported or not, they have been involved in incidents even much worse than what is being described here. So it can't be dismissed on the basis that that would *never* happen in Italy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:52 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

JFK wrote:

Quote:
AK said she was at the apartment all night. Very clearly. whew....finally. She turned off her cellphone to not be interrupted and to save her battery, very normal things to say.


Very normal, yes, but the police have established and testified that for both suspects turning off their cell phones overnight was apparently exceedingly rare and not their usual behavior. This came up earlier in the trial.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:06 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

lane99 wrote:
nicki wrote:
...Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press...
...the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent...


Because you're so well informed, I'm sure it's correct that he's denying it now. But has it been established that he never said it in the first place? What say the person who wrote the original article that attributed the quotes to him?

...I'm not sure how the Italian police would rank amongst other countries in terms of police violence. But regardless of whether *this* incident was accurately reported or not, they have been involved in incidents even much worse than what is being described here. So it can't be dismissed on the basis that that would *never* happen in Italy.


We don't dismiss it on the basis that that would never happen in Italy. We dismiss it on the basis that Patrick has gone on public record, on numerous occassions and stated it NEVER happened and that he NEVER said it. That is good enough for me and if it isn't good enough for you, I can't envision what would be. Since he has never been found to have lied on any occassion, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, don't you?

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


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

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
lane99 wrote:
nicki wrote:
...Patrick has repeatedly denied having said any of the above, nor that it happened,on TV and when talking to the press...
...the Italian police don't have a reputation to be particularly violent...


Because you're so well informed, I'm sure it's correct that he's denying it now. But has it been established that he never said it in the first place? What say the person who wrote the original article that attributed the quotes to him?

...I'm not sure how the Italian police would rank amongst other countries in terms of police violence. But regardless of whether *this* incident was accurately reported or not, they have been involved in incidents even much worse than what is being described here. So it can't be dismissed on the basis that that would *never* happen in Italy.


We don't dismiss it on the basis that that would never happen in Italy. We dismiss it on the basis that Patrick has gone on public record, on numerous occassions and stated it NEVER happened and that he NEVER said it. That is good enough for me and if it isn't good enough for you, I can't envision what would be. Since he has never been found to have lied on any occasion, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, don't you?


It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there? h-))

I mean to say, if AK was lying about Patrick, obvious as he was found flawlessly innocent, then why isn't the entire "vision interrogation" thing throw out, along with Patrick being found innocent? The entire vision-interrogation should be thrown out as a lie because Patrick was found innocent meaning the story was a complete lie? yes?

or is it more like <some say>,...she is just a habitual liar? nothing she says is true so don';t even listen to her testimony, like the entire courts say about Rudy "don't trust anything he says".

That will only leave Rafffaelle to tell the truth!! I can't wait!!
b-((((

:?


Last edited by jfk1191 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:36 am, edited 2 times 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: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:28 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Wallabee wrote:
Personally, I tend to enjoy the Economist - a paper from London. It does a marvellous job of covering the world's news each week. For the most part it's unbiased, except they are very bullish on free trade...and they usually try to find some scandal in France to report on, but I understand generally speaking, there are some hard feelings between the British and the French? Is this true?


((OT OT))

Well, as has been said, there certainly has always been a lot of needle between France and Britain...due to the fact that they are on each others doorstep and have competed with each other for centuries for power. France has always been referred to as the 'Ancient Enemy'. That said, I don't think that's the problem the Economist has with France. That is to do with economic ideology. The Anglo model of free trade is one with as few regulatory restrictions as possible, free trade, fair competition (the removal of government subsidies, especially to support failed industries) and greater involvement of the private sector in the public sector. In short, rampant unfettered capitalism. The French model is more socialist, envisions more state control, higher taxation to fund it, believes in the system of state subsidies and believes in protectionism. Britain and France have for a good many years now each been championing their respective ideoligies to dominate European economic policy. This is why Britain is one of the most Euro skeptic countries in the EU. It must be said though, that the Anglo model is somewhat in the doghouse right now, since it was the Anglo model that was the cause of the current world economic disaster with the French now saying 'told you so'. This is why it is Briatain and the US that have been hit hardest by the crisis, where the Anglo model rules supreme and the French are looking in a better position for recovery.


Skep wrote:
Well, you know, 1066 and all that!


Not really. The Normans weren't really French...they were actually Norse.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:36 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' 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 Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:40 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

dm-)
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:44 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
AK said she was at the apartment all night. Very clearly. whew....finally. She turned off her cellphone to not be interrupted and to save her battery, very normal things to say."


Was she also saving her battery all the following morning up until post midday?

Saving her battery from 'what' in any case? If she 'really' was at RS' apartment all evening and night she didn't need to turn off her phone to save the battery, but rather instead simply charge it. It is also strange that only on the night Meredith was murdered did Amanda's battery ever need saving.

Was Raffaele also saving his battery? A lot of batteries needed saving that night!

I fully agree with you that she didn't want to be interrupted 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 jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:54 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
I mean to say, if AK was lying about Patrick, obvious as he was found flawlessly innocent, then why isn't the entire "vision interrogation" thing throw out, along with Patrick being found innocent? The entire vision-interrogation should be thrown out as a lie because Patrick was found innocent meaning the story was a complete lie? yes?


Well, it 'has' been thrown out in terms of trying her for murder. It is still in place however, for her trial for slander. How can they try her for slander if they throw it out? I also think calling it a 'vision-interrogation' is a loaded term....that is what she's 'claiming' it was. Some people might feel that 'pack of lies' is more of an apt term then 'vision'. But even if it were a 'vision', I'm not overly sure that visions were ever a defence against a charge of criminal slander. I know of no precedent, although I'm no legal expert. What I 'do' know, is 'Joan of Arc' she ain't.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:00 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.


The matter of calling the police before, or well after they arrived is no small detail and is not something that can be blamed on bad memory, that I tell you now. I'll also remind you, the defence are not arguing that in any case, they are arguing that Raffaele 'did' call the police before they arrived.

As for 'coincedences'...one or two one can except. When the coincidences start to pile up however, then alarm bells start ringing very loudly.

_________________
"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 Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:04 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

[quote="jfk1191"]

It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there? h-)) quote]

Well, because the evidence points to that she was there.
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:21 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Michael wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
It's strange how we can believe AK lied and then, was telling the truth on Patrick but, yet we don't believe the part of AK's "vision interrogation" that Patrick was there...but we are to believe the part of the interrogation that she was there?


When peole lie, it is rare that they tell flat out lie from start to finish. Rather, what is most common, is to mix truth in with the lie. That makes the lieing easier whilst at the same time makes the lie more believable.

It is exactly the same with Rudy, he told a pack of lies...but it wasn't complete lies. The trick is, to seperate the fact from the fiction. Fortunately, truth does have a ring to it and lies do give themselves away, so it isn't an impossible task, especially when one has also removed that which cannot 'possibly' be true.


In general, I ask, when "lie detecting", does the liar usually perform better on the stand or in private?

But is it lying the same as not to remember, not being a "time attentive" person?
I ask, How many people can really recall if the phone call was made at 12:08 or 12:47 with complete chaos going on around them, police and crime scene and cell phone calls....I don't see this as being abnormal.

I have randomly asked people I know about time recently, and cell calls, and when exactly they went to lunch yesterday? and they don't remember at all. none of them. maybe within an hour apprx.

Yes, the coincidence's are there with the battery charging/saving... whatever the word is.
One can believe it or not, I guess.


The matter of calling the police before, or well after they arrived is no small detail and is not something that can be blamed on bad memory, that I tell you now. I'll also remind you, the defence are not arguing that in any case, they are arguing that Raffaele 'did' call the police before they arrived.

As for 'coincedences'...one or two one can except. When the coincidences start to pile up however, then alarm bells start ringing very loudly.


I don't want to play defense, but lets assume

1) AK did see the cottage in disarray.
2) She notified RS,
3) and then Filomena before the Postal Police arrived. (after a unanswered call from Meredith attempt)

It seems perfectly normal to assume the situation was nothing but a small accident, then maybe as it sinks in, I'd call a friend or two that live there, one doesn't answer, call another to find out whats going on? and start checking around trying to find out. Notified the boyfriend.

the broken window, would lend one to call the police immediately,imo. maybe finally escalating that there was a break in and Meredith still wasn't answering her phone and not answering the bedroom door knock. Postal Police are there, cellphone calls are being done by everyone in parralell...chaos. Like AK's mom will testify using that very word, per her earlier statements.

as she said the blood in the bathroom wasn't that horrific, it wasn't like the bedroom blood quantity, as I understand it. So the bathroom was not a huge alarm just kind of gross. the shit in the toilet seemed to gross her out more, make her cringe. Meredith not answering her cell and add the "shit" and then Filomena window broken, calling ehr mom.

it sounds like a blur of events. When this happens its like a car accident probably....people aren't calm and taking notes with a stopwatch and pen pad. imo.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:24 am   Post subject: LOCKING THREAD   

:!: I am now locking this thread. Please continue the main discussion in the new main discussion thread :arrow: X. MAIN DISCUSSION, June 19 -

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 12 of 12 [ 2985 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


29,446,106 Views