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


Last visit was: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:55 am
It is currently Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:55 am
All times are UTC

Forum rules

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

Moderators: Nell, Ergon, Michael, Moderators


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

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:20 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Principessa Etrusca wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Yeah that's my impression too. I'm not sure he actually believes she's innocent (his unwillingness to have a translator in court is telling ) but can't bring himself to cut her loose. I would love to know what Mrs Knox thinks about him putting her and their daughters' futures on the line like this; she must have great faith in his judgement.


Curt is certainly a loyal parent to Amanda for being in the courtroom for her and not cutting her loose in this situation. However, I don't think his support should depend on Amanda's innocence or on his belief in her innocence, I would respect him even more if I thought he had his doubts, but was still in the courtroom for Amanda and made no comments to the media.

Is he a loyal and responsible parent to his younger children? As the things are now, he has gambled away all their future school fees.


That's exactly what I was thinking but perhaps his wife has independent income that safeguards their position. Otherwise you'd have thought she would have something to say on the matter !

On the media question I think he would probably prefer to step back but if he started avoiding them now that would look like he'd changed his position on Amanda.

One thing that occurs to me is will Amanda's conversations with her parents continue to be bugged once she's convicted ? I don't think that's been condusive to establishing what happened that night.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:25 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

November 10, 2007

An Italian judge ruled Friday that University of Washington student Amanda Knox will remain in prison along with two others accused of taking part in the rape and slaying of Knox's British roommate, Meredith Kercher.

In a detailed 19-page order, Judge Claudia Matteini said she had "no doubts" there is ample evidence to jail all three for up to a maximum of a year as the investigation continues.

Matteini's order -- comparable to being charged with a crime in the U.S. system -- vividly recounts the trio's contradictory statements to police and investigators' reconstruction of how the friends' plan for a sexually charged evening turned into rape and then into murder...

According to the judge's order obtained Friday in Perugia by the Seattle P-I....

Knox told detectives that she saw Lumumba enter Kercher's room, then, as she waited in the kitchen, heard Kercher scream. She plugged her ears as her roommate was assaulted because she could imagine what was happening, the judge wrote. She said she was too high to remember anything else, except waking up the next morning in Sollecito's bed.

Knox's attorney, Luciano Ghirga, acknowledged Friday that his client has "a confused version of events."

"But with the help of her lawyers and her parents, maybe she'll remember better," Ghirga told the P-I in his Perugia city center office...

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/338995_knox10.html



The student wasn't clear if she heard 'thuds' but 'I could imagine what was going on', she told police in Perugia after 'crumbling' under days of questioning.

This is London




What other little snippets appeared from Matteini's 19 page report of the time, especially in the Italian press. I'm off to have a little sniff around the stories about that report. Some things which may have appeared innocuous at the time may mean much more in the light of current information.


Last edited by Brian S. on Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:34 am, edited 4 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:26 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Bestselling authior John Grisham has announced that he'd like to write a book based on the character of AK, who he believes is innocent ... source:Barimia and others

This case is really turning into an industry ?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:44 am   Post subject: Corriere article   

Jools,

Here’s your translation.
Apologies for the delay: I only ever see the requests at 23.40 or thereabouts, just before retiring to bed – a bit like Curatolo’s timetable :).


The article* is a selection from the two days of Amanda on the stand.

They should all be in Thoughtful’s translation from the audio.
(Three cheers for Thoughtful gb-) – The effort is appreciated!).



Quote:


“That day there were many people around me, they were continuously moving around. The [first] scappellotto [“cuff of the hand”] came at me from behind and I didn’t see who had given it to me. I said to myself: “Mamma mia”. The second was handed to me by a policewoman whose name I don’t know. I can describe her: she had long hair, chestnut coloured.

Pressed further by public prosecutor (PM) Mignini, Amanda Knox goes back to the presumed violence. Tension is high. The prosecutor asks her: “The police, what did they tell you to say?” Voices are raised. Amanda’s defence stands up. Court President Giancarlo Massei himself has to intervene to interrupt the parties and remind them: “Amanda Knox is not a witness. She is offering her response, and that is what we are waiting for. We must guarantee the regularity, the peace and the procedure of this interrogatory. From thence, each one will make their own evaluation”.

Yesterday, Amanda was on the stand for over five hours. “Why bring up Lumumba’s name?” asked the PM. “They wanted a name and were saying that I knew but didn’t want to talk. They hadn’t told me it was him (i.e., Patrick Lumumba – editor), but they were saying that they knew that I had met him”.

Yesterday, Amanda was wearing a top and jeans, with a pink hairclip on her ponytail. “After giving up Patrick’s name,” she revealed, “I began to cry. I had imagined the scene with images that did not tie in with what happened, but could perhaps possibly explain it”.

“And why,” Maresca (acting for the Kerchers), “turn cartwheels at the Questura?” “Everyone deals with a tragedy in their own way. I’m used to looking for the normality in difficult situations. It’s the way I feel better. I was very afraid. My behaviour, I know, can seem a bit thoughtless, but that’s how I am”.

Giulia Bongiorno (for the Sollecito defence) asked the accused from Seattle to respond to a witness who maintained having noticed her wide teeth. “Let’s not be so formal [Dimmi tu]”, replied Amanda with a large smile displaying the aforementioned teeth.

PM Mignini asked her if it were her red-button black lamp found in Mez’s room near the body. “Yes, it was mine, I suppose. You know I never noticed it?” she replied. According to the prosecution, on the morning of the 2nd, Amanda and Raffaele tried to break down the door not out of worry for Meredith, who was nowhere to be found, but to retrieve the lamp carried by themselves into the victim’s room the previous night.

“And the sexy gear purchase in the lingerie shop?” Amanda elaborates: “I didn’t have any more clothes and I couldn’t get back into my house. That’s why I bought a pair of undies…”

PM Comodi caused her consternation when Amanda couldn’t remember a call to her mother around midday on the 2nd November (when Mez’s body still had not yet been found). Why did she wake her mother in the middle of the night (3am Seattle time)? Amanda: “I don’t remember”.

The attorney tendered an FBI report on a fine slapped on to Amanda before leaving for Italy. A college party with a bit of alcohol (beer) and loud noise (a rock band playing and really getting down to it). A neighbour disturbed by the commotion had called police. They found rocks on the road. Amanda denied any rock-throwing, backed up by witness Andrew Sieber. A discussion/argument about “Wanted” (notice, warning) ensued, Amanda cited: did it have the nature of a penalty? It all ended with a 269 Euro fine paid by everyone at the party even though the citation was for Amanda, the most courageous in stepping forward.

[link] Italian posted by Jools Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:00 am


Amanda is very courageous in coming forward when the police turn up at loud parties with no rock-throwing.




*Note:
I’ve tried to make it colloquial-student register, except for the exclamation. I ought to be translating Mamma mia into traditional American college slang speak, à la Bart Simpson, as “¡ai carumba!” Or maybe “Golly gosh!” or “Dearie me!”
In the end, I left (put?) Italian Mamma mia into English Mamma mia. A zero-transform translation. It’s a bit hard to tell that’s what happened. Oh, what a translator! Mamma mia! :roll:
Top Profile 

Offline Professor Snape


User avatar


Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm

Posts: 247

Location: Seattle. WA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:49 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Thanks Mr Curt Knox...Verbatim quote:
Yes, but it’s one in which I think every young person, as they grow up, experimented in certain things, and it’s one in which she’s becoming an adult,” Curt Knox said. “Everybody has their own opinion, but I believe she came off as really who she is, which is just a regular college kid.”


What an insult to those of us who did go to college, actually studied, behaved maturely in social situations and limited our intimate adventures to those people we fell in love with. The world is full of intelligent, educated and responsible people. Unfortunately there are many others who lack both education and social grace; a strong showing of these people reside in the lower class neighborhoods of Seattle.

cl-) "Meet the FOAKers."

I challenge any one of those circus clowns to come forward and declare their education status.
I would like to know where they teach such crap.

It wasn't enough they make an ass out of themselves to the citizens of Seattle, a true embarrasment. Now, they are dragging the whole country down with them. It's a "no-brainer" their actions will severely backfire on them. Once Edda takes the stand all hell is going to break out and Amanda will be sunk. "Oh, but Amanda, if you had not called me honey I would not be in this position."


Well, as someone who sometimes feels like I was born in the "wrong era" (I was born too late to be a part of the free-love flower-child movement :lol: ), I do have to take a bit of exception to some of the characterizations of Amanda's pre-murder life and behavior. I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with two adults having sex when they're not in love, so long as they're both consenting and both being safe about it. (And maybe AK wasn't being safe - I don't know.) And not everyone is "good" at social graces - especially people in their 20s who are basically just learning about the world and about themselves and how they fit into it.

Based upon Amanda's love experiences within the first two weeks of her arrival in Perugia look to be more like a train wreck then responsible relations. I think her sexual behavior says a great deal about her character and increasing problems. Perhaps I was not clear about who I was speaking of when I referred to insulting adults but let me be - it is about her parents and not about youth discovering themselves. Parents are responsible for the type of children they raise, period. You don't get it both ways. When you end up with a "bad seed" you don't go around bashing the rest of the world trying to cover up your mess.

Thank goodness there are millions of people in their 20's who do exhibit good behavior are treat others nicely.
Truth Seeker wrote:
I actually don't see Amanda's pre-murder behavior as much of an issue. It's her "during-murder" and "after-murder" behavior that I have a huge problem with. ;)

Amanda's reckless behavior PRE MURDER demonstrated what an irresponsible person she is and not some preppy good natured up-standing student. Based upon her diary she can't even write like a jr. high student! It doesn't fly and her parents contributed to this outrageous behavior and continue to make a mockery of the Italian judiciary system. IMHO the campaign Mr. Knox and Mr. Mellass are heading up during this trail is inexcusable and due to the impact it is having on IT & US relationships it should be criminal.

Amanda wasn't born in the "FREE LOVE ERA" but she certainly acted like it. Humping every guy in her path, sex orgies and Charles Manson behavior raise her to the top of the class.

I think it would be irresponsible to only look at her behavior since she was arrested. What happened before is HUGE.

_________________
"Wizard of Healing Potions and Alibis"
Top Profile 

Offline cindy


Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:57 pm

Posts: 26

Location: spain

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:51 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Bestselling authior John Grisham has announced that he'd like to write a book based on the character of AK, who he believes is innocent ... source:Barimia and others

This case is really turning into an industry ?


Oh lordy! A book for movie? Probably. Are Americans ever going to see the victim in these books and movies? Probably not.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:02 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hi everyone. So many interesting remarks out there today.

Brian: About the scream, the police could not know there was a scream on Nov 5th but it seems that once Amanda was saying that
Patrick and Meredith were in her bedroom -- and this was followed by a murder -- I think the question of whether she screamed is
not very mysterious. It would be natural for the police to assume that she did. Anyone would. Someone is attacking and killing you
in your bedroom? Would you keep silent? I think the introduction of screaming has nothing to do with Nara's testimony but just with
them pushing her to describe the situation they knew was real. (I repeat: I believe there is no discrepancy (except possibly for the
insignificant cuffing) between Amanda's testimony about the police treatment of her and their testimony. They said it was fine, she
said it was terrible, both are correct from their point of view.)

411: Although I basically agree with you that Amanda's perception that Meredith was behind that locked door is very, very suspicious,
nonetheless I want to be precise and say that what she is claiming in her testimony is that she never said to Filomena that Meredith
always locked her door, even to take a shower, but that Meredith sometimes locked the door after a shower when she was inside her
room changing her clothes. She said this on Friday and repeated on Saturday that Meredith sometimes locked her door when she was
in her room and wanted "privacy". Now, this answer may have been coached, but she does say it, and gives it as the reason why she
thought that the locked door could mean Meredith was in her room.

By the way you referenced "Truthful's translation" rather than "Thoughtful's"! I am absolutely certain that that is a Freudian lapsus
concerning Amanda's veracity (not mine!). But which way??

I am also very surprised by some elements that are emerging from the cross-examination. I haven't finished going through it yet,
but I've finished Mignini and Comodi and am working on Maresca now. Here are some things that really surprise me. Maybe people
with legal experience (Truth Seeker? Mrs. Darcy? Allsburg?) can explain.

Firstly, it's clear from reading the cross-examination that Comodi mixed up 12:00 phone call with 12:47. She does mention midday
several times, but she also says for instance "it was three or four in the night in Seattle". And there is no mention of the 12:47
call, and she briefly mentions the contents (describing the strange things Amanda saw in the house). So, no problem there other
than that such an error is a little surprising.

But what I find much more surprising is that Amanda claims to have completely forgotten the existence of that phone call. But, didn't
she mention explicitly somewhere? "I didn't hear Raffaele call his sister because I was on the phone with my mother." I am certain
I read that somewhere, maybe even in Friday's testimony. So, why don't they just straighten that out?

It seems that the reason might be that on Nov 10, 2007, she told her mother while in prison that she had forgotten that phone call.
Somehow, it's as though they want her to be today the same as she was on that day. But it makes no sense to me, since not only
did Edda explain to her way back then that she had called, and express surprise that she had forgotten, but why wouldn't her
lawyers prime her to have all her phone calls straight? She was questioned quite a bit over the conversation with Edda, but why
wouldn't it be better for her to say today: "Yes, I had forgotten all about that phone call, but when she reminded me what I had said
to her and what she had said to me, I remembered it perfectly. Plus, it's on my cell phone records so we even know the exact time."
Why hasn't she been coached this way? Why must she continue to pretend to know nothing about that phone call, that she really
did actually make? I don't get this strategy on the part of her lawyers. I see no benefit in it for her, and it increases the number of
"I don't remembers".

I am also surprised that neither Mignini nor Comodi confronted her with the Finn's-timeline situation and asked whether the police had
not been called after they had already arrived. No questions on that. It's like they accept her story of the order of events, or
pretend to. It isn't as impossible as Finn made it sound because according to Amanda, she did not show the police around the
apartment or show them the rooms before Filomena's friends came. She stammered to them in broken Italian, helped by
Raffaele, about an open door and a broken window, but they wanted to talk about the phones, so she wrote the phone numbers
down for them. She seems to describe it that way.

Another surprise concerns Raffaele's statement that she went out. She says she was home all evening, and they just say:
"The whole time?" and she says "Yes", innocent voice like she has no idea anyone ever said the contrary. I eagerly waited for the contradictory rejoinder -- none came!

What is the strategy here? Are Mignini and Comodi purposely avoiding opportunities that I would have thought would be jumped
on, to show up statements that look awfully like lies?
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:11 pm   Post subject: Fondazione article translation   

Brian,
Here’s the translation of the article reporting the correct phone call home time (from your post [ here ] ).


Quote:

Perugia Murder: After the homicide, Amanda phoned Meredith


15 June 2009 – After having found the front door of the via della Pergola cottage open,
Amanda Knox called Meredith’s mobile phones at 12.07 and 12.08 without receiving a reply, while the call to her mother in the dead of night in Seattle was at 12.47, and not at noon of the 2nd November 2007 as had emerged yesterday during the course of questioning the young American woman.

Raffele Sollecito’s defence team (lawyers Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno) highlighted it after examining the phone records. According to them, this confirms post-facto that Amanda’s not remembering calling her mother [at noon] is correct.

The two ex-lovers claim they have nothing to do with the murder, and the young American has reaffirmed, before the Court in Perugia, her having spent the night with Sollecito at the latter’s home on the night of the murder.

No comment yet from the Knox defence, who plans however to explore this question further during Amanda’s mother’s depositions, due for next Friday.

In terms of the investigation, it is to be noted that Knox called her mother before the discovery of Mez’s body, and from what was learned later, her mother was surprised at being called at such a time.

From ANSA.




[Fondazione] 15 June 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Thoughfull wrote:
...Listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same
expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary,
I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type?
In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered

right away): "I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message
in my phone. He had told me not to come to work." Perfectly normal things.
So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, "My boss texted me to
tell me not to come to work and I answered him," you could have just stated
that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions
of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start
accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why
did you think those things could be true?...


It's obvious both the defense and the prosecution are using transcripts of the disallowed statements. Is it just that the jury isn't allowed to see them or am I missing something here? Are the statements back on the table?
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Principessa Etrusca wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Yeah that's my impression too. I'm not sure he actually believes she's innocent (his unwillingness to have a translator in court is telling ) but can't bring himself to cut her loose. I would love to know what Mrs Knox thinks about him putting her and their daughters' futures on the line like this; she must have great faith in his judgement.


Curt is certainly a loyal parent to Amanda for being in the courtroom for her and not cutting her loose in this situation. However, I don't think his support should depend on Amanda's innocence or on his belief in her innocence, I would respect him even more if I thought he had his doubts, but was still in the courtroom for Amanda and made no comments to the media.

Is he a loyal and responsible parent to his younger children? As the things are now, he has gambled away all their future school fees.


IMO,
Its the prosecutors job to find guilt and create doubt, not the parent.

I can't imagine being in his shoes, or any parent with their child in this situation claiming their 100% innocent. And to decide between this child and that child. If you watch the film of her sisters they would want it no other way, they are 100% behind AK too. Have you watched that video? Maybe you should, and it will add your knowledge.

Shouldn't the parent go 100%, 110% behind your child to the end?

And lets not forget AK has this life long record of never having anything even remotely associated to this crime.
Actually her past shows the completely clean record; she worked, went to college, loved by her sisters..etc..etc..AK has 21 yrs of a spotless criminal record.

This is why the prosecution is digging up the "party ticket" thats paraded in the news, to dirty her image.
and thats the prosecutions job, to create doubt in the jurors mind to prove her guilty.

I disagree, I guess. I think its the Judges to be doubtful and neutral. I would think less of the parent if they doubted their own kid, especially one with a spotless background.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:21 pm   Post subject: Media-ization: Stage II   

Mamma mia.

John Grisham would like to write a thriller about the case. [ Stampa ] 16 June 2009

And Amanda would be perfect for Franca Leosini’s TV show “Storie maledette”*.
[ Messaggero ] 14 June 2009

*”Harbingers of Evil”, maybe?
Top Profile 

Offline BellaDonna


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:44 pm

Posts: 138

Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Meredith's keys were allegedly found in AK's room. Does anyone know if this was Meredith's house keys, Giacomo Silenzi's apartment key, or the key to Meredith's room, or maybe all together? Perhaps it is only a rumour that her keys were found in AK's room ... If the key to lock Meredith's room were found in Ak's room then surely, given that Meredith was locked into her room, that is quite damning. Mamma mia, it's so hard to separate the rumour from the facts with this case! sh-)))

In terms of the rock throwing citation. If I was a juror, this would make me evaluate whether AK got into situations out of her control, possibly being led by more aggressive peers, and whether she had a poor lack of judgement and lack of respect for other people's life. So I think the prosecution are right to bring this up.

Amanda can't really win when testifying. If she comes across as weak and nervous, it would be seen as a sure sign of her lying. With her appearing confident and self-assured, she is described as an actress. That is the problem with lying too many times ...
Top Profile 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
What other little snippets appeared from Matteini's 19 page report of the time, especially in the Italian press. I'm off to have a little sniff around the stories about that report. Some things which may have appeared innocuous at the time may mean much more in the light of current information.


Little snippets like Matteini saying Patrick was guilty. doh!
She is actually the Judge who "jumped to conclusions", IMO. She should be on the stand for the civil case too.yes?
What accountability do the Judges have if a wrong conviction is made?

She was wrong about Patrick being guilty, she can be wrong of everything else.

Its interesting too that Patrick "lied" saying his club was open at 5pm and a regular customer witness said he was there and it wasn't open yet at 7pm.

Matteini created this fiction....
"There was the initial desire of the three youths to try some new sensation. Above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while Lumumba had the desire to join carnally with a girl that he fancied and who refused him," she added.

bizarre, do the Judges apologize for these crazy hypothetical tales after the case is over? I don't understand how they are not held accountable for such bizarre and inaccurate statements. qt-)
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:45 pm   Post subject: Re: Fondazione article translation   

Catnip wrote:
Brian,
Here’s the translation of the article reporting the correct phone call home time (from your post [ here ] ).


Quote:

Perugia Murder: After the homicide, Amanda phoned Meredith


15 June 2009 – After having found the front door of the via della Pergola cottage open,
Amanda Knox called Meredith’s mobile phones at 12.07 and 12.08 without receiving a reply, while the call to her mother in the dead of night in Seattle was at 12.47, and not at noon of the 2nd November 2007 as had emerged yesterday during the course of questioning the young American woman.

Raffele Sollecito’s defence team (lawyers Luca Maori and Giulia Bongiorno) highlighted it after examining the phone records. According to them, this confirms post-facto that Amanda’s not remembering calling her mother [at noon] is correct.

The two ex-lovers claim they have nothing to do with the murder, and the young American has reaffirmed, before the Court in Perugia, her having spent the night with Sollecito at the latter’s home on the night of the murder.

No comment yet from the Knox defence, who plans however to explore this question further during Amanda’s mother’s depositions, due for next Friday.

In terms of the investigation, it is to be noted that Knox called her mother before the discovery of Mez’s body, and from what was learned later, her mother was surprised at being called at such a time.

From ANSA.




[Fondazione] 15 June 2009



Thanks Catnip,

I've had another thought on this mysterious call.

Did Amanda mention a mid-day phone call to her mother in her statement of the 6th.

ie. Comodi is interested in ascertaining that Amanda is in fact referring to the 12:47 call when she(Amanda) called it a "mid day" call back on Nov 6th.

Amanda was hardly likely to talk in exactitudes of phone times during that interview. In the situation she found herself 12:47 is about mid-day.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:50 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
What other little snippets appeared from Matteini's 19 page report of the time, especially in the Italian press. I'm off to have a little sniff around the stories about that report. Some things which may have appeared innocuous at the time may mean much more in the light of current information.


Little snippets like Matteini saying Patrick was guilty. doh!
She is actually the Judge who "jumped to conclusions", IMO. She should be on the stand for the civil case too.yes?
What accountability do the Judges have if a wrong conviction is made?

She was wrong about Patrick being guilty, she can be wrong of everything else.

Its interesting too that Patrick "lied" saying his club was open at 5pm and a regular customer witness said he was there and it wasn't open yet at 7pm.

Matteini created this fiction....
"There was the initial desire of the three youths to try some new sensation. Above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while Lumumba had the desire to join carnally with a girl that he fancied and who refused him," she added.

bizarre, do the Judges apologize for these crazy hypothetical tales after the case is over? I don't understand how they are not held accountable for such bizarre and inaccurate statements. qt-)



Maybe I don't explain myself to you JFK but you keep missing my point.

I'm not interested in Matteini's opinion or what she herself said but in the "sections of Amanda's statements which 'she quoted' in those 19 pages".
Top Profile 

Offline MikeMCSG


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:14 am

Posts: 207

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:53 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Principessa Etrusca wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Yeah that's my impression too. I'm not sure he actually believes she's innocent (his unwillingness to have a translator in court is telling ) but can't bring himself to cut her loose. I would love to know what Mrs Knox thinks about him putting her and their daughters' futures on the line like this; she must have great faith in his judgement.


Curt is certainly a loyal parent to Amanda for being in the courtroom for her and not cutting her loose in this situation. However, I don't think his support should depend on Amanda's innocence or on his belief in her innocence, I would respect him even more if I thought he had his doubts, but was still in the courtroom for Amanda and made no comments to the media.

Is he a loyal and responsible parent to his younger children? As the things are now, he has gambled away all their future school fees.


IMO,
Its the prosecutors job to find guilt and create doubt, not the parent.

I can't imagine being in his shoes, or any parent with their child in this situation claiming their 100% innocent. And to decide between this child and that child. If you watch the film of her sisters they would want it no other way, they are 100% behind AK too. Have you watched that video? Maybe you should, and it will add your knowledge.

Shouldn't the parent go 100%, 110% behind your child to the end?

And lets not forget AK has this life long record of never having anything even remotely associated to this crime.
Actually her past shows the completely clean record; she worked, went to college, loved by her sisters..etc..etc..AK has 21 yrs of a spotless criminal record.

This is why the prosecution is digging up the "party ticket" thats paraded in the news, to dirty her image.
and thats the prosecutions job, to create doubt in the jurors mind to prove her guilty.

I disagree, I guess. I think its the Judges to be doubtful and neutral. I would think less of the parent if they doubted their own kid, especially one with a spotless background.


Hi Jfk - neither of us were strongly criticising him, you're right he's in an awful situation but he does appear to be turning a blind eye to the evidence.

With respect to the stepsisters they are a little young to be making an informed judgement on their own behalf and that gives Curt another reason to shrink from the truth. How do you explain what she's done to her sisters ?

In some ways this takes me back to the Soham case. I don't believe Ian Huntley ever told Maxine Carr he'd killed the girls- he didn't have to so why would he ? The question is did it occur to her in that fortnight before they were arrested. I think she must have had suspicions but while the bodies were undiscovered she talked herself out of doing anything while the possibility they'd turn up alive remained. I think Curt too is waiting for a last minute miracle.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:04 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Thoughfull wrote:
...Listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same
expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary,
I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type?
In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered

right away): "I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message
in my phone. He had told me not to come to work." Perfectly normal things.
So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, "My boss texted me to
tell me not to come to work and I answered him," you could have just stated
that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions
of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start
accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why
did you think those things could be true?...


It's obvious both the defense and the prosecution are using transcripts of the disallowed statements. Is it just that the jury isn't allowed to see them or am I missing something here? Are the statements back on the table?



Is the use of these statements in "this portion of the trail" subject to the "guarantees" which have been much referred too?

ie. They may be referred to by the prosecution and defense so that the subject may be sensibly argued but the information in them must not be quoted directly for use by the jury.
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:19 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

"Meredith's keys were allegedly found in AK's room. "

Old rumour, but no proof of it has surfaced.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
What other little snippets appeared from Matteini's 19 page report of the time, especially in the Italian press. I'm off to have a little sniff around the stories about that report. Some things which may have appeared innocuous at the time may mean much more in the light of current information.


Little snippets like Matteini saying Patrick was guilty. doh!
She is actually the Judge who "jumped to conclusions", IMO. She should be on the stand for the civil case too.yes?
What accountability do the Judges have if a wrong conviction is made?

She was wrong about Patrick being guilty, she can be wrong of everything else.

Its interesting too that Patrick "lied" saying his club was open at 5pm and a regular customer witness said he was there and it wasn't open yet at 7pm.

Matteini created this fiction....
"There was the initial desire of the three youths to try some new sensation. Above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while Lumumba had the desire to join carnally with a girl that he fancied and who refused him," she added.

bizarre, do the Judges apologize for these crazy hypothetical tales after the case is over? I don't understand how they are not held accountable for such bizarre and inaccurate statements. qt-)


JFK, no. They are not simply passive judges, there job is also to move the case forward and suggest new paths of enquiry (for example, Judge Micheli instructed PM Mignini to reopen the investigation had had been closed by that time and find new evidence that linked the three accused together). Judges are requires to examine the evidence placed in front of them and make a judgement based on 'that' evidence. But not only must they make a judgement, they must write down in the report every logical step of their thought process of how they drew their conclusions, what orders were given and why. Think of it like...when the Government orders an enquiry, someone is appointed to head the enquiry...they then have to write up a full report of their findings and reccommendations and present it. That is an Italian judge. Now, there are svereal stages to an investigation, several steps that must be met and at each step it must go before the judge and they again make an enquiry and write up their report. In the early steps, they are of course still at the preliminary stages of the investigation, so, only certain evidence is in, but still, the judge is required to make a judgement and report based on 'that' evidence. They can only do so on the evidence that is there. Matteini's reports were in the early stages of the case and she could only judge what was put in front of her as thoroughly as she could. Of 'course', it is accepted that more evidence can and will be forthcoming and that new evidence will effect/change future judgements...that's exactly why there were several more steps after Matteini's judgement. Her judgement was correct based on the 'evidence' put in front of her 'at the time'. Of course, at the early she stage, she can't possibly be expected to be completely right about the whole case, otherwise the system could do away with all the following steps and indeed the trial itself and simply sentence them to life there and then based on the preliminary enquiry.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:27 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Thoughfull wrote:
...Listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same
expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary,
I asked this question: Why did you throw out an accusation of this type?
In the confrontations with Mr. Lumumba (I was continuing and you answered

right away): "I was trying, I had the possibility of explaining the message
in my phone. He had told me not to come to work." Perfectly normal things.
So, faced with a perfectly normal circumstance, "My boss texted me to
tell me not to come to work and I answered him," you could have just stated
that. End of response. Instead, faced with the message, and the questions
of the police, you threw out this accusation. So I am asking you, why start
accusing him when you could calmly explain the exchange of messages? Why
did you think those things could be true?...


It's obvious both the defense and the prosecution are using transcripts of the disallowed statements. Is it just that the jury isn't allowed to see them or am I missing something here? Are the statements back on the table?


Hi Brian. I think what's happening is, they're getting in through the backdoor because of the slander charge and because of Lumumba's private slander suit.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Bestselling authior John Grisham has announced that he'd like to write a book based on the character of AK, who he believes is innocent ... source:Barimia and others

This case is really turning into an industry ?


You nailed it right there Kevin. At first, the odd ambulance chaser was working on making a buck from this case and there was also a small market developing (See Barbie Nadaeu's excellent 'Murder Marketing' article). But now, it's gone well beyond that and has become a full blown industry.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
"Meredith's keys were allegedly found in AK's room. "

Old rumour, but no proof of it has surfaced.


Yabbut:

November 14, 2007

Nothing is certain on Meredith Kercher murder.
The time of Meredith's death, resulting now from analysis of stomach content could be delayed to 12.00 pm.
Alibis to be redone, it seems.
No blood found on "daddy's boy"'s knives (that doesn't mean too much because he could have hidden the only "responsible" knife).
No blood found in his car (He didn't take the car).
His house has been checked with luminol and no blood resulted from there.
No blood found on his Nike shoes (that may mean something because he should have washed them in order of completely canceling blood. His Nike snickers were believed to be the same that left the print on Meredith's blood).
Nothing coming from camera recordings. Not yet.
Yesterday they thought the blood found in the apartment below, where three students from Marche live (among whose Meredith's boyfriend) could be not of a cat, as initially maintained, but could be Meredith's. Meaning that the killer could have gone there to spread her blood in order to make fall the suspects on the students from Marche. But the three students from Marche, during those holidays, were in Marche. And the blood traces were even on the light switchers.
Meredith had the keys of the apartment below and those keys have been found in Amanda's room.

Perugia Shock

Frank was pretty close to things at the time and you've go to admit his statement is certain.

Many times I've asked him to confirm or deny what he said but he will never respond to a post on the topic. He will respond if I ask him other questions.

Given his position, I don't think he would want to comfirm it's the truth but nor does he want to lie and say it's not.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:36 pm   Post subject: Edda Mellas phonecall and the tour of the cottage   

thoughtful wrote:
But what I find much more surprising is that Amanda claims to have completely forgotten the existence of that phone call. But, didn't she mention explicitly somewhere? "I didn't hear Raffaele call his sister because I was on the phone with my mother." I am certain I read that somewhere, maybe even in Friday's testimony. So, why don't they just straighten that out?


I think you're confusing it with the part where she was claiming that she thought she was talking to Filomena while Raffaele was talking to Vanessa.

As for why she "forgot" she made the phone call, from the defense point of view I think the phone call can't easily be explained in terms of Amanda's email and her various testimonies, so the defense maybe thinks that the safest way to play it is just to write it off as one of those things, in the confusion of the moment.

thoughtful wrote:
It isn't as impossible as Finn made it sound because according to Amanda, she did not show the police around the apartment or show them the rooms before Filomena's friends came. She stammered to them in broken Italian, helped by Raffaele, about an open door and a broken window, but they wanted to talk about the phones, so she wrote the phone numbers down for them. She seems to describe it that way.


Actually, it's not me who made it sound so impossible, but Battistelli's testimony, which described the tour of the cottage in greater detail, including his brief analysis of the break-in as probably faked, which he pointed out to Raffaele and Amanda. Amanda's testimony doesn't contradict this testimony, even if it doesn't go into such detail about the tour. So I think that the tour of the cottage is still in place.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:51 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
bolint wrote:
"Meredith's keys were allegedly found in AK's room. "

Old rumour, but no proof of it has surfaced.


Yabbut:

November 14, 2007

Nothing is certain on Meredith Kercher murder.
The time of Meredith's death, resulting now from analysis of stomach content could be delayed to 12.00 pm.

Perugia Shock

Frank was pretty close to things at the time and you've go to admit his statement is certain.


The more accurate way to get time of death is temperature of Meredith's liver at autopsy. Food in her stomach/digestive sytem, location of food, whether it is was still in the stomach or in the upper intestinal tract. Her friends she had dinner with, would give very good time detail compare to stomach contents at autopsy. Pizza should probably exited her stomach, while Apple crumble parts should still in her stomach.

When Meredith was found, she was already in Rigor Mortis, whatever blood she had left, may showed signs of lividity,(livor mortis) etc.


It is interesting that time of Meredith's death hasn't been fought tooth and nail by Amanda's and Raffaele's defense teams, because it would give them a slither of hope. However because Amanda and Raffaele don't have alibis, My guess the defense teams just want it slip by...


Last edited by Ferret on Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:54 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
Brian wrote:
November 14, 2007

Meredith had the keys of the apartment below and those keys have been found in Amanda's room.
Frank was pretty close to things at the time and you've go to admit his statement is certain.
Many times I've asked him to confirm or deny what he said but he will never respond to a post on the topic. He will respond if I ask him other questions.
Given his position, I don't think he would want to comfirm it's the truth but nor does he want to lie and say it's not.


But then how is it that it was not even mentioned in the trial?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Finn, you're right. I was so sure that she meant her mother (because of the phone call timelines) that I managed to wrongly remember what I had transcribed myself. I guess I confused my imaginings with reality, which just goes to show how easy it is to do that!

To be honest, I think she really did mean her mother. After all, she does say that she doesn't remember hearing Raffaele call his sister because she THINKS she was on the phone with Filomena, so okay, it was probably her mom instead, she got the different panicky phone calls mixed up. But what I really don't understand is, what would be wrong with letting her say that now. I mean, she may have forgotten it in the e-mail, but Edda most definitely reminded her of it on November 10 and we all know her lawyers have phone records, so it seems FAKE to pretend to still not know about it. WHY not just mention it in its proper place in describing the events of that half hour, and then if they say "But you didn't mention that phone call in your e-mail", she could just say "I had forgotten all about it but my mother reminded me."

What's confusing me here -- I am confused! -- is WHY are the lawyers coaching her to do it this way? It makes her seem vaguer and more forgetful, it doesn't do her any good that I can see, and there was nothing wrong with calling her mother at all. Quite the contrary, it would have helped to negate the bad effect of what she said about the locked door to Filomena, by showing that she really was very worried. Strange.

About Battistelli's report, that interests me. Can one see it? If I'm not mistaken (I have no time to reread anything at this point, but I will when it's done) she makes it sound as though the showing of the house and so forth went on after Filomena's friends arrived,
and then Filomena herself, so maybe those events were just mixed together? Does Battistelli's report really infirm that? I'd like to know exactly. The fact is that the cross-examination does not seem to be paying attention to this timeline problem at all.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:05 pm   Post subject: Kokomani and the attack of the 5-foot woman   

Catnip wrote:

... the overall impression from the segment, the way it was presented, was of a girl-spat that got out of control, a bit like the Tonya Harding ice-skating rivalry thing from 14 years ago.
... Schoolgirl fights, real knock-down hospital injury ones, are starting to be reported fairly rountinely here now, so maybe it’s not surprising the Knox segment was aired.

(h) I’m not so surprised anymore, either, that Kokomani was frightened. Women are dangerous.

[ old post ] 14 June 2009




Doesn't look like the circumstances are restricted to just Australia:


Quote:


BONNEY LAKE, Wash. - A 15-year-old Bonney Lake girl is in police custody, accused of repeatedly stabbing a 13-year-old girl in the chest.
...
"She's a wonderful little girl, I loved babysitting her, she was the first girl I ever babysat," said Natosha Lucas.
Lucas was across the street and heard the fight and aftermath.
"The cops are here, like three-four ambulances, five cops, sheriffs running around and the K-9 dog is running around looking for the girl I guess," she said.
After the 15-year-old was arrested, police learned the two girls had been fighting over a boy.

"She got stabbed in the face," said the victim's mother.

[King5] 15 June 2009


further:


Quote:


"A fist fight's just not a fist fight anymore," said Michale Anglemyer. "Girls are mean, girls are very mean."
The 13-year-old victim was walking down the street with her friends around 10 p.m. Saturday when the 15-year-old took out a knife and began stabbing her, say police.
"It looks like these kids knew each other and that possibly there was some sort of relationship squabble with a boy," said Officer Daron Wolschleger, Bonney Lake Police.


Michale's daughter, Samantha Anglemyer, 11, says even though this was over the top, violent threats, teasing and bullying happen all the time.
"Yeah, they can get pretty violent sometimes over, like, boys, and if another boy likes someone else and the other girl doesn't," said Samantha.

[King5] 15 June 2009
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:06 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Quote:
Brian wrote:
November 14, 2007

Meredith had the keys of the apartment below and those keys have been found in Amanda's room.
Frank was pretty close to things at the time and you've go to admit his statement is certain.
Many times I've asked him to confirm or deny what he said but he will never respond to a post on the topic. He will respond if I ask him other questions.
Given his position, I don't think he would want to comfirm it's the truth but nor does he want to lie and say it's not.


But then how is it that it was not even mentioned in the trial?


Do we know it wasn't mentioned at the trial?

We only usually get the odd paragraph on a whole days testimony.

I don't believe it was found while the forensics people there because the press were full of "the search for Meredith's keys and credit cards".

But it's a fact that the cottage was searched on the afternoon of the 4th and Amanda was asked to attend. The search was watched by the press from the road.

Who gave the testimony on that seach???
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?


I don't quite get the relevance either. A citation for disturbance of the peace is a very minor offense in most places in the United States. Now if there were evidence of it being a drunken orgy, leading to acts of violence, that would be a lot more relevant; and I have heard this suggested. Who knows? But I doubt it will be treated as a big deal by the jury, since it doesn't appear to be.


I suspect it's not the noise disturbance but the rock throwing. Don't you think that throwing rocks at cars- or passers-by or both can have disastrous consequences? If you hit someone, they can get killed or lose control of their car and also kill someone else. Throwing rocks at people is an idiotic and very dangerous activity


Nicki, we are not stupid - lol - and we realize that throwing rocks is an extremely dangerous activity. The point I was making is that the rock-throwing occurred at a party and as far as I can tell from the evidence was not attributed directly to her. Do you think a person should be held responsible for everything someone else does at a party that the person has? Trust me when I say that this evidence would never be admitted in a U.S. murder trial.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Thoughtful (who is probably truthful as well) wrote:

Quote:
By the way you referenced "Truthful's translation" rather than "Thoughtful's"! I am absolutely certain that that is a Freudian lapsus concerning Amanda's veracity (not mine!). But which way??


That could be a Freudian slip or it could be a comment on your translation, which is truthful.

Thoughtful added:

Quote:
Firstly, it's clear from reading the cross-examination that Comodi mixed up 12:00 phone call with 12:47. She does mention midday several times, but she also says for instance "it was three or four in the night in Seattle". And there is no mention of the 12:47 call, and she briefly mentions the contents (describing the strange things Amanda saw in the house). So, no problem there other than that such an error is a little surprising.

But what I find much more surprising is that Amanda claims to have completely forgotten the existence of that phone call. But, didn't she mention explicitly somewhere? "I didn't hear Raffaele call his sister because I was on the phone with my mother." I am certain
I read that somewhere, maybe even in Friday's testimony. So, why don't they just straighten that out?


I believe that Amanda claims she must have been on the phone with Filomena when Raffaele called his sister, not with her mother. So it could seem as if she has forgotten this call (she also neglects to mention it in her minutely detailed email, as Finn has pointed out) or as if she doesn't want to talk about it/remember it.

EDIT: Sorry, I hadn't seen that you and Finn have already addressed this question.

Also, I was wondering if Comodi's reference to "midday" wasn't intentionally vague - i.e., instead of saying 12:47, she said "around noon". I agree that this is no time for such vague formulations and that it just causes confusion where no more is needed.

General question: Has anyone been able to confirm/disconfirm the BBC/Le Monde report that the so-called double DNA knife found at RS's flat actually came from AK's German knife cutlery set, the one that was seized by police from under her bed?

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

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

Ferret wrote:


Mignini is using the noise disturbance as a way to impeach Knox on the witness stand. Mainly to counter her defense's possible claim that she was a Dean's List UW student, who was never got in trouble before. They just want to show her, she is capable in getting out of control and counter her defense team's own character witnesses, like Andrew Seliber's testimony.


I don't know where she lived near U-Dub, but most of time, those around, University Ave, 15 Ave NE, to Ravenna Park and around Fraternity Row deal with the University of Washington Police, who also patrol around Mountlake Ave and near U-Village shopping mall, and of course on the U-Dub Campus and the U-Dub Medical Center. (I lived on 12th Ave NE on the west side of "the Ave", and was surprise how much crime was around my duplex, besides the occasional shooting, I think the convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick lived a blocked away from at one time near the University Height Elementary school now Community Center and Farmer's market on Saturday, or something like that)

Noise disturbances around U-Dub especially during the weekend, you can predict are incredibly common. I know from my College experience in Portland, OR, the cops give you a one warning on noise, (Basically turn down the music, and not have your drunk friends stop screaming their rugby games best tackles in front of the house) then they shut you down afterward, if they are called again, or issue you a citation. It is no big deal.

The worst behavior I have seen from parties at College is when mainly hard alcohol is served, like Upside down Margaritas theme parties or Kamikaze theme parties, that is when the ambulances start arriving for alcohol poisoning victims, and the cops may throw their weight around, and issue some serious citations for serving alcohol to minors etc, or start arresting people. Also more hard alcohol, the rise of supreme idiotic behavior, like throwing rocks, breaking windows, fights, etc.



Yeah, I thought it might be some type of impeachment strategy.

I read a book about Kevin Mitnick once - very interesting case!

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Audio #5, Saturday, June 13, 2009, 11:30 resumption after a 15-minute break

[Someone] Now we can resume the audience, continuing the examination by the
pubblico ministero of the accused.

[Mignini] The document we need to acquire [Intervention: "Oh, the document
isn't...oh yes, we have it. Good....mumbling...Go ahead, pubblico
ministero"]

Listen, do you remember....[pause, "Let me show you"...] Do you recognize
your signature on this statement? This is the statement made following
your spontaneous declarations.

Yes.

You recognize your signature.

Yes.

Now, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele
tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that
sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now,
I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break
down the door to get back the lamp we talk about?

[Amanda, in a perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even
noticed it was missing. I tried--

You didn't see that it was missing?

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because
I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked.
I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see
if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside.
She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't
in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact
that the window was broken worried me. Someone could have taken something.

Yes, yes. Listen, did you actually observe Filomena Romanelli's room?

I saw that there was "chaos" [English] in there. I saw the broken window,
and a lot of stuff on the floor.

Did you see anything else? Did you see the rock?

I didn't see the rock. I saw that there was the computer on the tab-- No!
The camera was on the table. I saw that the things were still there. I
didn't see the rock.

Listen, did you see the clothes on the floor?

Yes.

And the glass? On top of the clothes?

Well, I saw that the glass was broken and there were pieces of glass all over
the place.

Also on top of the clothes?

I suppose there was, but I can't say.

Listen, did you actually check whether anything was stolen?

I don't know everything that Filomena has. But I saw that there was lots of
stuff all over the place, so I couldn't really check. That's why I called her.
I saw that the things that I recognized, things of value, were still in the
apartment, like the television, the computer, those things. That's why I
thought: What a strange burglary!

Strange, eh.

Yes.

That basically there was no burglary.

Well, no. I saw that there was a broken window, so I did think there had been
a burglary.

I have no other questions.

Okay.

[Another voice: If the pubblico ministero has no more questions, then the
other parties may question.]

[A woman's voice: probably Manuela Comodi] You said that you called your
mother on the morning of Nov 2.

Yes.

When did you call her for the first time?

The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was
like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.

So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.

It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't
know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first.
Later, many other people arrived.

But from the records, we see that you called your mother -- not only from the
records but also the pings [?] that you first called your mother at 12.
At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in
Perugia it is midday?

In Seattle it's morning. It's a nine hour difference, so three in the morning.


Three o'clock at night?

Yes.

So your mother was surely sleeping.

Yes.

But at 12:00 nothing had happened yet. That's what your mother said --

I told my mother --

-- during the conversation you had with her in prison. Even your mother was
amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night,
to tell her that nothing had happened.

I didn't know what had happened. I just called my mother to say that we had
been sent out of the house, and that I had heard something --

But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not
been broken down yet.

Hm. Okay. I don't remember that phone call. I remember that I called her
to tell her what we had heard about a foot. Maybe I did call before, but
I don't remember it.

But if you called her before, why did you do it?

I don't remember, but if I did it, I would have called to--

You did do it.

Okay, fine. But I don't remember. I don't remember that phone call.

[A man's voice, quiet:]Excuse me. You don't remember, but the pubblico
ministero just pointed out to you a phone call that your mother received
in the night.

[Comodi] At three o'clock at night.

[The voice] So, it must have been true, it happened. Did you have the habit
of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday
in Italy? At a time where in Seattle...people don't usually call each
other in the middle of the night.

Yes, yes, of course.

So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit.

Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one
I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because
I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then
that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to
Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know
what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't
say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was
open, and then --

It's strange. You don't remember the phone call, but do you remember the
conversation with your mother in prison?

I had so many. But yes.

This conversation must have been the one of the 10th of November.
Do you remember when your mother said "But at 12, nothing had happened yet."

I don't remember that.

But you do confirm that from the time when you turned off your cell phone
until the next morning, you were always with Raffaele Sollecito.

Yes.

Always.

Yes. I fell asleep with him.

And in the morning you went out around 10:30.

Around then.

You went to get the mop.

Yes. To take a shower and change, and get the mop, yes.

But hadn't you taken a shower the evening before, at Raffaele's place?

Yes, but then we made love. So I wanted to take another shower.

The next day. Not right away after. But the next day.

Well, we made love and then I fell asleep. Then, the next morning, I wanted
to take a shower.

Where did you buy your marijuana?

I didn't buy marijuana.

Who bought it?

I smoked when friends had some, so...for example, when we were at home, often
one person would make a joint, and then each person would smoke it a bit and
pass it around. But I never bought any.

And when you and Raffaele were alone?

Raffaele and I -- Raffaele had some marijuana, yes.

And where did he buy it?

I don't know. I don't know the people who give out marijuana.

And you don't know the people who gave it to Raffaele.

No. I never met them.

Fine. Are there other questions?

[A pause, a man's voice.] Yes. Buongiorno. Avvocato Maresca,
for the Kercher family. The first question I want to ask you. I'm going
back to finish the subject of the telephone call to your mother on the
morning of Nov 2, about which you just spoke to the pubblico ministero.

The 2nd or the 1st of November? Because I thought I was talking...oh, okay!
Yes. The 2nd.

Of November. November 2.

Sorry. Dates...

So, you called your mother three times. Do you remember that?

I remember calling my mom. I don't remember how many times. There was so much
to think about right then.

Fine. Do you remember speaking to your mother in prison on November 10th about
this very phone call?

I don't remember specifically, but probably we talked about it, yes.

Do you remember how surprised your mother was that you didn't even remember
about this phone call?

I remember her being a bit surprised that I didn't remember very well. But
in the end I explained to her that there was just so much movement going
on right then, so much confusion, and the whole morning was so emotional,
and so all the specific things got mixed up.

Yes. So, let me give you a specific question.

Okay.

You referred in your conversation with your mother to your phone call to
Romanelli. Do you remember that?

Wait...

[Ghirga: "Can you be more precise and read it to us from the page?"]

Yes. Page 35-36 of the transcription of the conversation of Nov 10: Your mother,
surprised, says: You called me three times. You say: Oh, I don't remember
that. She says: Okay, you called me once to tell me some things that had
shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the
house, says your mother. You say: I know I was calling, I remember
calling Filomena, but I really don't remember calling anyone else.
I just don't remember having called you. Your mother says: Why would that
be? Stress, you think? Yes, right, and the conversation continues.

Okay.


So, my specific question -- [to lawyers obviously, one of them must have
stood up] I don't want to be interrupted! I am examining her as I was
allowed -- [Ghirga: go ahead, go ahead. There was no interruption!]
I didn't even ask the question yet! I see dalla Vedova getting up
punctually at every question! [Ghirga: Getting up doesn't matter, the important
thing is that there are no interruptions.] [Another voice: (dalla Vedova?)
"Can I make an objection to this?"] Can I ask my question or not? ["Let
him ask the question, then we'll see about objecting. Please, go ahead."]
So, the question is: is there a specific motive for which -- since
yesterday you testified that you called your mother because, specifically
answering a question by the defense, you didn't have anyone in Perugia that you
could turn to, right? So the question is, is there a reason for which, in your
conversation with your mother on Nov 10, you can't remember three phone calls
that you made to her in the middle of the night in Seattle about these
things that were happening in the house?

I imagine that --

[Interruption, by dalla Vedova, probably: "I object to this question! Because
the reference to the transcription was read out with one sentence skipped by
the lawyer for the civil plaintiff [parte civile]."]

Presidente, I textually read everything. This "skipping" annoys me. I
do not skip anything. I read out to the Court exactly the entire passage.
If someone skipped, it was someone else. Yes?

[Spirited arguing. Dalla Vedova(?): "I'll repeat the objection. After
reading about Amanda's saying 'I don't remember' and her mother saying
'Why would that be? Stress, you think?', Amanda says "Because a lot of
things were happening very quickly at that point'. Okay, right, okay.
But, he skipped the sentence "Because a lot of things were happening
very quickly at that point.' The lawyer for the civil plaintiff did not
read it out. I wanted to make that precise."]

Yes, but my question was about the reason for the stress being some other
reason--

[dalla Vedova(?) "But the question asked by the defense of the civil plaintiff
was: How could you not remember that phone call, even though they it was
made at a very, very special time for the person who received the call?"]

[Amanda] Ah, okay. I do remember one call afterwards, the one that I made
after they sent us out of the house. But, I don't know if it's because I
was thinking about so many things, but somehow I forgot, I don't know.

Yesterday, you mentioned having a lot of friends, both in the US and in Perugia.
Did you consider Meredith Kercher to be a friend?

Yes.

Did you suffer from the loss of this friend?

Yes, I was very, very shocked by it. I couldn't even imagine such a thing.

Do you think about her in your daily life, do you think about this friend who
was with you in your house?


Yes, I remember her. But in the end, I only knew her for one month, and
more than anything, I am trying to think how to go forward with my own life,
so yes, I remember her, and I am so upset about what happened, and
sometimes it seems to me that it can't be real. I don't really know what
to think of this thing. But yes. I suffered.

All right. We heard, and you gave testimony on this point, about your
behavior in the Questura, the cartwheel, the gymnastics, the stretching and
so forth.

Yes.

According to you, was this behavior appropriate, a normal behavior faced with
such a misfortune, or was this something special?

According to me, each person confronts a tragedy in their own way, and I am
used to trying to find normality, at least my own normality, in situations
of difficulty. This is my way of feeling more secure, because I was feeling
really, really, really scared of what had happened, very shocked. I didn't
know how to face up to the situation, and for me it was surreal, but I
was obliged to accept the fact that it had happened, so my behavior -- yes,
I know that they are a bit lighthearted, but that's just how I am.

But at that moment, were you scared, or grieving? Or both?

I was so -- I was very disoriented.

And Patrick Lumumba, did you consider him as a friend, or not?

I saw him, yes, pretty much as a friend, for the short time I had spent
around him. I had a good relationship with him.

In the days spent at the Questura -- later we'll look at them one by one
in order -- did you ever think that Patrick Lumumba might be guilty?

Before I was interrogated on Nov 5th/6th, I never thought that.

So you thought it for the first time on the 5th and 6th?

Yes, yes.

Then you changed your mind about his guilt.

When? In the sense that on the 5th and 6th --

No, after the 5th and 6th.

After the 5th and 6th --

On the 5th and 6th, you considered him guilty. When did you change?

I imagined that he --

I'll ask you later about imagination. Now tell me when you changed your mind
about Patrick Lumumba.


I changed my mind when I realized that my imaginings were not really memories,
but just imagination.

When? When?

The more time passed, the more I felt sure. But definitely, when I was in
prison and alone in my cell, I had so much time to rethink about all the
facts I remembered, and about the fact that I remembered not having been
with him on that night. The more I thought, mamma mia, he's probably
innocent.

How many days later?

How many days?

Weeks, days, hours, I don't know. The question is: when?

I already had a doubt when I was in the Questura. But I became completely
sure when -- at least I was completely sure that I had never been with him,
so what everyone was thinking, that it was him, was only because I myself
had said something, and that convinced me that he was innocent. But in
the end, I just couldn't know for sure. I could only know that what I
myself had said was not the truth.

And when did this happen?

When I was in prison, I guess, but I already had doubts--

But when in prison?

--while I was in the Questura...

But when? Can you tell me? A few days later? A few weeks later?

No, but even this feeling of doubt starting getting stronger, already on the
very next day. As soon as I had time to get paper and try to remember
things--

[Ghirga? "Okay, okay! Go ahead, avvocato." I think he's calling Amanda
to order here.]

But the next day, in your memorandum of the 7th, you confirmed that Patrick
Lumumba, that what you said about him was true. So, it must have been a
few days later with respect to this memorandum, diary, whatever you want
to call it.

I needed time to think. I don't know the precise moment where bing! but
it was this continuous evolution of asking myself: So, what did I do?
If I didn't do these things with him, then he's probably innocent, but I
only know the things that I actually do know, about what I myself did.
About what I actually said about him, it was not true. It was a mistake.
But -- I don't know -- I don't know anything any more [this is what Amanda
says, but I think it's a grammatical mistake for past tense: "I didn't know
anything any more." She does make a fair number of errors, although she
is never incomprehensible. The lawyers just ignore them.]. In fact, the
thing that was important for me was to know whether I myself was there or
not, and when I remembered that I wasn't, that was the important thing which
I wanted to say, and also the fact that what I had said about him was a mistake.

And who did you talk with about this when you understood that it was a mistake?
I wrote, and then when I could, I talked to my mom, and to my lawyers.

And why didn't you ask your lawyers to tell the "Procura" or the pubblico
ministero that it was a mistake?

I told them about it, because I gave everything legal to them. I didn't think
of taking further legal steps by myself. My way of sending out into the world
the things that I knew went through my lawyers. So I confided in them and
gave them all the information that I could to help them. First I had tried
doing that with the police, but they had put me in prison and didn't trust
me any more. So I talked to my lawyers and people who believed me.

Okay. You spoke many times, yesterday and today, of a state of confusion.

Certainly.

And of imagination.

Certainly.

What do these words mean to you: state of confusion, and imagination?

The sense I had at that moment, when I was trying to remember things that I
didn't remember--

I'm not talking about that moment. I am asking you in general. In general,
for you, what is a "state of confusion" and what is "imagination"?

According to me, it depends on the situation. I can only talk about my own
experience, which was, that I had to, forced myself -- because they told me
that I had to remember something else -- to recall something else, so I
forced myself so hard, that I was trying to imagine the reality that I had
apparently forgotten, and I got confused as to whether the things I had imagined
were really memories or just imagination. Because they were fragmentary.
They were just images of things I had seen in my life, for example Piazza
Grimana, that I saw every day, Patrick, whom I saw almost every day. These
things, which were fragmented, I didn't know if they belonged to that
evening, to that sequence of events [? hard to understand words] or reasoning. I didn't know, and not knowing what was reality and what was my imagination, this was the state of confusion.

[Ghirga? "Okay. Go ahead, avvocato." I think he's stopping her again.
She does get long-winded. You can actually feel the lawyers' impatience
flowing out of the audio as they go ahem and hum in the background.]

But have you had other moments in your life in which you were in a state of
confusion like this?

No.

So you've had only this experience.

Yes.


So this mechanism of the imagination, you only lived through it in this
experience.

Yes.

And so, only in this experience did you separate and then mix up reality
with imagination and fantasy.

Yes.

You also mentioned frustration yesterday.

Yes.

For your interrogation by the pubblico ministero and by the police.

Yes.

What does frustration mean to you?

I was frustrated because I felt that even if I was giving, it wasn't being
received. For instance, I felt that I was giving and giving, but they
always wanted something -- always more, and they didn't want to listen to me.
They asked me something and I answered, it was never enough, never the thing
that they wanted to hear. So I was frustrated. I didn't know how to answer
any more, because I had already said, repeated, repeated--

[Ghirga? "Okay, okay, we understood. Go ahead." (Again !!)]

You say that you met Raffaele Sollecito on October 25.

Yes, at that concert.

Okay. Six days before the murder of Mez.

Okay.

When did you first have sexual relations with Sollecito?

On the first day.

On the night of the 25th?

Yes.

And when did you move into his house?

I didn't move to Raffaele's house. I spent a lot of time with him, yes.

But yesterday you said that you cooked so many times in that house.

Yes.

That is correct?

Yes.

In those six days, how many times did you cook?

I can't say exactly, but we made either lunch or dinner almost every day in
his house.

Did Mez ever meet Sollecito in those days?

Yes.

Where? and when?

When he came to my place, for example. If Meredith was there, they talked
a bit. Laura and Filomena also met him.

And in those six days, how many times did he come over to your place,
if you remember?

Hmmmm....

Every day?

No...umm...

One day yes, another day not...

Three days? I'm not sure how many days.

End Audio #5
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skep wrote:
General question: Has anyone been able to confirm/disconfirm the BBC/Le Monde report that the so-called double DNA knife found at RS's flat actually came from AK's German knife cutlery set, the one that was seized by police from under her bed?


I could be wrong here Skep but I got the impression there are two knives seized from RS flat.

The one with the double DNA and also the one from the cottage but without DNA.

That the prosecution will suggest in their summing up that these were the two knives waved by Amanda and Raffaele in their confrontation with Kokomani?

But there again, I could be wrong.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jfk1191 wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
Jfk - the Postal Police arrived because Meredith's cellphones had been discovered in a garden and they were investigating a bomb threat to which they thought the cellphones might have been related.

EDIT: And it was conclusively proven that the bomb threat was unrelated to the case.


thats not my question at all...

the point was, did the arrival of the Postal Police, press them to start the cover up, by making phone calls?

had the Postal not shown up maybe they weren't done cleaning up.

Maybe they weren't going to tell anyone for hours, but their cleanup was interrupted by the Postal police.

In other words, if they only started calling after the Postal arrived,12:35.... it would appear suspicious.

If they had been calling people openly, discussing the condition of the cottage, bloody bathroom etc..before the Postal Police arrived, it would appear to me, they were more credible. more normal.

make sense?

Were any phone calls made by RS or AK, about the condition of the cottage, before 12:35 Nov 2?



Jfk - I thought I read that they had called Filomena beforehand. But I, too, am curious about whether they truly believed they were finished with the cleanup when the PP arrived. I suspect so, because I think they were hanging about outside the cottage when the PP arrived. But then why why why did they leave the bathmat with RS's bloody footprint on it? The only thing that really makes sense to me is that they thought the print looked vague enough that it wouldn't be attributed to anyone.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:37 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ferret wrote:


Quote:
Mignini is using the noise disturbance as a way to impeach Knox on the witness stand. Mainly to counter her defense's possible claim that she was a Dean's List UW student, who was never got in trouble before. They just want to show her, she is capable in getting out of control and counter her defense team's own character witnesses, like Andrew Seliber's testimony.


I don't know where she lived near U-Dub, but most of time, those around, University Ave, 15 Ave NE, to Ravenna Park and around Fraternity Row deal with the University of Washington Police, who also patrol around Mountlake Ave and near U-Village shopping mall, and of course on the U-Dub Campus and the U-Dub Medical Center. (I lived on 12th Ave NE on the west side of "the Ave", and was surprise how much crime was around my duplex, besides the occasional shooting, I think the convicted hacker Kevin Mitnick lived a blocked away from at one time near the University Height Elementary school now Community Center and Farmer's market on Saturday, or something like that)

Noise disturbances around U-Dub especially during the weekend, you can predict are incredibly common. I know from my College experience in Portland, OR, the cops give you a one warning on noise, (Basically turn down the music, and not have your drunk friends stop screaming their rugby games best tackles in front of the house) then they shut you down afterward, if they are called again, or issue you a citation. It is no big deal.

The worst behavior I have seen from parties at College is when mainly hard alcohol is served, like Upside down Margaritas theme parties or Kamikaze theme parties, that is when the ambulances start arriving for alcohol poisoning victims, and the cops may throw their weight around, and issue some serious citations for serving alcohol to minors etc, or start arresting people. Also more hard alcohol, the rise of supreme idiotic behavior, like throwing rocks, breaking windows, fights, etc.


I agree with Ferret about the reason for bringing up the rowdy party incident. It is intended to show that there is a blemish on this spotless record.

As for the location of the house where the party was held, Tara has the address and can share it. The house is not on Greek Row - it is closer to 52nd and 12th if I'm not mistaken. Since it isn't clear from your post, I wanted to add that the University Police are "real" law enforcement officers and not part of some private UW security force. They are trained in the same way and in the same program as other law enforcement professionals. In fact, police officers are assigned to an area - let's say Kenmore, Burien, Sammammish, the U District etc. - but often will move from one to another.

Last year or the year before, during graduation week, at one out-of-control frat party some guy fell out of a window (or jumped or was pushed) and was killed. I didn't follow it closely, so I don't know exactly what happened.

I lived in the U District, within the confines of Greek Row (47th and 16th), as a graduate student in the late 70s and early 80s. I went to plenty of parties, though not fraternity or sorority parties. At certain times of the year, things could get rather noisy. However, I never attended a party that was busted by the police or for which the police were called and I never saw the police intervene from my corner window at 47th and 16th. I don't know how common it is for the cops to pay a visit.

One of AK's friends, who allegedly attended the party, claimed on Frank's blog that everyone who attended the party was over 21, but this can't be true, since AK was 20 at the time.

I talked to one person on the faculty at the UW (a friend of mine) who said that he recalls this particular party as being particularly raucous and sparking campus debate about the party problem. He also said he was sure that he read an article about it in the Seattle Times or PI, but that he could no longer find the article. I don't have any way of assessing this information at all.

However, college parties are an age-old issue and we all went to them, didn't we?

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

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:40 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
To be honest, I think she really did mean her mother. After all, she does say that she doesn't remember hearing Raffaele call his sister because she THINKS she was on the phone with Filomena, so okay, it was probably her mom instead, she got the different panicky phone calls mixed up. [/quuote]

Maybe - but actually, she describes in some detail what she said to Filomena, and it does sound like the earlier call.

Yet the very idea of calling her mother seems to have thrown her.

thoughtful wrote:
But what I really don't understand is, what would be wrong with letting her say that now. I mean, she may have forgotten it in the e-mail, but Edda most definitely reminded her of it on November 10 and we all know her lawyers have phone records, so it seems FAKE to pretend to still not know about it. WHY not just mention it in its proper place in describing the events of that half hour, and then if they say "But you didn't mention that phone call in your e-mail", she could just say "I had forgotten all about it but my mother reminded me."

What's confusing me here -- I am confused! -- is WHY are the lawyers coaching her to do it this way? It makes her seem vaguer and more forgetful, it doesn't do her any good that I can see, and there was nothing wrong with calling her mother at all. Quite the contrary, it would have helped to negate the bad effect of what she said about the locked door to Filomena, by showing that she really was very worried. Strange.


I agree with you on that. All I can think is that they have an idea of trying to keep her stories as consistent as possible, and to explain away any discrepancies in earlier stories with "the confusion of the moment."

thoughtful wrote:
About Battistelli's report, that interests me. Can one see it? If I'm not mistaken (I have no time to reread anything at this point, but I will when it's done) she makes it sound as though the showing of the house and so forth went on after Filomena's friends arrived, and then Filomena herself, so maybe those events were just mixed together? Does Battistelli's report really infirm that? I'd like to know exactly. The fact is that the cross-examination does not seem to be paying attention to this timeline problem at all.


I'll root around and see if I can find it.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Professor Snape wrote:


Based upon Amanda's love experiences within the first two weeks of her arrival in Perugia look to be more like a train wreck then responsible relations. I think her sexual behavior says a great deal about her character and increasing problems. Perhaps I was not clear about who I was speaking of when I referred to insulting adults but let me be - it is about her parents and not about youth discovering themselves. Parents are responsible for the type of children they raise, period. You don't get it both ways. When you end up with a "bad seed" you don't go around bashing the rest of the world trying to cover up your mess.

Thank goodness there are millions of people in their 20's who do exhibit good behavior are treat others nicely.

Truth Seeker wrote:
I actually don't see Amanda's pre-murder behavior as much of an issue. It's her "during-murder" and "after-murder" behavior that I have a huge problem with. ;)


Amanda's reckless behavior PRE MURDER demonstrated what an irresponsible person she is and not some preppy good natured up-standing student. Based upon her diary she can't even write like a jr. high student! It doesn't fly and her parents contributed to this outrageous behavior and continue to make a mockery of the Italian judiciary system. IMHO the campaign Mr. Knox and Mr. Mellass are heading up during this trail is inexcusable and due to the impact it is having on IT & US relationships it should be criminal.

Amanda wasn't born in the "FREE LOVE ERA" but she certainly acted like it. Humping every guy in her path, sex orgies and Charles Manson behavior raise her to the top of the class.

I think it would be irresponsible to only look at her behavior since she was arrested. What happened before is HUGE.


I guess I just have a different philosophy. So long as Amanda wasn't hurting anyone I can't bring myself to judge her pre-murder behavior.

But I certainly agree that, from what I can tell, her family has been behaving reprehensibly with their ridiculous, slanted PR campaign.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:45 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

From AK's testimony, in answer to a question about her first call to her mother:

The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was
like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.

So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.

It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't
know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first.

Later, many other people arrived.

It is clear from these words that Raffaele's calls to his sister and 112, which came at 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54, were made after the arrival of the postal police. AK has just confirmed this. The call she and the prosecutor are referring to is her 12:47 call.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:51 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Just for comparison, Raffaele's second version (given at the Nov 5/6 interrogation):
(from a Nov 7 news report, long before the Diary)

"Io alle 21 sono andato da solo a casa mia, mentre Amanda ha detto che
sarebbe andata al pub Le Chic perché voleva incontrare dei suoi amici. A questo
punto ci siamo salutati. Sono andato a casa, mi sono fatto una canna, ho cenato.
Verso le 23 mi ha chiamato sull'utenza fissa di casa mio padre. Ricordo che
Amanda non era ancora tornata. Ho navigato al computer per altre due ore dopo la
telefonata di mio padre e ho smesso solo quando Amanda è rientrata,
presumibilmente verso l'1. [...] Non ricordo se quella sera abbiamo consumato un
rapporto sessuale. La mattina successiva ci siamo svegliati verso le 10 e lei mi
ha detto che voleva andare a casa a farsi una doccia e cambiarsi gli abiti.
Quando è uscita Amanda ha preso anche una busta vuota, dicendomi che le sarebbe
servita per metterci i panni sporchi. Verso le 11.30 è ritornata a casa e
ricordo che si era cambiata i vestiti. Aveva con sé la solita borsa.
...

(A questo punto Amanda gli avrebbe detto di essere preoccupata.) "Mi ha raccontato
che quando è arrivata a casa sua ha trovato la porta d'ingresso spalancata e
tracce di sangue nel bagno piccolo. Mi ha chiesto se la cosa mi sembrava strana.
Io gli ho risposto di sì e le ho consigliato di telefonare alle sue amiche. Lei
mi ha detto di aver telefonato a Filomena (un'altra ragazza che abita nella casa
dell'omicidio ndr), mentre ha detto che Meredith non rispondeva".
...

"Lei ha aperto la porta con le chiavi e sono entrato. Ho
notato che la porta di Filomena era spalancata con dei vetri per terra e la
camera tutta in disordine. La porta di Amanda era aperta e invece era tutto in
ordine. Poi sono andato verso la porta di Meredith e ho visto che era chiusa a
chiave. Prima ho guardato se fosse vero quello che mi aveva detto Amanda sul
sangue nel bagno e ho notato gocce di sangue sul lavandino, mentre sul tappetino
c'era qualcosa di strano, una sorta di mista acqua e sangue, mentre il resto del
bagno era pulito.... Il resto era in ordine. In quel mentre Amanda entrava nel
bagno grande e usciva spaventata e mi abbracciava forte dicendomi che prima,
quando aveva fatto la doccia, aveva visto delle feci nel water che invece adesso
era pulito. Mi sono chiesto che cosa stesse succedendo e sono uscito per vedere
se riuscivo ad arrampicarmi sulla finestra di Meredith... Ho cercato di sfondare
la porta ma non ci sono riuscito e a quel punto ho deciso di chiamare mia
sorella e mi sono consigliato con lei perché è un tenente dei carabinieri. Mi ha
detto di chiamare il 112, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale. Nel
precedente verbale vi ho riferito un sacco di cazzate perché lei mi aveva
convinto della sua versione dei fatti e non ho pensato alle incongruenze"...
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:58 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

From AK's testimony:

Quote:
I don't know everything that Filomena has. But I saw that there was lots of
stuff all over the place, so I couldn't really check. That's why I called her.
I saw that the things that I recognized, things of value, were still in the
apartment, like the television, the computer, those things. That's why I
thought: What a strange burglary!


Now I am really confused. According to Filomena, when AK called her the first time, there was no mention of the burglary because - according to AK's email - Filomena's door was closed when she went home to take a shower and so the burglary was not discovered until she and RS went back to the cottage. Incidentally, RS has written that when he arrived at the cottage Filomena's door was open, not closed. The three other calls and/or unanswered calls between FR and AK were "entrante voce" (incoming calls), at 12:12, 12:20 and 12:34.

In other words, when AK went home alone to shower she was unaware that a burglary had taken place and not overly alarmed by the blood and open front door. But she did call Filomena nonethless, to report "strange things". Filomena has testified that AK told her she was at the cottage at the time of the call and that she intended to go back to RS's apartment and fetch him. AK has just said that she was at RS's place when she called FR at 12:08. This accords with what RS wrote in his diary.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:02 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

From AK's questioning in court:

Quote:
But from the records, we see that you called your mother -- not only from the
records but also the pings [?] that you first called your mother at 12.
At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in
Perugia it is midday?

In Seattle it's morning. It's a nine hour difference, so three in the morning.


As a reminder, on November 2, 2007 the time difference was only 8 hours because Italy had not yet switched the clocks while the US had.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:09 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:


I agree with Ferret about the reason for bringing up the rowdy party incident. It is intended to show that there is a blemish on this spotless record.



Yes, that's got to be it. While the details of the ticket wouldn't be admissible here as part of a murder prosecution (except MAYBE under some VERY specific impeachment theory - but even then, I highly doubt it, and there would be strict parameters for when during the trial the evidence could be admitted), the evidence-admission standards in Italy are quite a bit lower, as I've been learning. (Again - not judging - just making an observation.)

_________________
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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Skep wrote:
General question: Has anyone been able to confirm/disconfirm the BBC/Le Monde report that the so-called double DNA knife found at RS's flat actually came from AK's German knife cutlery set, the one that was seized by police from under her bed?


I could be wrong here Skep but I got the impression there are two knives seized from RS flat.

The one with the double DNA and also the one from the cottage but without DNA.

That the prosecution will suggest in their summing up that these were the two knives waved by Amanda and Raffaele in their confrontation with Kokomani?

But there again, I could be wrong.



Micheli did mention that one of the officers also siezed another knife from Sollecito's apartment that also had Amanda's DNA on the handle, but that knife wasn't included as there was nothing suspicious about it (nothing to connect it to Meredith), and that one may expect to find other knives at RS's with Amanda's DNA. Whether that 'other' knife originated from the cottage or not he didn't say in that particular interview.

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


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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:16 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Phone call confusion to be cleared up when Edda Mellas is on the stand.

Maresca and the Kercher's unconvinced by Amanda's testimony.

Maresca asks, why go to the cottage for a shower when the heating is turned off? He questions even if she had a shower because her hair looks greasy in the pics from that afternoon. etc. etc.

PERUGIA - L’eco delle parole di Amanda, il suo parlare intenso e preciso non si è ancora spento che subito ripartono le polemiche. C’è il giallo di una domanda e di una risposta che sembrava uno scivolone, un passo falso, due parole stonate in una fila di frasi messe in riga per allontanare l’incubo della parola ergastolo: non ricordo. Non ricordo aveva risposto Amanda alla domanda del pm Manuela Comodi: «Perchè aveva telefonata a sua madre, quando a Seattle era l’alba e lei aveva fatto appena la doccia?». Quella telefonata sembra, invece, che non sia mai esistita. O, almeno non a quell’ora. A sottolinearlo sono i difensori di Raffaele Sollecito, Luca Maori e Giulia Bongiorno. «Dopo avere trovato aperta la porta d'ingresso della casa di via della Pergola, Amanda Knox chiamò alle 12.07 e alle 12.08 i telefoni cellulari in uso a Meredith Kercher senza ricevere risposta mentre la telefonata alla madre, nel cuore della notte di Seattle, risulta alle 12.47 e non a ridosso di mezzogiorno del 2 novembre del 2007 come era emerso nel corso dell'interrogatorio della giovane americana». Quindi quando già era arrivata la polizia postale con i telefonini cellulari di Meredith e quando in casa era stato scoperto il presunto furto, con la camera di Filomena Romanelli messa a soqquadro e un vetro rotto. Qundi, una reazione compatibile con lo stato delle cose e non una chiamata ”strana”, in un orario in cui non ci sarebbe stato motivo di chiamare se non era successo niente di strano. I legali hanno ricostruito gli orari esaminando i tabulati telefonici. A loro avviso la circostanza «conferma ulteriormente la ricostruzione fornita dalla Knox che nell’interrogatorio aveva sostenuto di non ricordare la telefonata alla madre». L’avvocato di Amanda, Luciano Ghirga, si riserva di verificare la circostanza proprio venerdì prossimo, quando sul banco dei testimoni salirà Edda Mellas, la madre di Amanda. Questa domanda sarà comunque ”incrociata” anche con la traduzione di una intercettazione fatta in carcere tra Edda ed Amanda. Nella conversazione fra madre e figlia si parla delle tante telefonate da Amanda alla madre nei momenti successivi all’omicidio, anche se la frase non è chiara e sia l’accusa sia la difesa avranno margini per poter battagliare.
Se Amanda segna un altro punto a suo favore, l’avvocato Francesco Maresca, difensore insieme a Serena Perna, per la famiglia Kercher, sottolinea come «Amanda non ci abbia chiarito nessuno dei punti poco chiari che c’erano». «Abbiamo potuto vedere - ha detto ancora Maresca - la sua tranquillità e il blocco delle emozioni, almeno per me non prevedibile. Di fatto non ci sono molti elementi nuovi rispetto alle contestazioni di indagini. Probabilmente bisogna domandarsi se la vera Amanda Knox è quella che ha parlato nei giorni scorsi o quella delle indagini preliminari». L’avvocato Maresca fa riferimento alle parole di Amanda quando ha descritto di essere entrata in casa e aver scoperto che c’era qualcosa che non andava. «Una persona intelligente come lei avrebbe subito chiamato i carabinieri, non avrebbe aspettato due ore». Anche la sua spiegazione sulle macchie di sangue ritrovate non convince il legale della famiglia Kercher: «Sul tappetino c’è l’impronta di un piede insanguinata. Si vede a vista d’occhio che lo è, non assomiglia certo a una macchia di sangue caduta a terra. Quindi non capisco come possa dire di aver pensato che il sangue potesse essere una perdita mestruale. Fra l’altro lei stessa ha ammesso che le altre ragazze erano tutte molto ordinate e pulite mentre lei teneva in disordine le sue cose». E poi ci sono altri elementi che non convincono l’avvocato e la famiglia: «Perchè andare a fare la doccia a casa sua, dove non c’era nessuno e il riscaldamento era spento e non farla a casa di Raffaele? E poi, quella doccia, l’ha fatta veramente?», si chiede l’avvocato Maresca, riferendosi alle foto scattate ad Amanda e Raffaele davanti alla casa del delitto, il giorno dell’omicidio: Amanda ha i capelli in disordine ed è spettinata. Solo un effetto fotografico o quella doccia, in realtà, non è mai stata fatta?
«Amanda è stata bravissima ed è stata ben preparata dagli avvocati ma non ci ha convinto», conclude l’avvocato Maresca. «Per noi gli interrogativi più gravi che pesano su di lei non sono stati sciolti».

Il Messaggero Umbria
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
nicki wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
I'm really not understanding the relevance of the "rock-throwing" stuff to the trial. Here, something like that would never in a million years be admitted as part of a murder trial. I understand that the evidentiary rules in Italy are different, and that evidence-admission standards are lower, but I still fail to see the relevance. I mean - you throw a party and people throw rocks? Everyone knows how college parties go - you invite some people, news of the party spreads through word of mouth, and soon people you've never met in your life show up --- maybe some who are irresponsible/dangerous rock-throwers. For this stuff to be admitted as part of a murder trial seems unbelievable to me. Unless there's some angle that I'm missing (which could well be the case -- I don't know this case inside-out like some people do). Maybe it has something to do with impeachment/demonstration of lying? Or something else tangentially related to the trial?


I don't quite get the relevance either. A citation for disturbance of the peace is a very minor offense in most places in the United States. Now if there were evidence of it being a drunken orgy, leading to acts of violence, that would be a lot more relevant; and I have heard this suggested. Who knows? But I doubt it will be treated as a big deal by the jury, since it doesn't appear to be.


I suspect it's not the noise disturbance but the rock throwing. Don't you think that throwing rocks at cars- or passers-by or both can have disastrous consequences? If you hit someone, they can get killed or lose control of their car and also kill someone else. Throwing rocks at people is an idiotic and very dangerous activity


Nicki, we are not stupid - lol - and we realize that throwing rocks is an extremely dangerous activity. The point I was making is that the rock-throwing occurred at a party and as far as I can tell from the evidence was not attributed directly to her. Do you think a person should be held responsible for everything someone else does at a party that the person has? Trust me when I say that this evidence would never be admitted in a U.S. murder trial.

It's not what I think, but what the law says. The murder was committed in Italy, and according to the Italian law if Knox was aware of the rock throwing and didn't do anything to stop it, she's equally culpable. So according to this reasoning, that would look pretty bad to the jurors, even if in America the law is different and she is not culpable there.

I don't think you're stupid, but you are obviously not an expert of Italian law

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

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:44 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Professor Snape wrote:

Amanda's reckless behavior PRE MURDER demonstrated what an irresponsible person she is and not some preppy good natured up-standing student. Based upon her diary she can't even write like a jr. high student! It doesn't fly and her parents contributed to this outrageous behavior and continue to make a mockery of the Italian judiciary system. IMHO the campaign Mr. Knox and Mr. Mellass are heading up during this trail is inexcusable and due to the impact it is having on IT & US relationships it should be criminal.

Amanda wasn't born in the "FREE LOVE ERA" but she certainly acted like it. Humping every guy in her path, sex orgies and Charles Manson behavior raise her to the top of the class.

I think it would be irresponsible to only look at her behavior since she was arrested. What happened before is HUGE.


First, Amanda is an adult. A young adult, but she is responsible for her own decisions, and her parents did try to give her a good environment, even though I do think Edda getting involved with Chris Mellas around the time Amanda was pre-adolescent to adolescent is going to make an impact, and not in a good way. Many divorce parents try to make the best of a tough situation, but she did go to a prep school and got accepted to U-Dub, which shows she was on the right track. She did have a couple jobs and was a good student, academically.. Many divorce parents are dealing with the same situation as Curt Knox and Edda Mellas. Their other daughter seems to be fine, goes to College, etc.

However, I think it is better to judge her behavior through more of a psychological standpoint than from a moral standpoint. I think it is very likely that Amanda Knox suffers a personality disorder, I am leaning that she has a histrionic personality disorder. This ties in to her always seeking attention or be the center of attention, and could explain her sexual proclivities,and even crossing line into committing crimes, in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda seems to be constantly acting out, and her sexual history may be a sign of needing constant re-affirmation, or feels an almost a pathological need for excitement.

I try not to morally judge Amanda's behavior before the murder of Meredith Kercher. I tend to feel that as long as her sexual behavior is between mutual consenting adults, it is none of my business, or I really shouldn't put a judgement value of it. I also feel words like "slut" are used as ways to control sexual behavior, and a bit ironic, because male sexual behavior isn't label as "slutty", if the male had the same sexual history as Amanda. Anyway, I don't see her as a "huntress of men". Much I don't see Meredith as solely a bookish student. If I am going to judge, I am more looking if her sexual activity is more of a pattern of a behavioral problem like a histrionic or a narcissistic personality disorder.

I am actually much more interested in her relationship with women. Amanda appears to me, either very competitive with other women to even being hostile, or look at them as a threat. I am also interested how she looked at women in her peer group. I think Filomena and Laura were a bit older, and were probably judged and treated by Amanda differently than Amanda's paradigm of Meredith, who is closer to Amanda's age, and possibly in Amanda's eye a competitor or a threat.

You mentioned Charles Manson. Some of Manson's followers, like Susan Atkins probably have hybristophilia, which is a different behavior problem as a paraphilia. I don't think Amanda Knox doesn't have a paraphilia. Paraphilias and Personality Disorders, in my opinion supersede the moral climate of an era, because they can happened no matter how open or strict the moral codes of a society.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:
It's not what I think, but what the law says. The murder was committed in Italy, and according to the Italian law if Knox was aware of the rock throwing and didn't do anything to stop it, she's equally culpable. So according to this reasoning, that would look pretty bad to the jurors, even if in America the law is different and she is not culpable there.

I don't think you're stupid, but you are obviously not an expert of Italian law


Oh - most definitely - I have clearly and emphatically stated numerous times on this forum that I know almost nothing about Italian law (although I'm learning more every day and finding it very interesting).

But last night I was mainly discussing the theory of relevance from a personal, common-sense point of view, not from the Italian legal point of view. I, personally, have a hard time seeing the relevance of an act committed by someone else at a party that I threw (no pun intended there - lol).

Also, as you are aware, the rock-throwing incident occurred in the U.S. - so according to your reasoning, you should not be applying Italian legal concepts to the incident.

_________________
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 Ginny


User avatar


Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:43 pm

Posts: 14

Location: Nr London, UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Gosh I'm struggling to catch up after a weekend away from the computer!! The main thing that has struck me from Amanda's testimony is her "CSI" description.

From The Timesonline
Quote:
When a prosecutor interrupted her on one occasion, she reprimanded him sharply: “Can I continue?”

Francesco Maresca, representing the Kercher family, asked Knox why, as English friends of the victim have testified, she exclaimed in the offices of the Perugia flying squad only hours after the murder that Kercher must have died a slow death. Knox replied: “I heard that she had her throat slit and from what I saw in CSI these things are not quick or pleasant so I said, gosh . . . bleargh . . . this brutality, this death . . . bleargh . . . it really did shock me,” Knox replied.

The jury looked surprised at her language.

“It was a disgusting death. I imagined it was a slow death, a death that was shocking, yucky, disgusting,” Knox said, crossing her hands repeatedly in front of her chest.



To just go straight to the point, as hideous as it is but from all the CSI type programs I've seen and all the films etc but throat slitting appears to me to be very quick form of murder. Only the other day I was watching a film and it was a matter of seconds between the action and the death. When I initially heard that the cause of Meredith's death was her throat had been slit I assumed it was in fact rather quick at the end then. (of course there are now a few possible 'causes of death'- OT it still bugs me to read Meredith's throat was 'sliced'/'slit' in reports when she was in fact stabbed in the throat, for the very reason that I consider them two entirely different things)
It is just another little niggle to add to the many that Amanda assumed her death would be slow when the only piece of information she reportedly had was that her throat had been slit. Now we have more reports about the various torture and struggle Mez put up we can of course conclude it did take a while (and my heart breaks to write that) but I just can't see why Amanda would "imagin[e] it was a slow death". Unless I was there and knew for myself the agonising I would instantly think of a quick and sudden end. :(

_________________
It's ok to be a nobody...... Nobody's perfect!!
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ferret wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:

Amanda's reckless behavior PRE MURDER demonstrated what an irresponsible person she is and not some preppy good natured up-standing student. Based upon her diary she can't even write like a jr. high student! It doesn't fly and her parents contributed to this outrageous behavior and continue to make a mockery of the Italian judiciary system. IMHO the campaign Mr. Knox and Mr. Mellass are heading up during this trail is inexcusable and due to the impact it is having on IT & US relationships it should be criminal.

Amanda wasn't born in the "FREE LOVE ERA" but she certainly acted like it. Humping every guy in her path, sex orgies and Charles Manson behavior raise her to the top of the class.

I think it would be irresponsible to only look at her behavior since she was arrested. What happened before is HUGE.


First, Amanda is an adult. A young adult, but she is responsible for her own decisions, and her parents did try to give her a good environment, even though I do think Edda getting involved with Chris Mellas around the time Amanda was pre-adolescent to adolescent is going to make an impact, and not in a good way. Many divorce parents try to make the best of a tough situation, but she did go to a prep school and got accepted to U-Dub, which shows she was on the right track. She did have a couple jobs and was a good student, academically.. Many divorce parents are dealing with the same situation as Curt Knox and Edda Mellas. Their other daughter seems to be fine, goes to College, etc.

However, I think it is better to judge her behavior through more of a psychological standpoint than from a moral standpoint. I think it is very likely that Amanda Knox suffers a personality disorder, I am leaning that she has a histrionic personality disorder. This ties in to her always seeking attention or be the center of attention, and could explain her sexual proclivities,and even crossing line into committing crimes, in the sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda seems to be constantly acting out, and her sexual history may be a sign of needing constant re-affirmation, or feels an almost a pathological need for excitement.

I try not to morally judge Amanda's behavior before the murder of Meredith Kercher. I tend to feel that as long as her sexual behavior is between mutual consenting adults, it is none of my business, or I really shouldn't put a judgement value of it. I also feel words like "slut" are used as ways to control sexual behavior, and a bit ironic, because male sexual behavior isn't label as "slutty", if the male had the same sexual history as Amanda. Anyway, I don't see her as a "huntress of men". Much I don't see Meredith as solely a bookish student. If I am going to judge, I am more looking if her sexual activity is more of a pattern of a behavioral problem like a histrionic or a narcissistic personality disorder.

I am actually much more interested in her relationship with women. Amanda appears to me, either very competitive with other women to even being hostile, or look at them as a threat. I am also interested how she looked at women in her peer group. I think Filomena and Laura were a bit older, and were probably judged and treated by Amanda differently than Amanda's paradigm of Meredith, who is closer to Amanda's age, and possibly in Amanda's eye a competitor or a threat.

You mentioned Charles Manson. Some of Manson's followers, like Susan Atkins probably have hybristophilia, which is a different behavior problem as a paraphilia. I don't think Amanda Knox doesn't have a paraphilia. Paraphilias and Personality Disorders, in my opinion supersede the moral climate of an era, because they can happened no matter how open or strict the moral codes of a society.


You make some very good points. Unfortunately, sometimes no matter how diligent a parent is, a child turns out to be a problem. (I'm not saying that Curt, Edda, and Chris were diligent parents, because I don't know. But your point remains valid regardless.)

I also think that Amanda's sexual history would not be discussed in the same terms and with the same judgments if she had been a male. It's a common bias.

At this point I feel like I don't have enough information to make a conclusion about Amanda's psychological makeup, but from the bits and pieces I've seen it's certainly likely that she has some kind of personality disorder and major insecurities which led her to constantly seek affirmation. And, assuming for purposes of argument that RS was the instigator of the attack on Meredith, maybe this tied in with her willingness to go along with it. (E.g., maybe she couldn't risk looking "weak" and losing the affirmation of her lover.)

I still can't help but wonder how the leaving of her father at such a young age (I think 3?) impacted her. Even if Curt Knox stayed involved in her life, I've read studies indicating that having a major caretaker depart from the home in those crucial formative years can have a lasting and negative psychological impact.

_________________
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 Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
nicki wrote:
It's not what I think, but what the law says. The murder was committed in Italy, and according to the Italian law if Knox was aware of the rock throwing and didn't do anything to stop it, she's equally culpable. So according to this reasoning, that would look pretty bad to the jurors, even if in America the law is different and she is not culpable there.

I don't think you're stupid, but you are obviously not an expert of Italian law


Oh - most definitely - I have clearly and emphatically stated numerous times on this forum that I know almost nothing about Italian law (although I'm learning more every day and finding it very interesting).

But last night I was mainly discussing the theory of relevance from a personal, common-sense point of view, not from the Italian legal point of view. I, personally, have a hard time seeing the relevance of an act committed by someone else at a party that I threw (no pun intended there - lol).

Also, as you are aware, the rock-throwing incident occurred in the U.S. - so according to your reasoning, you should not be applying Italian legal concepts to the incident.



Amanda wasn't cited for the rock throwing, she was warned. She would had been cited or arrested if the Seattle Police were called back with further complaints about rock throwing. Technically, she is responsible for the noise violation and was cited for that. A warning is different than a citation.. Much like when a state trooper warns you about your driving, and lets you go than writing you up a ticket.

Anyway, the citation is just good theatre by Mignini to show the character and behavior of Knox to counteract that she was a good studious college student. It is used more to get at Amanda's defense team, who don't have much to work with to begin with. Amanda's defense has only the "good girl" defense to work with, (basically, "Good girls don't commit murder") and Amanda isn't a violent person, therefore she couldn't commit murder. However throwing rocks at cars is a sign of violent behavior..

Mignini would use this if Amanda instead got a signed commendation from Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels for her rock throwing skills, and help Seattle's economy by giving more business to windshield repair shops.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ferret wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
nicki wrote:
It's not what I think, but what the law says. The murder was committed in Italy, and according to the Italian law if Knox was aware of the rock throwing and didn't do anything to stop it, she's equally culpable. So according to this reasoning, that would look pretty bad to the jurors, even if in America the law is different and she is not culpable there.

I don't think you're stupid, but you are obviously not an expert of Italian law


Oh - most definitely - I have clearly and emphatically stated numerous times on this forum that I know almost nothing about Italian law (although I'm learning more every day and finding it very interesting).

But last night I was mainly discussing the theory of relevance from a personal, common-sense point of view, not from the Italian legal point of view. I, personally, have a hard time seeing the relevance of an act committed by someone else at a party that I threw (no pun intended there - lol).

Also, as you are aware, the rock-throwing incident occurred in the U.S. - so according to your reasoning, you should not be applying Italian legal concepts to the incident.



Amanda wasn't cited for the rock throwing, she was warned. She would had been cited or arrested if the Seattle Police were called back with further complaints about rock throwing. Technically, she is responsible for the noise violation and was cited for that. A warning is different than a citation.. Much like when a state trooper warns you about your driving, and lets you go than writing you up a ticket.

Anyway, the citation is just good theatre by Mignini to show the character and behavior of Knox to counteract that she was a good studious college student. It is used more to get at Amanda's defense team, who don't have much to work with to begin with. Amanda's defense has only the "good girl" defense to work with, (basically, "Good girls don't commit murder") and Amanda isn't a violent person, therefore she couldn't commit murder. However throwing rocks at cars is a sign of violent behavior..

Mignini would use this if Amanda instead got a signed commendation from Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels for her rock throwing skills, and help Seattle's economy by giving more business to windshield repair shops.


Right - she was cited for a noise violation but the prosecutor is digging out the facts underlying the citation, which is how the rock-throwing stuff came to light. And those underlying facts show that *someone at the party* threw rocks. If Amanda herself had been convicted of, say, assault, because she herself threw rocks, I could see the relevance. But, as I said earlier today, the evidence-admission standards in Italy are lower than they are here, and I agree that the prosecution is attempting to tarnish the "good-girl" defense.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
I still can't help but wonder how the leaving of her father at such a young age (I think 3?) impacted her. Even if Curt Knox stayed involved in her life, I've read studies indicating that having a major caretaker depart from the home in those crucial formative years can have a lasting and negative psychological impact.


It needs to be checked against the dates, but I don't think she was 3 because Edda was pregnant with Deanna when the marriage ended.

I was told by a source who is apparently close to the family and friends that the reason Chris Mellas insisted on being called AK's "father" and not step-father when he joined our board is that Curt Knox was not closely involved and in fact did not become so until "this" happened. I have no way of confirming this independently, but the person who told me wanted very much to defend Chris Mellas on this point.

That said, I feel that it may be none of our business but also that, regardless of how Curt Knox was as a father prior to "this", he has certainly stepped up to the plate in the last 19 months. He has been solid as a rock in his support. It must be extremely difficult and draining to have to be "on" for the media all the time. One might say he chose this role and has only himself to blame, but I don't see it that way. Marriott probably figured - and rightly so -that he was the best advocate for his daughter. Edda is highly emotive; Chris has trouble controlling his anger; Deanna is simply too young (and so makes statements like "they went after her because she's American"). As for Edda's family members (Janet Huff, Christine Hagge), they are pretty ineffective when it comes to discussing the case, and have generally stuck to lines like "there's no evidence". Curt Knox was the only viable candidate and his efforts have been unflagging.

As for his job status, some were asking yesterday if he had left his job or been laid off. It is my understanding that Macy's drastically downsized its back office/administrative operations in Seattle and that Curt Knox, like just about everyone else, was given his walking papers. It has nothing to do with this case. The recession is in full swing here and there have been many lay-offs. I feel tremendous sympathy for Curt Knox and anyone who has lost his or her job because employers are cutting costs. On the other hand, maybe he feels that at least it happened at a time when his preoccupations lie elsewhere. Can you imagine trying to hold down a demanding job and do what he has been doing for months and months?

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Professor Snape wrote:
Amanda wasn't born in the "FREE LOVE ERA" but she certainly acted like it. Humping every guy in her path, sex orgies and Charles Manson behavior raise her to the top of the class.

I think it would be irresponsible to only look at her behavior since she was arrested. What happened before is HUGE.


Look, I don't think this is an issue of the "puritans" versus the "hedonists." I've got nothing against the hedonists, or hedonism in general. I think it's great if young people want to go off and have fun. And I don't think there's anything in Amanda's past that rises much above the level of fun - including the party, at which unidentified people may have thrown an unknown number of rocks under unknown circumstances. Hell, I've done far worse in my past - and I'd find it ridiculous if that stuff came to light while I was on trial for murder.

This party - and Amanda's hedonism - are red herrings. Distractions. I don't think Amanda's guilty because she had sex with a bunch of guys. (I don't really know where you get the orgies - heck, at my former school they used to have "naked parties" in the dorms, but they weren't orgies. And the 'Charles Manson' behavior? Seriously? What is that?) No, I think Amanda is guilty because her story is implausible, changed three times, doesn't sync up with the physical evidence, she's got blood mixed with Meredith's at the scene, and at least one bloody footprint.

Sex just shouldn't have anything to do with it. It doesn't have to.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Amanda doesn't remember the 12:47 call to her mother. So when she is talking about the "first call", it would be the one with "the foot".

Brian S. wrote:
Maresca asks, why go to the cottage for a shower when the heating is turned off? He questions even if she had a shower because her hair looks greasy in the pics from that afternoon. etc. etc.
Does that mean she had a cold shower that morning? No, I don't believe that.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:44 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Truthseeker wrote:

Quote:
I still can't help but wonder how the leaving of her father at such a young age (I think 3?) impacted her. Even if Curt Knox stayed involved in her life, I've read studies indicating that having a major caretaker depart from the home in those crucial formative years can have a lasting and negative psychological impact.


It needs to be checked against the dates, but I don't think she was 3 because Edda was pregnant with Deanna when the marriage ended.

I was told by a source who is apparently close to the family and friends that the reason Chris Mellas insisted on being called AK's "father" and not step-father when he joined our board is that Curt Knox was not closely involved and in fact did not become so until "this" happened. I have no way of confirming this independently, but the person who told me wanted very much to defend Chris Mellas on this point.

That said, I feel that it may be none of our business but also that, regardless of how Curt Knox was as a father prior to "this", he has certainly stepped up to the plate in the last 19 months. He has been solid as a rock in his support. It must be extremely difficult and draining to have to be "on" for the media all the time. One might say he chose this role and has only himself to blame, but I don't see it that way. Marriott probably figured - and rightly so -that he was the best advocate for his daughter. Edda is highly emotive; Chris has trouble controlling his anger; Deanna is simply too young (and so makes statements like "they went after her because she's American"). As for Edda's family members (Janet Huff, Christine Hagge), they are pretty ineffective when it comes to discussing the case, and have generally stuck to lines like "there's no evidence". Curt Knox was the only viable candidate and his efforts have been unflagging.

As for his job status, some were asking yesterday if he had left his job or been laid off. It is my understanding that Macy's drastically downsized its back office/administrative operations in Seattle and that Curt Knox, like just about everyone else, was given his walking papers. It has nothing to do with this case. The recession is in full swing here and there have been many lay-offs. I feel tremendous sympathy for Curt Knox and anyone who has lost his or her job because employers are cutting costs. On the other hand, maybe he feels that at least it happened at a time when his preoccupations lie elsewhere. Can you imagine trying to hold down a demanding job and do what he has been doing for months and months?


Yes, I agree with your points. He does come off as a decent guy to me and I do feel sympathy for him. While, as 411 pointed out the other day, his grief is not comparable to that of the Kerchers (who have experienced the worst grief a parent can experience), it nonetheless can't be easy to try to deal with the situation in which he has found himself. It is *possible* (just theorizing here, people!) that he was a decent father, that Amanda was generally a decent person but ended up in a drug-fueled psychological "perfect storm" that led to the murder, and that he is left bewildered by the mess and wanting to believe in his daughter's innocence.

I also hear you on the recession. As a resident of the very beautiful but currently very economically depressed state of Michigan, I'm seeing the effects of it every day on neighbors, friends, and even some family members. It's a scary state of affairs and I hope things begin to turn around soon, although I fear that they won't do so for a few more years yet.

_________________
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 Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:51 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

allsburg wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
Amanda wasn't born in the "FREE LOVE ERA" but she certainly acted like it. Humping every guy in her path, sex orgies and Charles Manson behavior raise her to the top of the class.

I think it would be irresponsible to only look at her behavior since she was arrested. What happened before is HUGE.


Look, I don't think this is an issue of the "puritans" versus the "hedonists." I've got nothing against the hedonists, or hedonism in general. I think it's great if young people want to go off and have fun. And I don't think there's anything in Amanda's past that rises much above the level of fun - including the party, at which unidentified people may have thrown an unknown number of rocks under unknown circumstances. Hell, I've done far worse in my past - and I'd find it ridiculous if that stuff came to light while I was on trial for murder.

This party - and Amanda's hedonism - are red herrings. Distractions. I don't think Amanda's guilty because she had sex with a bunch of guys. (I don't really know where you get the orgies - heck, at my former school they used to have "naked parties" in the dorms, but they weren't orgies. And the 'Charles Manson' behavior? Seriously? What is that?) No, I think Amanda is guilty because her story is implausible, changed three times, doesn't sync up with the physical evidence, she's got blood mixed with Meredith's at the scene, and at least one bloody footprint.

Sex just shouldn't have anything to do with it. It doesn't have to.


Yes, excellent point about the red herrings. It's the forensic evidence and the changing stories post-murder that are the significant evidence in this case. THOSE are the reasons that I highly suspect her guilt.

_________________
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 Jumpy


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:27 pm

Posts: 231

Location: US

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:06 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

"Did you see anything else? Did you see the rock?"

"I didn't see the rock. I saw that there was the computer on the tab-- No!
The camera was on the table.
I saw that the things were still there. I
didn't see the rock."


Uh oh! This doesn't go with her saying the computer was on the table. Looks like they tripped her up here too.

I love when she basically admits that the burglary was not a burglary!
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:21 pm   Post subject: Seattle Police Report   

SEATTLE POLICE REPORT TiCKET SHOWING ADDRESS OF INCIDENT

The state of Washington has cracked down on underage drinking parties. If you are a parent whose "home is hosting a party" for your underage kid to celebrate for instance, their graduation, YOU as the parent are responsible.

Maybe it's just me, but if I am the hostess of a party where alcohol is served, I take this task VERY seriously! To the point that I consider it a job and huge responsibility to not only see that everyone has a nice time, but also to keep an eye on those who might "over imbibe" or get a bit out of hand.

Since Amanda Knox was the "underage" host of that party where alcohol was served (who supplied the alcohol?) to underage partygoers and rocks were thrown at passing cars, SHE was responsible for her guests who misbehaved. Bottom line. I don't believe for a second that she didn't know about the rock throwing. The property isn't that big!

And, for the record this incident is much differnt from receiving a parking ticket in Seattle. For starters, parking tickets are left on your windshield because you have overstayed your welcome and paid parking time in a parking spot! You are usually NOT there or spoken to by the parking enforcement people!

As you all are aware, I personally went down to the SPD back in February in quest of this report. I was told it was unavailable - I believe some strings were pulled as it was available early on. As we can see from the actual copy of the report posted in the link, the PI acquired the report on November 7, 2007.

I also did some research on the neighborhood where this ocurred. Remember Goofy/Mellas kept saying "good luck talking to any neighbors, as they are all student rental houses?" Not so. There are at least 4 neighbors that have lived in and owned their homes for many years. Other homes in the area are indeed rentals.

It is the "long time owner neighbors" that most likely called the police and were afraid of retaliation, so they wanted not to be identified. I think this is huge! Think about this for a moment. Are any of YOUR neighbors AFRAID of you? Good Grief. If the students in Knox's household were "good" kids, you'd think the neighbors would have strolled over and had a stern chat, wouldn't they? Since Knox was at the end of her tenancy at that house, was this type of behavior ongoing so the neighbors had seen it before? And this party with the rock throwing was the final straw? Had Knox been "warned before?"

Anyway, you all know how hot I've been for this report! I'm glad it's out - all the "Goofies" have given me a lot of shit over the past few months telling me it didn't exist. It indeed does.

I wonder what additional information is on the "see Cad event 264012 for further" part of the citation?

Is there more that we're not seeing?

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Last edited by Tara on Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
...While the details of the ticket wouldn't be admissible here as part of a murder prosecution...


Quite apart from admissibility, I doubt whether a prosecutor would even enter such evidence for fear that a jury would find it insulting to their intelligence.

If your objective is to try and prove a defendent is not a goody two shoes, and the worst thing you can say about her is she once attended a party where someone *else* *might* have thrown a rock, then, in effect, I would think in most people's book you will have just confirmed that the defendent must actually *be* a goody two shoes.

In my mind, the only thing impeached by raising this is the credibility of the prosecutor.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Amanda doesn't remember the 12:47 call to her mother. So when she is talking about the "first call", it would be the one with "the foot".

Brian S. wrote:
Maresca asks, why go to the cottage for a shower when the heating is turned off? He questions even if she had a shower because her hair looks greasy in the pics from that afternoon. etc. etc.
Does that mean she had a cold shower that morning? No, I don't believe that.



Could one of our translators do a better job on this paragraph of a comment made by Maresca in Il Messagero(link above)


E poi ci sono altri elementi che non convincono l’avvocato e la famiglia:«Perchè andare a fare la doccia a casa sua, dove non c’era nessuno e il riscaldamento era spento e non farla a casa di Raffaele? E poi, quella doccia, l’ha fatta veramente?», si chiede l’avvocato Maresca, riferendosi alle foto scattate ad Amanda e Raffaele davanti alla casa del delitto, il giorno dell’omicidio: Amanda ha i capelli in disordine ed è spettinata. Solo un effetto fotografico o quella doccia, in realtà, non è mai stata fatta?
«Amanda è stata bravissima ed è stata ben preparata dagli avvocati ma non ci ha convinto», conclude l’avvocato Maresca.

Google translation:
" And then there are other elements that do not convince the lawyer and the family: 'Why go and take a shower at his home, where there was none and the heating was turned off and not have it at home by Raffaele? And then, one shower, he really done? "Asks the lawyer Maresca, referring to pictures taken with Raffaele and Amanda in front of the house of the crime, the day the murder: Amanda has her hair in disorder, and is vested . Just a photo or shower, in fact, has never been made?

Did Amanda have a shower and wash her hair in cold water


It was cold in Perugia over the days of early Nov 2007.

Amanda said she found the door open so the cottage won't have been warm.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: Seattle Police Report   

Tara wrote:

Since Amanda Knox was the "underage" host of that party where alcohol was served (who supplied the alcohol?) to underage partygoers and rocks were thrown at passing cars, SHE was responsible for her guests who misbehaved.


We will have to agree to disagree on this point. :) I'm just not a fan of "imputed liability" theories. And there is simply no proof that the alleged "rock throwers" were underage drinkers. Maybe they were just irresponsible/dangerous adult idiots. I just remember how things used to work in college - a person would host a party, maybe telling 20 or so friends about it, and it would spread like wildfire by word of mouth --- and people the host/hostess had never met in their LIVES would show up. I don't know enough about the specific incident to say for sure, but it's *possible* you may be overstating the ability of Amanda to control a houseful of young adults.

_________________
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 Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:29 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

lane99 wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
...While the details of the ticket wouldn't be admissible here as part of a murder prosecution...


Quite apart from admissibility, I doubt whether a prosecutor would even enter such evidence for fear that a jury would find it insulting to their intelligence.

If your objective is to try and prove a defendent is not a goody two shoes, and the worst thing you can say about her is she once attended a party where someone *else* *might* have thrown a rock, then, in effect, I would think in most people's book you will have just confirmed that the defendent must actually *be* a goody two shoes.

In my mind, the only thing impeached by raising this is the credibility of the prosecutor.


Lane99, Amanda Knox was the HOST of the party.

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:32 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

lane99 wrote:
If your objective is to try and prove a defendent is not a goody two shoes, and the worst thing you can say about her is she once attended a party where someone *else* *might* have thrown a rock, then, in effect, I would think in most people's book you will have just confirmed that the defendent must actually *be* a goody two shoes.

In my mind, the only thing impeached by raising this is the credibility of the prosecutor.


A small correction in that I think she was actually the hostess of the party and not just an attendee. But I see the point you're making. :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 allsburg


Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:43 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Tara wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
...While the details of the ticket wouldn't be admissible here as part of a murder prosecution...


Quite apart from admissibility, I doubt whether a prosecutor would even enter such evidence for fear that a jury would find it insulting to their intelligence.

If your objective is to try and prove a defendent is not a goody two shoes, and the worst thing you can say about her is she once attended a party where someone *else* *might* have thrown a rock, then, in effect, I would think in most people's book you will have just confirmed that the defendent must actually *be* a goody two shoes.

In my mind, the only thing impeached by raising this is the credibility of the prosecutor.


Lane99, Amanda Knox was the HOST of the party.


Good lord, what does that mean? The only way that's significant to me is that, if she's the host of the party, she's probably too busy making sure things are going alright inside the house to have any idea what some idiots are doing in the front yard.

And even if she herself was out there throwing rocks, who cares?? Unless you can give me some statistical evidence to show that people who throw rocks at loud parties are more likely to commit violent murders, then it's irrelevant and only meant to inflame the passions of prudes (sorry to put it bluntly).

It's a red herring. I agree with Lane99 - if a prosecutor were making this argument to me, I'd think he was insulting my intelligence. Stick with the forensic evidence and the defendants' credibility problems. If you want to impugn someone's character with prior bad acts that would make that person's guilt more likely, then you had better use something a whole lot more damning than a citation for a noisy party - rocks or no rocks.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline DLW


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:41 pm

Posts: 623

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:47 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

From the blogoshere:

‘Meanwhile, Curt Knox, the father of American , last night was host to Matrix on Channel 5 to talk about her daughter. 'It is a university girl, normal and loving "- Curt Knox said good-student, who plays a football ". He also expressed his confidence in the Italian legal system: "It seems that the judge is really trying to get to the truth. The Italian legal system is different from the U.S., but I'm sure Amanda will have a fair trial." Finally he explained that after the murder of his daughter Mez could go home "but said he wanted to remain in Italy to help the police to discover the author of the crime." An attitude which, in man, demonstrates the strangeness of Amanda to murder.’

OK , looks like Curt is saying that after Amanda is released from prison that he would like to help the police to discover the real killers. Actually Curt would be a very good choice to help find the killers. It seems like he’s been interviewed on just about every other American article and talk show I’ve seen on this case. He has to be an expert of sorts. As my dad would say’ if he doesn’t know something, it’s not worth knowing”. They already caught Rudy so that’s a start so possibly they would still be looking for his helpers. The ones that held Meredith down while Rudy attacked Meredith, Also hung around for a while to help clean the place.. disrobe the body & rearrange it , break a window make it look like a robbery, and stuff like that. There’s also some footprints he may want to look at locate potential suspects. I don’t know if Curt will have any better luck, but it’s the thought that counts.

As far as this rock throwing party in Seattle that Amanda was at. That happened about 2 month’s prior to the murder. Amanda was most likely one of the lead organizers for this event. It was her place, and occurred because she was going to leave. Who sets up the music, calls their friends, make sure theirs enough beer, bed facilities, etc. The officer noted that there were rocks in the street. But I think he would have had a field day if he had entered the premise. Underage drinking? Corruption of minors? It must have been wild. But if it’s part Amanda’s place, somebody’s got to try to keep a lid on things. But if she was moving out, she probably didn’t care as much. But at any rate it may show that Amanda has an inclination or a natural ability to not only partake in party’s, but also to help originate them. Maybe even impromptu ones. Somebody has to make sure the girl’(s) shows up. What are a bunch of odd guy’s going to do?
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:57 pm   Post subject: Me, a prude? HA HA HA!   

Allsburg claimed:

"And even if she herself was out there throwing rocks, who cares?? Unless you can give me some statistical evidence to show that people who throw rocks at loud parties are more likely to commit violent murders, then it's irrelevant and only meant to inflame the passions of prudes (sorry to put it bluntly)."

Allsburg,

"Passions of Prudes" ! Now that's funny! Sounds like an old Jethro Tull song - oh, that was "A Passion Play".

The fact that this incident has been covered up by the FOA and Candace Dempsey all this time is intriguing.

Also, the fact that Amanda Knox herself compared it to a parking ticket in the courtroom this past weekend demonstrates she is not at all above "fudging the truth" to Judge Massei and the prosecutors.

I find it very telling.

P.S. Allsburg: A "prude" is the last thing that I am. :lol: I'm still laughing!!!

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:58 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

DLW posted:

Quote:
From the blogoshere:

‘Meanwhile, Curt Knox, the father of American , last night was host to Matrix on Channel 5 to talk about her daughter. 'It is a university girl, normal and loving "- Curt Knox said good-student, who plays a football ". He also expressed his confidence in the Italian legal system: "It seems that the judge is really trying to get to the truth. The Italian legal system is different from the U.S., but I'm sure Amanda will have a fair trial." Finally he explained that after the murder of his daughter Mez could go home "but said he wanted to remain in Italy to help the police to discover the author of the crime." An attitude which, in man, demonstrates the strangeness of Amanda to murder.’

OK , looks like Curt is saying that after Amanda is released from prison that he would like to help the police to discover the real killers. Actually Curt would be a very good choice to help find the killers. It seems like he’s been interviewed on just about every other American article and talk show I’ve seen on this case. He has to be an expert of sorts. As my dad would say’ if he doesn’t know something, it’s not worth knowing”. They already caught Rudy so that’s a start so possibly they would still be looking for his helpers. The ones that held Meredith down while Rudy attacked Meredith, Also hung around for a while to help clean the place.. disrobe the body & rearrange it , break a window make it look like a robbery, and stuff like that. There’s also some footprints he may want to look at locate potential suspects. I don’t know if Curt will have any better luck, but it’s the thought that counts.

As far as this rock throwing party in Seattle that Amanda was at. That happened about 2 month’s prior to the murder. Amanda was most likely one of the lead organizers for this event. It was her place, and occurred because she was going to leave. Who sets up the music, calls their friends, make sure theirs enough beer, bed facilities, etc. The officer noted that there were rocks in the street. But I think he would have had a field day if he had entered the premise. Underage drinking? Corruption of minors? It must have been wild. But if it’s part Amanda’s place, somebody’s got to try to keep a lid on things. But if she was moving out, she probably didn’t care as much. But at any rate it may show that Amanda has an inclination or a natural ability to not only partake in party’s, but also to help originate them. Maybe even impromptu ones. Somebody has to make sure the girl’(s) shows up. What are a bunch of odd guy’s going to do?



:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't know how you do it, DLW, but you find the most interesting things.

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

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

lane99 wrote:
If your objective is to try and prove a defendent is not a goody two shoes, and the worst thing you can say about her is she once attended a party where someone *else* *might* have thrown a rock, then, in effect, I would think in most people's book you will have just confirmed that the defendent must actually *be* a goody two shoes.

In my mind, the only thing impeached by raising this is the credibility of the prosecutor.


I disagree.
I do not think the credibility of the prosecutor was affected by this.
I do not think someone who holds a party where people throw rocks but does not throw a rock herself is then a “goody two shoes.”
I think throwing rocks at cars is dangerous, whether you're drunk, sober, hosting, a guest, a kid, an adult, a degenerate ape.
IMHO, as an American, I like the idea of previous instances being allowed in court. I like this broad view of a human being: that our characters are made up of an ongoing string of instances rather than some isolated bubble of behavior. It makes a lot of sense to me. You look at the novel of a person rather than just the last chapter.
OT: the phrase “goody two shoes” needs a vacation. Maybe it’ll come back as a goody one shoe or goody flip flops. Maybe it can take "prude" with it too.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Shirley wrote:
lane99 wrote:
If your objective is to try and prove a defendent is not a goody two shoes, and the worst thing you can say about her is she once attended a party where someone *else* *might* have thrown a rock, then, in effect, I would think in most people's book you will have just confirmed that the defendent must actually *be* a goody two shoes.

In my mind, the only thing impeached by raising this is the credibility of the prosecutor.


I disagree.
I do not think the credibility of the prosecutor was affected by this.
I do not think someone who holds a party where people throw rocks but does not throw a rock herself is then a “goody two shoes.”
I think throwing rocks at cars is dangerous, whether you're drunk, sober, hosting, a guest, a kid, an adult, a degenerate ape.
IMHO, as an American, I like the idea of previous instances being allowed in court. I like this broad view of a human being: that our characters are made up of an ongoing string of instances rather than some isolated bubble of behavior. It makes a lot of sense to me. You look at the novel of a person rather than just the last chapter.
OT: the phrase “goody two shoes” needs a vacation. Maybe it’ll come back as a goody one shoe or goody flip flops. Maybe it can take "prude" with it too.


I don't think anyone would argue with you that throwing rocks at cars is dangerous. A rock can be just as deadly as, say, the "lead pipe" in the board game "Clue." :) I think the dispute centers around whether this rock-throwing should be imputed to Amanda.

As far as the admission of prior bad acts in court: I respect your view, but I also greatly respect the opposite view, i.e., the idea that people should not be judged based on past behavior but instead be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether they have "changed their spots," so to speak. (That's not to say that prior bad acts are never admissible in a U.S. court --- they are, but their admissibility is subject to very strict rules and guidelines so as to prevent improper "character" inferences --- i.e., inferences that "because A did X in the past, A is likely to have done Y." I'm using the term "improper" because that is how the inferences would be viewed in the legal sense.)

_________________
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 Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:16 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Tara wrote:

Quote:
Allsburg claimed:

"And even if she herself was out there throwing rocks, who cares?? Unless you can give me some statistical evidence to show that people who throw rocks at loud parties are more likely to commit violent murders, then it's irrelevant and only meant to inflame the passions of prudes (sorry to put it bluntly)."

Allsburg,

"Passions of Prudes" ! Now that's funny! Sounds like an old Jethro Tull song - oh, that was "A Passion Play".

The fact that this incident has been covered up by the FOA and Candace Dempsey all this time is intriguing.

Also, the fact that Amanda Knox herself compared it to a parking ticket in the courtroom this past weekend demonstrates she is not at all above "fudging the truth" to Judge Massei and the prosecutors.

I find it very telling.

P.S. Allsburg: A "prude" is the last thing that I am. I'm still laughing!!!


I hope and yet seriously doubt this will put an end to the debate, but here goes. I agree with Allsburg and others that by itself this is irrelevant, except insofar as it was possibly introduced to show that Knox had a propensity for involvement in wild parties. So what? If that makes someone a murderer then I'm surprised nobody has locked me up for any number of unsolved homicides. I have been to my share of wild parties in my youth and even hosted one or two. Once somebody who came to a party I hosted at my parents' house (they were away) burned their dog's ear with a lit joint. Heavens to Mergatroid!

However, I would concede that it is at least intriguing that this incident was denied and hidden for so long by CM and Co. They could have made it a non-issue in the blogosphere by simply publishing the report. Yet once again they chose to prevaricate. I was not waiting for this incident to decide how trustworthy CM is (Italian cops mistake yoga moves for cartwheels, anyone?).

As far as I am concerned, this incident probably has no bearing on the case. It is a red herring. But it does raise a valid question about character and behavior. Let's take the case of Rudy Guede. He had no criminal record, despite insistent "postings" in the blogosphere to the contrary. According to an anecdotal story "scooped" by Frank and thrown out by Judge Micheli, Rudy slipped in through an open window one night but left when "Christian" - who knew Rudy - confronted him. Christian did not file charges against RG. RG was found sleeping in a kindergarten one night, and had taken a knife from the kitchen of the school for protection. The cops took away the knife and sent RG on his way. Do either of these anecdotes tell us anything significant about Guede's behavior or character? Do they strengthen the case against him in any way?

Guede has no past history of sexual assault either. Anecdotal, off-the-record statements (most if not all made by Zach Nowack) suggest he "bugged" girls. I think this is how young males learn to court young females. Does it point to a propensity for violence of the sort perpetrated on Meredith Kercher?

Finally, what about Raffaele. He collects knives and is into violent Manga. He and his friends got pulled over by the cops while in the possession of a fairly significant amount of cannabis. Do his drug use, knife collecting and fascination with violent Japanese comics have any bearing on this case? Should we take them into account or discard them as irrelevant?

With regard to all three suspects, are partying or pot smoking more or less relevant than getting good grades or playing basketball? I'm not asking a legal question here. I'm wondering aloud.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

DLW wrote:

OK , looks like Curt is saying that after Amanda is released from prison that he would like to help the police to discover the real killers.


I propose that he somehow try to contact and receive pointers from O.J. Simpson, who apparently has been diligently searching for the real killers of Nicole and Ron for the last decade or 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
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:28 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I hope and yet seriously doubt this will put an end to the debate, but here goes.


Aw, c'mon Skep - debating's fun! :lol: Seriously, though, that's what makes this forum, and life itself, interesting --- we all have different viewpoints and opinions we bring to the table.


Skeptical Bystander wrote:


I agree with Allsburg and others that by itself this is irrelevant, except insofar as it was possibly introduced to show that Knox had a propensity for involvement in wild parties. So what? If that makes someone a murderer then I'm surprised nobody has locked me up for any number of unsolved homicides.



: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 Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:32 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:

Quote:
DLW wrote:

OK , looks like Curt is saying that after Amanda is released from prison that he would like to help the police to discover the real killers.


I propose that he somehow try to contact and receive pointers from O.J. Simpson, who apparently has been diligently searching for the real killers of Nicole and Ron for the last decade or so.


I suggest he and OJ look no further than my well-documented party years. c-)) pf-))

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:35 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:

Quote:
DLW wrote:

OK , looks like Curt is saying that after Amanda is released from prison that he would like to help the police to discover the real killers.


I propose that he somehow try to contact and receive pointers from O.J. Simpson, who apparently has been diligently searching for the real killers of Nicole and Ron for the last decade or so.


I suggest he and OJ look no further than my well-documented party years. c-)) pf-))



Stoppppppppppppp!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :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 Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:37 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Tara wrote:

Quote:
Allsburg claimed:

"And even if she herself was out there throwing rocks, who cares?? Unless you can give me some statistical evidence to show that people who throw rocks at loud parties are more likely to commit violent murders, then it's irrelevant and only meant to inflame the passions of prudes (sorry to put it bluntly)."

Allsburg,

"Passions of Prudes" ! Now that's funny! Sounds like an old Jethro Tull song - oh, that was "A Passion Play".

The fact that this incident has been covered up by the FOA and Candace Dempsey all this time is intriguing.

Also, the fact that Amanda Knox herself compared it to a parking ticket in the courtroom this past weekend demonstrates she is not at all above "fudging the truth" to Judge Massei and the prosecutors.

I find it very telling.

P.S. Allsburg: A "prude" is the last thing that I am. I'm still laughing!!!


I hope and yet seriously doubt this will put an end to the debate, but here goes. I agree with Allsburg and others that by itself this is irrelevant, except insofar as it was possibly introduced to show that Knox had a propensity for involvement in wild parties. So what? If that makes someone a murderer then I'm surprised nobody has locked me up for any number of unsolved homicides. I have been to my share of wild parties in my youth and even hosted one or two. Once somebody who came to a party I hosted at my parents' house (they were away) burned their dog's ear with a lit joint. Heavens to Mergatroid!

However, I would concede that it is at least intriguing that this incident was denied and hidden for so long by CM and Co. They could have made it a non-issue in the blogosphere by simply publishing the report. Yet once again they chose to prevaricate. I was not waiting for this incident to decide how trustworthy CM is (Italian cops mistake yoga moves for cartwheels, anyone?).

As far as I am concerned, this incident probably has no bearing on the case. It is a red herring. But it does raise a valid question about character and behavior. Let's take the case of Rudy Guede. He had no criminal record, despite insistent "postings" in the blogosphere to the contrary. According to an anecdotal story "scooped" by Frank and thrown out by Judge Micheli, Rudy slipped in through an open window one night but left when "Christian" - who knew Rudy - confronted him. Christian did not file charges against RG. RG was found sleeping in a kindergarten one night, and had taken a knife from the kitchen of the school for protection. The cops took away the knife and sent RG on his way. Do either of these anecdotes tell us anything significant about Guede's behavior or character? Do they strengthen the case against him in any way?

Guede has no past history of sexual assault either. Anecdotal, off-the-record statements (most if not all made by Zach Nowack) suggest he "bugged" girls. I think this is how young males learn to court young females. Does it point to a propensity for violence of the sort perpetrated on Meredith Kercher?

Finally, what about Raffaele. He collects knives and is into violent Manga. He and his friends got pulled over by the cops while in the possession of a fairly significant amount of cannabis. Do his drug use, knife collecting and fascination with violent Japanese comics have any bearing on this case? Should we take them into account or discard them as irrelevant?

With regard to all three suspects, are partying or pot smoking more or less relevant than getting good grades or playing basketball? I'm not asking a legal question here. I'm wondering aloud.


Ack. I don't know what happened to my original answer. I'll try to remember what I wrote, perhaps more concisely.

I think these things like pot smoking or playing basketball are details within a context. They are perhaps less relevant, or irrelevant, in a legal context...but in a larger context- say the overall story of what happened that night, how, why- then, perhaps they are merely another tile in the mosaic. A bit of red, or blue, in the corner of the painting. They don't necessarily explain anything or mean anything or point to anything, at all, but they are part of the picture.


Last edited by Shirley on Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:40 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

On the alleged rock throwing incident in Seattle. It occurs to me, from a psychological point of view, the prosecution want the thought of 'rocks' to be very much in the mind of the judges. Repetition helps do that and the raising of events that contain the same theme can cause mental links to be made on a subliminal level. Of course, the prosecution don't want to focus on rock throwing in Seattle and really, they only spent a minute or two on it out of many, many hours anyway. But they certainly want the judges to be thinking about rocks. Especially that pesky little 4 1/2 K one in Filomena's room ;)

_________________
"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 mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Professor Snape wrote:
stint7 wrote:
Thanks Mr Curt Knox...Verbatim quote:
Yes, but it’s one in which I think every young person, as they grow up, experimented in certain things, and it’s one in which she’s becoming an adult,” Curt Knox said. “Everybody has their own opinion, but I believe she came off as really who she is, which is just a regular college kid.”


What an insult to those of us who did go to college, actually studied, behaved maturely in social situations and limited our intimate adventures to those people we fell in love with. The world is full of intelligent, educated and responsible people. Unfortunately there are many others who lack both education and social grace; a strong showing of these people reside in the lower class neighborhoods of Seattle.

cl-) "Meet the FOAKers."

I challenge any one of those circus clowns to come forward and declare their education status.
I would like to know where they teach such crap.

It wasn't enough they make an ass out of themselves to the citizens of Seattle, a true embarrasment. Now, they are dragging the whole country down with them. It's a "no-brainer" their actions will severely backfire on them. Once Edda takes the stand all hell is going to break out and Amanda will be sunk. "Oh, but Amanda, if you had not called me honey I would not be in this position."


Well, as someone who sometimes feels like I was born in the "wrong era" (I was born too late to be a part of the free-love flower-child movement :lol: ), I do have to take a bit of exception to some of the characterizations of Amanda's pre-murder life and behavior. I mean, there's certainly nothing wrong with two adults having sex when they're not in love, so long as they're both consenting and both being safe about it. (And maybe AK wasn't being safe - I don't know.) And not everyone is "good" at social graces - especially people in their 20s who are basically just learning about the world and about themselves and how they fit into it.

I actually don't see Amanda's pre-murder behavior as much of an issue. It's her "during-murder" and "after-murder" behavior that I have a huge problem with. ;)



Sorry, I've seen the consequences of the free love era and am not too impressed. In addition, when either males or females use sex as a power ploy, it can be very dangerous. This is why love and compassion are necessary to physical intimacy; it prevents one from "using" the other person or seeing others as a tool for one's own gratification. But that's just me...and I am a self-confessed prude by modern standards. I have no idea how the Italians view sexual freedom in females, but even if they are quite liberal about it, I doubt they would still think too highly of the form of easy sex AK practiced, nor with AK having a sexual relationship with one guy and going out and having sex with another guy at the same time, as I think has been alledged (maybe I have this wrong, though). That's just "not nice."
Plus, the whole vibrator thing...that's just yucky, indecent, crude, porn star behavior...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline allsburg


Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:46 pm

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:47 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
I hope and yet seriously doubt this will put an end to the debate, but here goes. I agree with Allsburg and others that by itself this is irrelevant, except insofar as it was possibly introduced to show that Knox had a propensity for involvement in wild parties. So what? If that makes someone a murderer then I'm surprised nobody has locked me up for any number of unsolved homicides. I have been to my share of wild parties in my youth and even hosted one or two. Once somebody who came to a party I hosted at my parents' house (they were away) burned their dog's ear with a lit joint. Heavens to Mergatroid!

However, I would concede that it is at least intriguing that this incident was denied and hidden for so long by CM and Co. They could have made it a non-issue in the blogosphere by simply publishing the report. Yet once again they chose to prevaricate. I was not waiting for this incident to decide how trustworthy CM is (Italian cops mistake yoga moves for cartwheels, anyone?).

As far as I am concerned, this incident probably has no bearing on the case. It is a red herring. But it does raise a valid question about character and behavior. Let's take the case of Rudy Guede. He had no criminal record, despite insistent "postings" in the blogosphere to the contrary. According to an anecdotal story "scooped" by Frank and thrown out by Judge Micheli, Rudy slipped in through an open window one night but left when "Christian" - who knew Rudy - confronted him. Christian did not file charges against RG. RG was found sleeping in a kindergarten one night, and had taken a knife from the kitchen of the school for protection. The cops took away the knife and sent RG on his way. Do either of these anecdotes tell us anything significant about Guede's behavior or character? Do they strengthen the case against him in any way?

Guede has no past history of sexual assault either. Anecdotal, off-the-record statements (most if not all made by Zach Nowack) suggest he "bugged" girls. I think this is how young males learn to court young females. Does it point to a propensity for violence of the sort perpetrated on Meredith Kercher?

Finally, what about Raffaele. He collects knives and is into violent Manga. He and his friends got pulled over by the cops while in the possession of a fairly significant amount of cannabis. Do his drug use, knife collecting and fascination with violent Japanese comics have any bearing on this case? Should we take them into account or discard them as irrelevant?

With regard to all three suspects, are partying or pot smoking more or less relevant than getting good grades or playing basketball? I'm not asking a legal question here. I'm wondering aloud.


I get what you are saying, and I guess I have to agree. There can be some relevance to reports of prior acts, and I think the key question is, what is the context of evidence? Evidence of a fascination with knives is clearly relevant (but not dispositive) to the murder (by knife) of someone. If it were discovered that RS was obsessed with a Hentai comic that depicts events very similar to MK's murder, yes, that would be relevant.

My problem with the citation is that there is far too little context. Throwing rocks? Might be dangerous - it depends. Dropping bricks from a freeway overpass? You may be a psychopath. Chucking pebbles at cars traveling 10 miles an hour down an empty residential street? You may need to get a life. Too many questions here. Was Amanda throwing rocks? Did she even know about it? Were they pebbles or bricks? A highway or a street? How many - one or a hundred? Given the lack of context, I think that this is a non-issue. And, contrary to Tara's point, I do think it's the equivalent of a speeding ticket. She wasn't cited for rocks, or for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She was cited for a noise violation. The other circumstances of the evening - unless you want to start speculating - are just impossible to know. Taken on its face, it seems weak.

I think she's guilty of murder, but I'm not interested in demonizing AK. It seems that there are a lot of people around who want to believe that there's something inherent in in being a murderer, something preexisting in a person's psyche that sets them apart from others and makes them capable of killing. I haven't known many murderers, but I've met enough to learn that this is a simplistic view of humanity.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:48 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skep wrote:
Finally, what about Raffaele. He collects knives and is into violent Manga. He and his friends got pulled over by the cops while in the possession of a fairly significant amount of cannabis. Do his drug use, knife collecting and fascination with violent Japanese comics have any bearing on this case? Should we take them into account or discard them as irrelevant?


Not to mention his interest in extreme pornography, his costume of choice for dressing up involving holding a meat cleaver and bottle of bleach and of course, his interest in serial killers, being a fan of one in particular. Then of course, there is also the situation where, before the murder happened, his father felt that he needed to monitor him to the point of being creepy.

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


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

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:55 pm   Post subject: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
From AK's testimony, in answer to a question about her first call to her mother:

The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was
like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.

So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.

It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't
know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first.

Later, many other people arrived.

It is clear from these words that Raffaele's calls to his sister and 112, which came at 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54, were made after the arrival of the postal police. AK has just confirmed this. The call she and the prosecutor are referring to is her 12:47 call.


No, I don't think that's right, Skep. The prosecutor is referring to the 1247 call, but she's talking about the next one - the one at 1324.

Actually, I think that this 1247 call is a very big problem for Amanda and a very big clue as to what really happened. Maybe it might be better to wait until after Edda's testimony before saying anything further.

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Plus, the whole vibrator thing...that's just yucky, indecent, crude, porn star behavior...


If you mean keeping the vibrator out in the open for all to see, I agree --- that's tacky behavior. But I can chalk that one up to immaturity. I think we all need to keep in mind that we're talking about a 20-year-old here --- in my experience, 20-year-olds are basically just "figuring things out" about the world and probably shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone in their 30s or 40s. Just IMO!

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:01 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

allsburg wrote:


I think she's guilty of murder, but I'm not interested in demonizing AK. It seems that there are a lot of people around who want to believe that there's something inherent in in being a murderer, something preexisting in a person's psyche that sets them apart from others and makes them capable of killing. I haven't known many murderers, but I've met enough to learn that this is a simplistic view of humanity.


Astute observation there. That is along the lines of what I am thinking --- I'm wondering if people are viewing AK's pre-murder actions through the lens of what happened later and therefore assigning a deeper, darker meaning to things than they possibly merit.

Maybe she is and always has been a sociopath and her earlier actions are related to this --- I don't know --- but for me, personally, I don't see AK's pre-murder behavior as particularly relevant. (Although it is certainly interesting to discuss.)

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:

But that's just me...and I am a self-confessed prude by modern standards.


Yeah, it pretty much just comes down to personal philosophies. But that's the very reason I don't particularly want to judge AK for pre-murder personal and sexual decisions that, at least from the outside, don't appear to have been harmful.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:10 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Allsburg wrote:

Quote:
I get what you are saying, and I guess I have to agree. There can be some relevance to reports of prior acts, and I think the key question is, what is the context of evidence? Evidence of a fascination with knives is clearly relevant (but not dispositive) to the murder (by knife) of someone. If it were discovered that RS was obsessed with a Hentai comic that depicts events very similar to MK's murder, yes, that would be relevant.

My problem with the citation is that there is far too little context. Throwing rocks? Might be dangerous - it depends. Dropping bricks from a freeway overpass? You may be a psychopath. Chucking pebbles at cars traveling 10 miles an hour down an empty residential street? You may need to get a life. Too many questions here. Was Amanda throwing rocks? Did she even know about it? Were they pebbles or bricks? A highway or a street? How many - one or a hundred? Given the lack of context, I think that this is a non-issue. And, contrary to Tara's point, I do think it's the equivalent of a speeding ticket. She wasn't cited for rocks, or for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She was cited for a noise violation. The other circumstances of the evening - unless you want to start speculating - are just impossible to know. Taken on its face, it seems weak.

I think she's guilty of murder, but I'm not interested in demonizing AK. It seems that there are a lot of people around who want to believe that there's something inherent in in being a murderer, something preexisting in a person's psyche that sets them apart from others and makes them capable of killing. I haven't known many murderers, but I've met enough to learn that this is a simplistic view of humanity.


I think we are on the same page, Allsburg. In and of itself, and had her roommate not been murdered under mysterious but very violent circumstances, AK's excellent rock-throwing adventure would be totally irrelevant. Between the FOA version (she was the only one sober enough to deal with the police) and the tabloid version (debauchery of a level only seen in the worst pulp fiction) lies a reality that is probably fairly benign. Had someone been seriously hurt or accidentally killed, then the benign aspect goes out the window. But that is counter-factual. And in the end probably not relevant.

I like the way Shirley put it above. These details are interesting as parts in a mosaic, but not as direct items of evidence. However, I would say that if character witnesses are allowed for all suspects and they have nothing but dithyrambic praisees to sing, then we have to also make room for less flattering events if they contradict the picture being painted and shed light on what is being claimed.

I guess the danger lies in painting someone, anyone, as being all good or all bad. In reality, people are generally good and bad, or at least do good things and on occasion bad things as well. Nobody tells the truth 100% of the time -- at least I hope not.

I also agree with you about demonizing AK or anyone else for that matter and about the question of a pre-existing propensity for growing up to be a murderer. I don't believe there is any such thing, any more than I believe that certain people are not capable of murder because of the way they look or the way they were brought up. If only it were so simple.

Finally, we had some discussion of the kinds of violent BD that Sollecito fancied. I thought there was one in particular on his bedside table that depicted a rather gruesome scene of a ritual killing. Can anyone confirm?

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

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:14 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
Finally, what about Raffaele. He collects knives and is into violent Manga. He and his friends got pulled over by the cops while in the possession of a fairly significant amount of cannabis. Do his drug use, knife collecting and fascination with violent Japanese comics have any bearing on this case? Should we take them into account or discard them as irrelevant?


Not to mention his interest in extreme pornography, his costume of choice for dressing up involving holding a meat cleaver and bottle of bleach and of course, his interest in serial killers, being a fan of one in particular. Then of course, there is also the situation where, before the murder happened, his father felt that he needed to monitor him to the point of being creepy.


Yeah, that's why I'm wondering (just a possible theory!) whether he might have been the ringleader/initiator, with Amanda and RG going along with things that he had set in motion.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Finn wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
From AK's testimony, in answer to a question about her first call to her mother:

The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was
like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.

So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.

It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't
know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first.
Later, many other people arrived.

It is clear from these words that Raffaele's calls to his sister and 112, which came at 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54, were made after the arrival of the postal police. AK has just confirmed this. The call she and the prosecutor are referring to is her 12:47 call.


No, I don't think that's right, Skep. The prosecutor is referring to the 1247 call, but she's talking about the next one - the one at 1324.

Actually, I think that this 1247 call is a very big problem for Amanda and a very big clue as to what really happened. Maybe it might be better to wait until after Edda's testimony before saying anything further.


That's interesting, Finn, and it makes sense. In other words, and these are my last on the subject until we know more, AK claims she doesn't remember the 12:47 call she made. In fact, she doesn't mention it in the play-by-play email of Nov 4.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:16 pm   Post subject: Re: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
From AK's testimony, in answer to a question about her first call to her mother:

The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was
like this [probably mimes shaking], I sat on the ground, and I called my mother.

So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.

It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don't
know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first.

Later, many other people arrived.

It is clear from these words that Raffaele's calls to his sister and 112, which came at 12:50, 12:51 and 12:54, were made after the arrival of the postal police. AK has just confirmed this. The call she and the prosecutor are referring to is her 12:47 call.


No, I don't think that's right, Skep. The prosecutor is referring to the 1247 call, but she's talking about the next one - the one at 1324.

Actually, I think that this 1247 call is a very big problem for Amanda and a very big clue as to what really happened. Maybe it might be better to wait until after Edda's testimony before saying anything further.



I think you're absolutely right Finn. I think further evidence of that is the fact that Sollecito's team via Bongiourno has seen fit to publicly weigh in on the specific issue of the forgotten phonecall to her mother, saying that it supports her (their) version of the truth - PERUGIA NEWS , yet Bongiourno felt the need to comment on that element of Knox's testimony only, remaining silent about everything else. The lady doth protest too much. Let's see what Edda says.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
Michael wrote:
Skep wrote:
Finally, what about Raffaele. He collects knives and is into violent Manga. He and his friends got pulled over by the cops while in the possession of a fairly significant amount of cannabis. Do his drug use, knife collecting and fascination with violent Japanese comics have any bearing on this case? Should we take them into account or discard them as irrelevant?


Not to mention his interest in extreme pornography, his costume of choice for dressing up involving holding a meat cleaver and bottle of bleach and of course, his interest in serial killers, being a fan of one in particular. Then of course, there is also the situation where, before the murder happened, his father felt that he needed to monitor him to the point of being creepy.


Yeah, that's why I'm wondering (just a possible theory!) whether he might have been the ringleader/initiator, with Amanda and RG going along with things that he had set in motion.


I can't see him as being a 'leader', but I can see him as being the source for certain...'imaginations/inspirations'...

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


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

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

FinnMacCool wrote:
Actually, I think that this 1247 call is a very big problem for Amanda and a very big clue as to what really happened. Maybe it might be better to wait until after Edda's testimony before saying anything further.


But Finn, we already know what her mother is going to testify about this phone call. She'll say that Amanda called her to say she just came home, she is ok, but she found strange things etc. and she [Edda] told her to hang up and call the police.
What additional information do you think she has that she hasn't told yet?
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Just for comparison, Raffaele's second version (given at the Nov 5/6 interrogation):
(from a Nov 7 news report, long before the Diary)

Mi ha chiesto se la cosa mi sembrava strana. Io gli ho risposto di sì e le ho consigliato di telefonare alle sue amiche. Lei
mi ha detto di aver telefonato a Filomena
(un'altra ragazza che abita nella casa dell'omicidio ndr), mentre ha detto che Meredith non rispondeva".
...

"Ho cercato di sfondare la porta ma non ci sono riuscito e a quel punto ho deciso di chiamare mia sorella e mi sono consigliato con lei perché è un tenente dei carabinieri. Mi ha detto di chiamare il 112, ma nel frattempo è arrivata la polizia postale. Nel precedente verbale vi ho riferito un sacco di cazzate perché lei mi aveva convinto della sua versione dei fatti e non ho pensato alle incongruenze"...


What's especially interesting is the parts I've marked there in bold. First, Raffaele is here claiming that he wasn't with Amanda when she made the calls to Filomena and to Meredith's phones. This flatly contradicts what Amanda said in her emails, and also what Amanda testified on Friday/Saturday.

Second, Raffaele here claims that he himself made the decision to call his sister following his failed attempt to open the door. This more or less chimes with Amanda's email (except that it leaves Amanda out of the attempt and the decision, making himself the sole agent of these actions).

But it is undermined by the phone records, which suggest a logical sequence from Amanda's call to Edda, followed by Raffaele's to Vanessa, followed by Raffaele's 112 call.

The phone records appear to confirm Edda Mellas's account, while contradicting the versions of Raffaele and Amanda.

Edda's testimony is going to be very interesting, this Friday.

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

Offline idahogirl


Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:32 pm

Posts: 1

Location: Boise, Idaho

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:33 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I am a first-time poster but I have been following this case since it happened, primarily because of regional interest (like AK, I also am from the Pacific Northwest). I have been enjoying reading the comments on this forum and truejustice.org, mostly because I appreciate everyone’s individual perceptions as they are so varying and independent. Further, they are presented in a manner that both honors and uplifts the memory of Meredith Kercher.

I have explored the PMF site endlessly, reading every bit of information I could and the one common thread I have noticed among the thousands of posts is related to how much alleged direct/indirect involvement AK had in this completely unnecessary, abhorrent crime. I’ve seen it written several times (in not so many words) – “while I am not sure to what degree AK was involved…” – and I find it intriguing.

For someone who was cowering in the kitchen or sleeping in her boyfriend’s bed while the crime occurred, and perhaps assisted only in the cleanup, isn’t plausible. "Rudy did it; I only helped cover it up. I don’t think so." We’re talking about blood and not a leaky kitchen pipe. Blood. Blood is one of the most powerful, haunting images employed in literature, film, and art because it is a stark reminder of our mortality. Rudy’s prison diary makes several references to this: “I’m not able to close my eyes without seeing red…there was only red, nothing else.” It is life and it is death. You can’t just clean up blood (as has obviously been proven by the Luminol). It is sticky and messy. Therefore, someone who was only partially involved in what happened to Meredith would not go to such lengths to ensure her involvement was not detected. She certainly wouldn’t have assisted in a cleanup for a boyfriend of a few weeks (the sex couldn't have been that good).

AK would not have entered a dark cottage that appeared to have been broken into; she wouldn’t have taken a cursory survey of the condition of each room; she wouldn’t have navigated through foreign blood; and, dear gawd, she certainly would not have made herself the most vulnerable by undressing. Only someone with intimate knowledge of the crime and crime scene would have done these asinine things. Only Amanda Knox.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:41 pm   Post subject: Re: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Actually, I think that this 1247 call is a very big problem for Amanda and a very big clue as to what really happened. Maybe it might be better to wait until after Edda's testimony before saying anything further.


But Finn, we already know what her mother is going to testify about this phone call. She'll say that Amanda called her to say she just came home, she is ok, but she found strange things etc. and she [Edda] told her to hang up and call the police.
What additional information do you think she has that she hasn't told yet?


I'm not expecting her to say anything different from that, Lancelotti - and in fact, I also think that's the truth. I think the prosecutors will ask her why she was surprised that Amanda had forgotten making that 1247 call. And again, I think she'll say what she's already said - that it seemed strange to get that call in the middle of the night, since nothing too serious had yet been discovered - but that she understands that Amanda forgot making that call because she must have been stressed with so many things happening at once.

That's what I'm expecting will probably happen, and there are many things that I think about that probable question-and-answer. But I think maybe I should wait till after she's said it, before making any other comment on it.

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

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:48 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Plus, the whole vibrator thing...that's just yucky, indecent, crude, porn star behavior...


If you mean keeping the vibrator out in the open for all to see, I agree --- that's tacky behavior. But I can chalk that one up to immaturity. I think we all need to keep in mind that we're talking about a 20-year-old here --- in my experience, 20-year-olds are basically just "figuring things out" about the world and probably shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone in their 30s or 40s. Just IMO!


Yes, keeping it out in the open and treating it like some kind of cute joke. I mean, clearly the women in the house were a little put-off by that, so it speaks for itself. It's the kind of Ugly American behavior I find offensive, not taking into consideration the personalities of others or cultural differences. I also think it's just a yucky device, sorry...the instrument of a guilty guilty pleasure, if ever there were one.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

idahogirl wrote:
I am a first-time poster but I have been following this case since it happened, primarily because of regional interest (like AK, I also am from the Pacific Northwest). I have been enjoying reading the comments on this forum and truejustice.org, mostly because I appreciate everyone’s individual perceptions as they are so varying and independent. Further, they are presented in a manner that both honors and uplifts the memory of Meredith Kercher.

I have explored the PMF site endlessly, reading every bit of information I could and the one common thread I have noticed among the thousands of posts is related to how much alleged direct/indirect involvement AK had in this completely unnecessary, abhorrent crime. I’ve seen it written several times (in not so many words) – “while I am not sure to what degree AK was involved…” – and I find it intriguing.

For someone who was cowering in the kitchen or sleeping in her boyfriend’s bed while the crime occurred, and perhaps assisted only in the cleanup, isn’t plausible. "Rudy did it; I only helped cover it up. I don’t think so." We’re talking about blood and not a leaky kitchen pipe. Blood. Blood is one of the most powerful, haunting images employed in literature, film, and art because it is a stark reminder of our mortality. Rudy’s prison diary makes several references to this: “I’m not able to close my eyes without seeing red…there was only red, nothing else.” It is life and it is death. You can’t just clean up blood (as has obviously been proven by the Luminol). It is sticky and messy. Therefore, someone who was only partially involved in what happened to Meredith would not go to such lengths to ensure her involvement was not detected. She certainly wouldn’t have assisted in a cleanup for a boyfriend of a few weeks (the sex couldn't have been that good).

AK would not have entered a dark cottage that appeared to have been broken into; she wouldn’t have taken a cursory survey of the condition of each room; she wouldn’t have navigated through foreign blood; and, dear gawd, she certainly would not have made herself the most vulnerable by undressing. Only someone with intimate knowledge of the crime and crime scene would have done these asinine things. Only Amanda Knox.


Welcome, Idahogirl. Interesting observations. I think it's *possible* (just a theory) that RS and RG were the main attackers and that AK was "just" threatening MK with a knife or something. (I'm using quotation marks around "just" because obviously that's a sick thing to do, but I'm trying to distinguish this act from the act of murder.) Then, when things got out of hand, she was freaked out that she would be blamed as an accomplice, possibly under the "failure to stop a crime" theory that Nicki was mentioning earlier today. Thus, she felt obligated to participate in the coverup and subsequently got herself into things even more deeply. This scenario would involve a *somewhat* lesser involvement on the part of AK (although probably not in the eyes of the law).

But I do agree with you that the idea of her only being in the kitchen or of her being asleep at RS's and only involved in the coverup is implausible.

_________________
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: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:40 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

From audio #4 (thanks Thoughtful!)

“Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black
lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of
the bed, was it yours?

I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

So the lamp was yours.

I suppose it was.

Was it missing from your room?

You know, I didn't look.

Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

I don't know.”

Then from audio #5
“Now, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele
tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that
sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now,
I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break
down the door to get back the lamp we talk about?

[Amanda, in a perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even
noticed it was missing. I tried--

You didn't see that it was missing?

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because
I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked.
I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see
if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside.
She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't
in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact
that the window was broken worried me. Someone could have taken something.”



The lamp is damning.
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
Actually, I think that this 1247 call is a very big problem for Amanda and a very big clue as to what really happened. Maybe it might be better to wait until after Edda's testimony before saying anything further.


But Finn, we already know what her mother is going to testify about this phone call. She'll say that Amanda called her to say she just came home, she is ok, but she found strange things etc. and she [Edda] told her to hang up and call the police.
What additional information do you think she has that she hasn't told yet?


In the John Follain The Times Interview with Edda and Curt exactly a year ago, Edda relays this information about the phone calls:

"She said she went to Sollecito’s flat, they had breakfast, then she took him to the cottage. Knox managed to call two of her three housemates: "I can’t get hold of Meredith. Meredith's door is locked. We tried to pound on the door to wake her and she’s not answering." Edda told her to call the police. There was no panic in Knox's voice, just worry. (Later, Edda asked Knox how she had felt then. "My mind didn’t jump to murder: it's not something that comes into my life experience,” she replied.)

Edda was sitting up in bed wide awake when Knox called less than an hour later. She heard shouting in the background as Knox burst out: "Oh my God, they’re screaming about a foot near the cupboard, the cops are screaming. I'm outside the house. I don't know what’s going on. I gotta go." She called back moments later – Edda says this time Knox was extremely agitated. She said: "It's not a foot, there's a body. They've found a body near the cupboard or in the cupboard, I can't make out which." Edda asked: "Who is it?" Knox replied: "I don't know, I haven't seen but no one can get hold of Meredith. It’s Meredith's room. I gotta go, the police want to talk to me.
"

I assume that the "additional information" you're wondering about would be Mignini wanting Edda to underline words from Amanda which emphasise her concern about Meredith, when in other communications (or contested words with Filomena about how it's normal for Meredith to lock her door), just the opposite sentiment is apparently expressed.
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:09 pm   Post subject: Re: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

FinnMacCool wrote:
That's what I'm expecting will probably happen, and there are many things that I think about that probable question-and-answer. But I think maybe I should wait till after she's said it, before making any other comment on it.

I am very curious what you are thinking about Finn, but I'll wait patiently for Edda to testify first. Very interesting!

Maybe she can testify that she heard the voices of two Italian men in the background. That would be helpful.:lol:
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:29 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Shirley wrote:
From audio #4 (thanks Thoughtful!)

“Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black
lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of
the bed, was it yours?

I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

So the lamp was yours.

I suppose it was.

Was it missing from your room?

You know, I didn't look.

Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

I don't know.”

Then from audio #5
“Now, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele
tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that
sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now,
I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break
down the door to get back the lamp we talk about?

[Amanda, in a perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even
noticed it was missing. I tried--

You didn't see that it was missing?

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because
I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked.
I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see
if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside.
She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't
in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact
that the window was broken worried me. Someone could have taken something.”



The lamp is damning.


The lamp being on the wrong room, and in particular Amanda's very vague recollection of it, is certainly something to ponder about. However, I'm not sure about the prosecution's argument that they tried to break down door to retrieve it. Surely in that scenario they would have been the ones to lock the door and it would be a simple matter to then unlock the door to remove the lamp?

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Maresca asks, why go to the cottage for a shower when the heating is turned off? He questions even if she had a shower because her hair looks greasy in the pics from that afternoon. etc. etc.
Does that mean she had a cold shower that morning? No, I don't believe that.


Ummm, did you consider the possibility that Maresca is suggesting that Amanda didn't shower at all on 2 November?
-
Top Profile 

Offline Lancelotti


Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:09 pm

Posts: 378

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kermit wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Maresca asks, why go to the cottage for a shower when the heating is turned off? He questions even if she had a shower because her hair looks greasy in the pics from that afternoon. etc. etc.
Does that mean she had a cold shower that morning? No, I don't believe that.


Ummm, did you consider the possibility that Maresca is suggesting that Amanda didn't shower at all on 2 November?
-


Yes, Kermit, exactly!
That's what I was thinking and that's why I asked if 'the heating off' means that she had to shower with cold water. It doesn't necessarily. But if she claims to have taken a cold shower in November, then that's suspicious I'd think.
Top Profile 

Offline Shirley


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:48 pm

Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:49 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
Shirley wrote:




The lamp is damning.


The lamp being on the wrong room, and in particular Amanda's very vague recollection of it, is certainly something to ponder about. However, I'm not sure about the prosecution's argument that they tried to break down door to retrieve it. Surely in that scenario they would have been the ones to lock the door and it would be a simple matter to then unlock the door to remove the lamp?


Good point. I also think perhaps she wasn't lying and they actually had forgotten the lamp, thus-"we didn't know the lamp was in there."
Top Profile 

Offline Kermit


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:37 am

Posts: 580

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:54 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Lancelotti wrote:
Kermit wrote:
Lancelotti wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Maresca asks, why go to the cottage for a shower when the heating is turned off? He questions even if she had a shower because her hair looks greasy in the pics from that afternoon. etc. etc.
Does that mean she had a cold shower that morning? No, I don't believe that.

Ummm, did you consider the possibility that Maresca is suggesting that Amanda didn't shower at all on 2 November?
-

Yes, Kermit, exactly!
That's what I was thinking and that's why I asked if 'the heating off' means that she had to shower with cold water. It doesn't necessarily. But if she claims to have taken a cold shower in November, then that's suspicious I'd think.


A cold shower, in an unheated house, which has a broken window letting in the cold, humid November night air (and possibly the door was open some part of the night).

As I recall, one of the problems with the initial tests to determine time-of-death, was that the police calculations based on body temperature were confusing, as they had to guess at certain environmental parameters because they weren't sure at what time the inside house temperature would have declined from "normal" indoor temperature levels for that time of year ((ie. the police would initially have to estimate the time when the window got broken and start letting in cold air, or contemplate whether the door was open all night)). (Later calculations based on the autopsy would provide a more precise timeframe).
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:56 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael, I am convinced that your interpretation of the introduction of the wild-party-rock-throwing incident is the right one. One may consciously treat the incident as pretty much irrelevant, not so bad, what's the big deal, is that the worst thing she ever did? But the idea of someone who is connected with experiences of out-of-control partying and throwing rocks will stay in people's minds and acquire a new relevance. And that, I think, was the point.

As for DLW's post about Curt and Amanda wanting to stay and find the real murderers, I have an opinion on that, too. I think people are misreading what was originally a google translation from Italian into English. I am getting used to reading people's simultaneous posts of Italian excerpts and their google translations, so I'm getting more familiar with google language. And my guess on the meaning of the excerpt given by DLW:

Quote:
Finally he explained that after the murder of his daughter Mez could go home "but said he wanted to remain in Italy to help the police to discover the author of the crime." An attitude which, in man, demonstrates the strangeness of Amanda to murder.’


probably originally said something like: 'Finally he explained that after Mez's murder, his daughter could have gone home, "but she
said she wanted to remain in Italy to help the police to discover the author of the crime." An attitude which [to him?] shows that Amanda was foreign to the murder.'

So I think there's nothing new there -- but I admit, I can't figure out what "in man" was really supposed to mean. Any ideas?
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:59 pm   Post subject: Re: Amanda calls Edda at 1247   

Lancelotti wrote:
FinnMacCool wrote:
That's what I'm expecting will probably happen, and there are many things that I think about that probable question-and-answer. But I think maybe I should wait till after she's said it, before making any other comment on it.

I am very curious what you are thinking about Finn, but I'll wait patiently for Edda to testify first. Very interesting!

Maybe she can testify that she heard the voices of two Italian men in the background. That would be helpful.:lol:


:lol:

No, I'm not expecting anything on those lines at all, Lancelotti - in fact, I don't mean to be mysterious about it, I'm just being boring and cautious.

I think the cellphone records suggest a very clear sequential line of phone calls leading up to the 112 calls, and that what we're expecting Edda Mellas to say will just confirm that sequence. We can actually hear Amanda's voice in the second 112 call, so there's no doubt that she was present for that. And the actual sequence of calls is very tight, each one seeming to follow on very closely from the previous one in a way that (at least) gives the impression that they might be connected.

So Edda says, "Hang up and call the police." Amanda puts down the phone. A minute and a half later, Raffaele calls his sister. Directly after that call, he phones 112. But Amanda wants us to believe that there's no connection between Edda's advice and Raffaele's action.

At the moment, Amanda is asking us to believe not only that she forgot about Edda saying, "Hang up and call the police," but even that she has no memory of making that call. It is no wonder that Edda was surprised that Amanda forgot about that (and we read that Edda suggested stress as the reason why her daughter might have forgotten it).

None of this would matter if there wasn't a whole bunch of evidence placing the police already at the cottage at that time. But unfortunately, there is. So it's not a good moment to get fuzzy about such a potentially crucial detail as what was the motivation to call the police.

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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:07 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

JL wrote:
The lamp being on the wrong room, and in particular Amanda's very vague recollection of it, is certainly something to ponder about. However, I'm not sure about the prosecution's argument that they tried to break down door to retrieve it. Surely in that scenario they would have been the ones to lock the door and it would be a simple matter to then unlock the door to remove the lamp?


Not if they'd gotten rid of the keys and then remembered when they were out of reach :) I don't think the prosecution are arguing that 'is' what happened in any case, I think they are more...'suggesting' it. I think their real aim is to cement a question in the minds of the judges...'What actually was the real reason they attempted to break down the door, what was really going on with that?'.

Personally, I believe the attempt wasn't serious...rather that it was simply to cause enough damage to the door to make it appear like they had 'tried' to. They put a crack in it...that door was no longer a strong door but a weak door, they were halfway there to breaking it once they got a crack in it. Breaking a door down is easy from that point, they were strong enough to put a crack in it in the first place. Why did they stop there, why do half a job?

_________________
"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 kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:21 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Havin read the some posts above, I just wanted to clarify:

When I reported Knox's questioning on her relationships with boys in Perugia before meeting RS, the (Kercher?) lawyer sounded a bit too clever for his own good.

It went something like this:

Could we talk about your ..... em .... lets call them boyfriends ..... for the want of a better word .....

- Q. When did you first sleep with Raffaele ? ..... A. first night

- Q. How many other boys did you take back to the cottage before you met Raffaele? ........ A. .. She rattles off a list of guys she took back to the house, guy from Internet place etc.

As the lawyer intended, this gives the impression that she screwed them all?, .... which she never actually said. However, the jurors would have known this and felt that it was a bit cruel and unnecesaary, everybody knows she has been painted as the new Lucrezia Borgia, but it sounded a very cheap shot.

I've seen above that Thoughtful seems to be having trouble, really getting across HOW things were said?. The script reads like a computer program, but hearing it gives it a whole new dimension (TV would be even better). Thoughful, do you agree?

Anyway, after spending many years doing penance, praying in her cell, good works etc. even Lucrezia Borgia ended up being much loved by her people
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:29 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Michael, I am convinced that your interpretation of the introduction of the wild-party-rock-throwing incident is the right one. One may consciously treat the incident as pretty much irrelevant, not so bad, what's the big deal, is that the worst thing she ever did? But the idea of someone who is connected with experiences of out-of-control partying and throwing rocks will stay in people's minds and acquire a new relevance. And that, I think, was the point.

As for DLW's post about Curt and Amanda wanting to stay and find the real murderers, I have an opinion on that, too. I think people are misreading what was originally a google translation from Italian into English. I am getting used to reading people's simultaneous posts of Italian excerpts and their google translations, so I'm getting more familiar with google language. And my guess on the meaning of the excerpt given by DLW:

Quote:
Finally he explained that after the murder of his daughter Mez could go home "but said he wanted to remain in Italy to help the police to discover the author of the crime." An attitude which, in man, demonstrates the strangeness of Amanda to murder.’


probably originally said something like: 'Finally he explained that after Mez's murder, his daughter could have gone home, "but she
said she wanted to remain in Italy to help the police to discover the author of the crime." An attitude which [to him?] shows that Amanda was foreign to the murder.'

So I think there's nothing new there -- but I admit, I can't figure out what "in man" was really supposed to mean. Any ideas?


Thoughtful, maybe you should start a new language instruction course - "Google Translations 101." ;) Candace Dempsey would probably be very grateful for your tutorship. lol.

Anyway, that makes sense about the passage. So Curt Knox will not be following in O.J.'s ridiculous footsteps after all.

That's an interesting thought about the rock-throwing stuff. Germantes and I were joking about it last night, but maybe the prosecutor really *was* trying to subliminally bring up the window-broken-with-a-rock idea. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." -----> "If a rock was thrown, she must atone." (Okay - that was really lame - lol. But the famous line from the O.J. case was caught in my head there for a moment.)

_________________
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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:38 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin wrote:
As the lawyer intended, this gives the impression that she screwed them all?, .... which she never actually said. However, the jurors would have known this and felt that it was a bit cruel and unnecesaary, everybody knows she has been painted as the new Lucrezia Borgia, but it sounded a very cheap shot.


True, but I think it goes a little beyond that. Maresca's not only demonstrated that Amanda is...rather partial to boys, shall we say, but most importantly, that she's far from adverse to taking guys she doesn't know, or doesn't know very well, back to the cottage. This is important when it comes to considering the important question of...'Why would Amanda have taken Rudy Guede, a guy she doesn't know very well, back to the cottage with her?'. The defence are arguing she hardly knew Rudy Guede as a defence. Maresca is making the point, that taking into account her past history, for her, does that 'really' matter?!

There's a subtext going on here beyond the obvious ;)

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:59 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Kevin wrote:
As the lawyer intended, this gives the impression that she screwed them all?, .... which she never actually said. However, the jurors would have known this and felt that it was a bit cruel and unnecesaary, everybody knows she has been painted as the new Lucrezia Borgia, but it sounded a very cheap shot.


True, but I think it goes a little beyond that. Maresca's not only demonstrated that Amanda is...rather partial to boys, shall we say, but most importantly, that she's far from adverse to taking guys she doesn't know, or doesn't know very well, back to the cottage. This is important when it comes to considering the important question of...'Why would Amanda have taken Rudy Guede, a guy she doesn't know very well, back to the cottage with her?'. The defence are arguing she hardly knew Rudy Guede as a defence. Maresca is making the point, that taking into account her past history, for her, does that 'really' matter?!

There's a subtext going on here beyond the obvious ;)

Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
oop-) meant as a compliment of course :lol:

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

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:04 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
JL wrote:
The lamp being on the wrong room, and in particular Amanda's very vague recollection of it, is certainly something to ponder about. However, I'm not sure about the prosecution's argument that they tried to break down door to retrieve it. Surely in that scenario they would have been the ones to lock the door and it would be a simple matter to then unlock the door to remove the lamp?


Not if they'd gotten rid of the keys and then remembered when they were out of reach :) I don't think the prosecution are arguing that 'is' what happened in any case, I think they are more...'suggesting' it. I think their real aim is to cement a question in the minds of the judges...'What actually was the real reason they attempted to break down the door, what was really going on with that?'.

Personally, I believe the attempt wasn't serious...rather that it was simply to cause enough damage to the door to make it appear like they had 'tried' to. They put a crack in it...that door was no longer a strong door but a weak door, they were halfway there to breaking it once they got a crack in it. Breaking a door down is easy from that point, they were strong enough to put a crack in it in the first place. Why did they stop there, why do half a job?


From thoughtfull's page 4 translation.

The voice in the background isn't dalla Vedova as thoughtfull suggests, logically it can only be Maresca and he's hostile to Amanda:

Quote:
Okay. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd,
if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room?

Yes.

How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith
to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this?

Certo. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena,
if that door was ever locked, and she said "No no no no, it's never, never
locked." I said "No, that's not true that it's really never locked," because
sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was
locked and she wasn't answering,
so for me it was strange, but I wanted
to explain that it wasn't impossible, that she did lock her door now and then.

But usually, you remember her door being open.

Yes it was usually open or at least...yes.

But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that
Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand.
I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

I see, she didn't explain.

[Another voice: dalla Vedova? "The pubblico ministero is asking you: okay,
you say it was not always open, not always closed, but it was a circumstance
which didn't particularly alarm you, so much so that you mentioned this to
Romanelli--" Amanda: "Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--" "Okay,
okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?"]

Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door was
locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that
she didn't answer when we called her made us think: maybe she's in there and
she isn't well or something.

[The same voice: not Mignini] For goodness' sake, still on this circumstance.
A door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't
answering me? I could just calmly think that nobody is there--

Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

--and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Enough to ruin the door by
breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not
answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left.
She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house--

No, for heaven's sake. After this, the other party [Mignini] will continue the
examination. I want to say: you find the main door open, you can think
that she left and forgot to close it, but she locked her own door. Why
should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this
is what the pubblico ministero is asking. There. If you could explain
why you were so worried, your motive for trying to break down the door.

Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because
there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what
to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but
I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if
someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there,
I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken
window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried.
So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there.
I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said
to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain
the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's
never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that....


Also remember Filomena's response in the court to the things Amanda was claiming happened whilst everyone was at the cottage

I don't think it was Amanda who wanted to knock down the door at all, it was Filomena

Sure I believe AK and RS showed the breakin to the police, the police had just arrived to talk about Meredith's phones which had just been found.

The two things would fit naturally together in the eyes of the police although they were instantly suspicious of the alleged breakin.

RS and AK may have even pointed out the fact that Meredith's door was locked but I don't think they seriously suggested to the police to break it down.

It was Filomena who wanted to break down the door when she arrived. She said Meredith never locked her door. Reading the text above it is obvious that Amanda responded that Meredith did sometimes lock her door.

But Filomena wasn't having any of it, she wanted the door opened.

When Luca went to break down the door they could see the split which indicated someone had already tried to open the door.

The prosecution with the vocal support of Maresca in the background is suggesting that the earlier attempt to break down the door was to retrieve the lamp. ISTM that AK and RS only later claimed they had tried to open the door because they thought Meredith was inside.

As Maresca says: For heaven's sake, when you knock on the door and don't get an answer you assume there is nobody home. Why on earth would you expect to find Meredith inside. She doesn't answer because she's gone out.

The whole suggestion of this questioning is that the earlier attempt to open the door was to retrieve the lamp and that AK and RS only said they were worried about Meredith after the fact to explain their earlier attempt.

It was Filomena who wanted to open the door to check on Meredith, not them.


Last edited by Brian S. on Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:08 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
Kevin wrote:
As the lawyer intended, this gives the impression that she screwed them all?, .... which she never actually said. However, the jurors would have known this and felt that it was a bit cruel and unnecesaary, everybody knows she has been painted as the new Lucrezia Borgia, but it sounded a very cheap shot.


True, but I think it goes a little beyond that. Maresca's not only demonstrated that Amanda is...rather partial to boys, shall we say, but most importantly, that she's far from adverse to taking guys she doesn't know, or doesn't know very well, back to the cottage. This is important when it comes to considering the important question of...'Why would Amanda have taken Rudy Guede, a guy she doesn't know very well, back to the cottage with her?'. The defence are arguing she hardly knew Rudy Guede as a defence. Maresca is making the point, that taking into account her past history, for her, does that 'really' matter?!

There's a subtext going on here beyond the obvious ;)

Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
oop-) meant as a compliment of course :lol:


Nicki :) Actually, when I was a child, my parents would refer to me as the 'barrack room lawyer'. But that's not important.


But, really important matter is...HOW did you get my 'cat' working??? :shock:

That's the thing with cats...they have no loyalty, they'll go off with anyone that offers them a tidbit...little mercenaries :(

_________________
"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 kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael,

Yes, thats what I hoped the questioning was heading towards .... something that would help explain that e.g. Guede could have simply seen AK outside the house, asked to use the bathroom and she would have probably let him.

I'm sure that the Italian girls in the house were worried about the 'dodgy' characters Knox brought home more from the point of view of security than from a moral standpoint. However, the ' lets call them boyfriends' sounded too 'smart arsed'.

From the point of view of getting to the truth ..... the defense could argue that someone Knox stupidly took to the house later broke in (maybe with buddies) and commited the crime.

See ... his 'cheap shot' comment has got me more open to defense arguments than I would have been before
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:20 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
nicki wrote:
Michael wrote:
Kevin wrote:
As the lawyer intended, this gives the impression that she screwed them all?, .... which she never actually said. However, the jurors would have known this and felt that it was a bit cruel and unnecesaary, everybody knows she has been painted as the new Lucrezia Borgia, but it sounded a very cheap shot.


True, but I think it goes a little beyond that. Maresca's not only demonstrated that Amanda is...rather partial to boys, shall we say, but most importantly, that she's far from adverse to taking guys she doesn't know, or doesn't know very well, back to the cottage. This is important when it comes to considering the important question of...'Why would Amanda have taken Rudy Guede, a guy she doesn't know very well, back to the cottage with her?'. The defence are arguing she hardly knew Rudy Guede as a defence. Maresca is making the point, that taking into account her past history, for her, does that 'really' matter?!

There's a subtext going on here beyond the obvious ;)

Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
oop-) meant as a compliment of course :lol:


Nicki :) Actually, when I was a child, my parents would refer to me as the 'barrack room lawyer'. But that's not important.


But, really important matter is...HOW did you get my 'cat' working??? :shock:

That's the thing with cats...they have no loyalty, they'll go off with anyone that offers them a tidbit...little mercenaries :(

Hey cats are not that way! Yiu must have neglected the poor thing and she came to visit her little friends in Italy tt-) Nicky the siamese and Telly the Aegyptian :lol:
However, I just typed mike right after the signature :)
EDIT: everytime I type mike this is what I get ...mike mike mike

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

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:25 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hi All, :)

It appears there is a new medical-legal consultant added to Sollecito's defense team.

I wonder what happened to the old scientific consultant, perhaps they didn't like his conclusions?
This is not the first time Sollecito’s defense have done this, they did the same with the computer expert that was replaced by another expert that I don’t think still around anymore.

La Nazione:
"Among the key witnesses for this weekend will be AK’s mother, Edda Mellas, to be questioned about telephone calls she had with her daughter plus the intercepted prison conversations.
As a witness also RS’ father, Francesco Sollecito (himself investigated for facilitating images of Meredith’s tortured body transmitted by Telenorba), and Dr. Francesco Introna, the legal doctor, new consultant for the defense.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Jools wrote:
Hi All, :)

It appears there is a new medical-legal consultant added to Sollecito's defense team.

I wonder what happened to the old scientific consultant, perhaps they didn't like his conclusions?
This is not the first time Sollecito’s defense have done this, they did the same with the computer expert that was replaced by another expert that I don’t think still around anymore.

La Nazione:
"Among the key witnesses for this weekend will be AK’s mother, Edda Mellas, to be questioned about telephone calls she had with her daughter plus the intercepted prison conversations.
As a witness also RS’ father, Francesco Sollecito (himself investigated for facilitating images of Meredith’s tortured body transmitted by Telenorba), and Dr. Francesco Introna, the legal doctor, new consultant for the defense.

Hi Jools,
I am afraid they are going to bring the consensual sex back... tu-)) wasn't it Solelcito's lawyers claiming on "Gente" that there weren't signs of sexual violence on Meredith's body?

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

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:46 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Papa Knox was doing Italian TV show Matrix this week.
Here Video Link to Matrix:
http://www.video.mediaset.it/mplayer.ht ... rom=matrix

I think in total there are 7 video links, you can see them a bit further down the page. They are the ones dated June 15
http://tinyurl.com/nhzled


Last edited by Jools on Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:57 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Yes, thats what I hoped the questioning was heading towards .... something that would help explain that e.g. Guede could have simply seen AK outside the house, asked to use the bathroom and she would have probably let him.

I'm sure that the Italian girls in the house were worried about the 'dodgy' characters Knox brought home more from the point of view of security than from a moral standpoint. However, the ' lets call them boyfriends' sounded too 'smart arsed'.

From the point of view of getting to the truth ..... the defense could argue that someone Knox stupidly took to the house later broke in (maybe with buddies) and commited the crime.

See ... his 'cheap shot' comment has got me more open to defense arguments than I would have been before



Yes, but I think maybe the point is being missed here. I don't think Maresca was concerned about showing that Amanda would let some guy in she doesn't know very well simply to use the bathroom...a sort of passive 'yeah okay' in order to do some small favour, but that she'd go even further then that...'initiate', as in potentially bump into him and 'invite' him back to the cottage for a specific activity.

Look...there's two strategies at play here...now, both of the sides, defence and prosecution (including the Kerchers via Maresca, have already made clear they've taken a 'position') know what the other side's strategy is, what their play is going to be. The defence are going to argue hard (and we've seen a preview of this for a long time in the blogsphere) to the judges....'Alright, the evidence may suggest, but how can this thing come to be, how can it be possible...Raffaele did not know Rudy Guede, Amanda hardly knew him...how and why would she get together with him and commit such a brutal murder with someone she hardly knew, how would they get together in the first place?'

Forget all the other shit...forget the defence trying to get this or that piece of evidence thrown out (whether they have a case or not)...the strongest argument the defence have and that on which their whole case rests is that basic question above...that is where there is the most room for doubt.

In the blogsphere, the defenders are making the right arguments in terms of what they call 'motive', but they aren't quite savvy enough to realise the distinction ...it isn't precisely down to motive..the 'why',...but the 'how'. 'How could it be these kids got together?'

What Maresca has done here, is he's exposed the 'how' is quite possible, in fact, the circumstances for creating the 'how' would not be abnormal when regarding Amanda's history. He has demonstrated that the 'how' Amanda and Rudy may have found themselves together in the cottage is in fact very much plausible, it 'fits' her behaviour. The rest takes care of itself...an escelation from their presence together combined with some spark, some event....culminating in Meredith's brutal murder. The why is no longer important when the how has been explained.

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:01 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.


Kevin,
in common day language, kids use the word "fidanzato" also for brief encounters or holidays flings e.g. I was in Ibiza for one week and I got myself a fidanzato there... when you're having multiple dates-and sex with multiple partners- you have many "fidanzati". If no sex involved, they're "amici".

_________________
"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 12:14 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:
Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
oop-) meant as a compliment of course :lol:


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?

_________________
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 12:16 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.


I wonder though, do you think she just invited these blokes round to her place for a cup of tea? It's a possibility of course, but based on other testimonies it seems it was more than case of one lump or two. Nothing wrong with that. When I was that age I was always happy to be invited back for a 'cuppa'. Normally it is not of any significance at all, but obviously the prosecution are angling towards a sort of praying mantis like creature who was seeking the ultimate experience in everything. Again - nothing wrong with that. So long as it doesn't extend to harming anyone else.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:17 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian wrote:
The prosecution with the vocal support of Maresca in the background is suggesting that the earlier attempt to break down the door was to retrieve the lamp. ISTM that AK and RS only later claimed they had tried to open the door because they thought Meredith was inside.

As Maresca says: For heaven's sake, when you knock on the door and don't get an answer you assume there is nobody home. Why on earth would you expect to find Meredith inside. She doesn't answer because she's gone out."



I agree fully with the astute point Maresca is making here. But the problem 'I' am having, is if Amanda and Raffaele really attempted to break down Meredith's door, whether it was for noble reasons....or criminal, why did they 'not' complete the task they started and actually break down the door? If the intent was to actually break down the door...why didn't they?

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:23 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

nicki wrote:
kevin wrote:
Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.


Kevin,
in common day language, kids use the word "fidanzato" also for brief encounters or holidays flings e.g. I was in Ibiza for one week and I got myself a fidanzato there... when you're having multiple dates-and sex with multiple partners- you have many "fidanzati". If no sex involved, they're "amici".



((OT OT)) Where did you go in Ibiza...did you go to any of the Bull Bars?

_________________
"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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:25 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Thanks to Michael (i think he is the translator who posted it) for the transcript,
I want however to post a possibly accurate and as literal as I can translation of the same bit:
(the "unknown voice" is the President Judge). "Per carità" means "you 're welcome" or "that's ok2 or "no problem", rather than "for God's sake".



PM. Okay. Listen, another question. Do you remember, on the morning of the 2nd,
if Raffaele tried to break down the door of the room?

AK Yes.

PM How then, when later Romanelli arrived, you said that it was normal for Meredith
to lock her door. Yet you tried to break it down. Can you explain this?

AK Sure. When the police came they asked, at least they asked Filomena,
if that door was ever locked, and she said "No no no no, it's never, never
locked." I said "No, that's not true that it's really never locked," because
sometimes it actually was locked. But for me, it was strange that it was
locked and she wasn't answering, so for me it was strange, but I wanted
to explain that it wasn't impossible, that she did lock her door now and then.

PM But usually, you remember her door being open.

AK Yes it was usually open or at least...yes.

PM But on that morning, I understand that you were said to have stated that
Meredith always locked her door. And that it was normal.

AK I never said it was always locked. It's just that they didn't understand.
I just wanted to explain that it was not always open.

PM I see, you didn't properly explain.

JUDGE "Excuse me, the pubblico ministero is asking you: okay, you say it was not always open, not always closed, but anyway it was a circumstance which didn't particularly alarm you, so much so that you mentioned this explanation to ms. Romanelli, about which, ok we could discuss it but it’s ok, but … "

AK "Yes, because Filomena was answering like that--"

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"

AK Well, I was worried because she wasn't answering. The fact that the door was locked wouldn't have alarmed me if, say, she had answered, but the fact that she didn't answer, when we the called her for example, made us think: maybe she's in there and she isn't well or something.


JUDGE Yes excuse me, that’s ok but still on this circumstance: a door is locked, locked, why should I think there is someone inside who isn't answering me? I could just more calmly think that just nobody is there--

AK Also that. But we weren't sure. Sorry--

JUDGE --and if she's not home, why should I be worried? Worried enough to ruin the door by
breaking it down? Why should I think that there is someone there who is not answering me? The simplest answer is that she left, locked the door and left. She's not answering, why call her? The door is locked, she's not there.

AK I know. But the fact that there were all these strange things in the house--

JUDGE Yes but, excuse me, it’s ok but – after this, the other party [Mignini] will continue the
Examination - I just want to say: you find the main door open, you can think that she left and forgot to close it but she locked her own door. Why should you be so worried that you try to break down her door? I think this is what the pubblico ministero sounds like asking. So, if you could explain:
the reason why you were so worried, in relation also to your knowledge, and to the fact that – isn’t it – somebody actually did try to break down the door.

AK Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because
there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what
to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but
I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if
someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there,
I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken
window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried.
So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there.
I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said
to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain
the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's
never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that....
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:30 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I misstyped omitting one word. In this question:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"

It has to be read so:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were NOT alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"
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 12:33 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
kevin wrote:
Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.


I wonder though, do you think she just invited these blokes round to her place for a cup of tea? It's a possibility of course, but based on other testimonies it seems it was more than case of one lump or two. Nothing wrong with that. When I was that age I was always happy to be invited back for a 'cuppa'. Normally it is not of any significance at all, but obviously the prosecution are angling towards a sort of praying mantis like creature who was seeking the ultimate experience in everything. Again - nothing wrong with that. So long as it doesn't extend to harming anyone else.


Yes, it's hard to know exactly *what* went on with these guys, although I suppose we can take an educated guess. ;) I think Michael's point is that maybe they were trying to show that, just in general, she was willing to invite men back to her place when she hardly knew them (thus making it more likely that she would invite Rudi to her place).

But this whole idea of dragging out her sexual/romantic history is so utterly peculiar to me. Evidence-admission standards are sooooooo different in Italy than in the U.S. Most of this stuff would almost certainly be deemed irrelevant, although I suppose *some* of the evidence might come in for the purposes that Michael suggested.

BTW: lol on "praying mantis like creature" - that is creating quite a vision in my head right now.

_________________
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 12:36 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
kevin wrote:
Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.


I wonder though, do you think she just invited these blokes round to her place for a cup of tea? It's a possibility of course, but based on other testimonies it seems it was more than case of one lump or two. Nothing wrong with that. When I was that age I was always happy to be invited back for a 'cuppa'. Normally it is not of any significance at all, but obviously the prosecution are angling towards a sort of praying mantis like creature who was seeking the ultimate experience in everything. Again - nothing wrong with that. So long as it doesn't extend to harming anyone else.


As an addendum to my previous post - by a bizarre coincidence I was listening to a song in the background that I was sort of thinking of when I mentioned about doing anything you like so long as you don't harm anyone else. The chorus of the song is almost an urging to be as hedonistic as you like -" just don't hurt nobody, unless of course they ask you". I love Andy Partridge's lyrics.


Welcome to the Garden of Earthly Delights.
Welcome to a billion Arabian nights.
This is your life and you do what you want to do,
This is your life and you spend it all.
This is your life and you do what you want to do,
Just don't hurt nobody,
And the big reward's here,
In the Garden of Earthly Delights.


Welcome to the garden of earthly delights - XTC

It's also a nod and a wink to the Wiccan Rede


An it harm none, do as ye will
Ãn it harm none, do as ye will
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
A'in it harm none, do what thou wilt.
An' it harm none, do what thou wilt.
If it harms none, do what you will.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An' it harm none, do what ye will.
Do what you will as long as it harms none



A simple philosophy, though dangerous if you don't know your own boundaries.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:40 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Thanks to Michael (i think he is the translator who posted it) for the transcript,
I want however to post a possibly accurate and as literal as I can translation of the same bit:
(the "unknown voice" is the President Judge). "Per carità" means "you 're welcome" or "that's ok2 or "no problem", rather than "for God's sake"....

Thanks Yummi :D cl-)

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:43 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:

Quote:
I misstyped omitting one word. In this question:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"

It has to be read so:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were NOT alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"


Thanks, Yummi. That makes sense to me. They are getting at what has long looked like a basic inconsistency for those of us on the outside, looking in and trying to make sense of it all. Why did RS and AK allegedly try and break the door down if it was normal for Meredith to lock it at times. Why did they think she might be inside, rather than merely out for the day? And why, when the question of the locked door came up with police, did AK imply that the locked door was not a worry when she herself later stated she and RS were so worried they tried to break it down. I admit that it is hard to make sense of this.

_________________
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 12:45 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
I misstyped omitting one word. In this question:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"

It has to be read so:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were NOT alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"


Thanks for that Yummi (and the correction - quite an important missing word :)).

That transcript to me seems to put Amanda on the back foot a bit. There is a logic within her own interpretation but it doesn't seem so strong once it's questioned by the judge, and compared to other witness statements. Do you have any thoughts yourself on that section of testimony?

_________________
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 12:47 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Justlooking: I love it!!!!!!!!! Thanks for that.

lol at "just don't hurt nobody, unless of course they ask you." ;)

And a wise caveat indeed at the end.

_________________
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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:49 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:

Quote:
I agree fully with the astute point Maresca is making here. But the problem 'I' am having, is if Amanda and Raffaele really attempted to break down Meredith's door, whether it was for noble reasons....or criminal, why did they 'not' complete the task they started and actually break down the door? If the intent was to actually break down the door...why didn't they?


Actually, the Judge (not Maresca) says:
You wanted to tell Filomena was exaggerating and that you were not so alarmed by the fact the door was locked.
But If you were nos to alarmed, why did you actually try to knock down the door?

Ak's answer sounds like: Yes I was alarmed, I just wanted to tell Filomena - and others - that I was not alarmed so much by the locked door, my concern was coming rather from other elements.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:50 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Nicki,

You are wrong !!

That is why he said the unnecessary 'let's ... call them' ... finanzati. An attempt to be ironic, which would have got peoples backs up.

Michael,

I agree that is what the prosecution must try to prove.

However, on the various blogs most people who post believe in either the innocence or guilt of these people with almost religious zeal?. Many of the posts contain contain comments with real venom in them, even when they are making perfectly good points. It just distracts from the point being made. On the blogs, that is just annoying. In the court, where it really matters, I think it is wiser to concentrate on getting to the truth?.
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 1:00 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:

However, on the various blogs most people who post believe in either the innocence or guilt of these people with almost religious zeal?. Many of the posts contain contain comments with real venom in them, even when they are making perfectly good points. It just distracts from the point being made.


Kevin, that is so true. I'm trying to theorize about why it is that this case has produced such venomous reactions from people. With the O.J. case (sorry about all the O.J. references I make, but it's the other "really big" case that made a lot of media splash, so I often think of it), it was easy to see the divisions along racial lines and fairly easy to see the how the extreme opinions developed. But in this case I don't quite understand it. Maybe that's just human nature? It kind of reminds me of U.S. presidential campaigns, when things get so completely polarized for a while. Or maybe it goes back to the whole ill-advised PR effort of the FOA group and the attempts to counter that?

_________________
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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:01 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
kevin wrote:
Michael,

Saying 'lets talk about your 'finanzati' (which of course means long term boyfriends in Italian)' sounds, as it was intended to, much worse in Italian than in English?. For me, the 'cheap shot' backfired.


I wonder though, do you think she just invited these blokes round to her place for a cup of tea? It's a possibility of course, but based on other testimonies it seems it was more than case of one lump or two. Nothing wrong with that. When I was that age I was always happy to be invited back for a 'cuppa'. Normally it is not of any significance at all, but obviously the prosecution are angling towards a sort of praying mantis like creature who was seeking the ultimate experience in everything. Again - nothing wrong with that. So long as it doesn't extend to harming anyone else.


It doesn't matter 'what' she brought them home for...it could have been for needle point, the important issue is, for whatever reason, she was happy to bring home strays. And remember her own friends' wording...that she had a thing for strays?

The difficult part for the prosecution is not the transition from their being in the house to murdering Meredith, but getting them in the house together in the first place. Maresca here has demonstrated that actually could easily have happened..was likely even...it may be abnormal for some people, but not for Amanda. The morality stuff...forget that...that's not what Maresca was going for here, some posters thought that, Amanda's lawyers thought that (probably Amanda thought that and didn't care), but that was the whole idea behind the method of his approach, that was the diversion...he mugged the defence before they could object and he got what he wanted...what he needed. Job done.

_________________
"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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:02 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

My personal thought is that Amanda was just talking too much that morning. The police just wanted an information about whether it was normal that the door was locked.
It was obviously not normal, since Amanda and Raffaele already had made an attempt to knock down the door - so it was obvious that to them, to believe their report, the situation was not normal.
But anyway Amanda wants to correct Filomena when she recalls that the door was "never" locked, an says that no, it is not "never", it looks she says this to mean: don't panick, don't be exaggerated. Now she is the one who is less concerned and less anxious. It is in fat a change of role (she was the one who attempet to brake the door) a change of the of emotional state or feeling about the situation.
Does it mean anything?
It means, they were making a chaos that morning. Amanda's behavior is of a person worried but inconsistent in her evaluation of reality, floating in the clouds.
Top Profile 

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:04 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Nicki,

You are wrong !!

That is why he said the unnecessary 'let's ... call them' ... finanzati. An attempt to be ironic, which would have got peoples backs up.

Michael,

I agree that is what the prosecution must try to prove.

However, on the various blogs most people who post believe in either the innocence or guilt of these people with almost religious zeal?. Many of the posts contain contain comments with real venom in them, even when they are making perfectly good points. It just distracts from the point being made. On the blogs, that is just annoying. In the court, where it really matters, I think it is wiser to concentrate on getting to the truth?.

Yummi wrote:
Michael wrote:

Quote:
I agree fully with the astute point Maresca is making here. But the problem 'I' am having, is if Amanda and Raffaele really attempted to break down Meredith's door, whether it was for noble reasons....or criminal, why did they 'not' complete the task they started and actually break down the door? If the intent was to actually break down the door...why didn't they?


Actually, the Judge (not Maresca) says:
You wanted to tell Filomena was exaggerating and that you were not so alarmed by the fact the door was locked.
But If you were nos to alarmed, why did you actually try to knock down the door?

Ak's answer sounds like: Yes I was alarmed, I just wanted to tell Filomena - and others - that I was not alarmed so much by the locked door, my concern was coming rather from other elements.


Kevin, first of all it is spelled FIDANZATI, and I was only making a point, unrelated to the case, that the word doesn't only mean "fiancee", or indicate a long term relationship. I don't know in which context Maresca has used it,and I agree that maybe he used it in an ironic way but not having heard the tape I don't know.

BTW you are wrong, since you appear to ignore that the word fidanzato, spelled with a D, ihas also another common usage meaning, besides the one you know.
Cheers

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


Last edited by nicki on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truthseeker wrote: Kevin wrote:

Quote:
However, on the various blogs most people who post believe in either the innocence or guilt of these people with almost religious zeal?. Many of the posts contain contain comments with real venom in them, even when they are making perfectly good points. It just distracts from the point being made.


Kevin, that is so true. I'm trying to theorize about why it is that this case has produced such venomous reactions from people. With the O.J. case (sorry about all the O.J. references I make, but it's the other "really big" case that made a lot of media splash, so I often think of it), it was easy to see the divisions along racial lines and fairly easy to see the how the extreme opinions developed. But in this case I don't quite understand it. Maybe that's just human nature? It kind of reminds me of U.S. presidential campaigns, when things get so completely polarized for a while. Or maybe it goes back to the whole ill-advised PR effort of the FOA group and the attempts to counter that?


My husband made a very astute observation last night. He said that had the blogosphere been what it is today when the OJ case was at the forefront, things would have really been passionate, polarized and over the top. So we should consider ourselves lucky.

I don't know the answer to the question, but I suspect that this case also divides people along racial lines to some extent. I will never forget some of the horrific comments on the PI blogs when Patrick Lumumba was arrested. Look no further, said many. The black guy obviously did it. Beyond the race issue, we also have a mini United Nations and, as everyone knows, things aren't always happy-happy lovey-dovey there. I also think that when the American girl next door is facing a trial in a foreign country with different legal traditions, cultural traditions, linguistic traditions, etc., you have ample opportunity for misunderstanding and disagreement.

Finally, the lunatic fringes on either extreme are people with free-floating anger that has latched on to this story and won't let go. For many of them, this has become about winning and losing, rather than about truth and justice. They think if they shout loud and long enough, they will carry the day.

I'm sure it is lots more complicated as well, but these are certainly factors.

_________________
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 1:09 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Does it mean anything?
It means, they were making a chaos that morning. Amanda's behavior is of a person worried but inconsistent in her evaluation of reality, floating in the clouds.


But as we've seen Yummi, Amanda's defense in this is that she is a natural 'floater in the clouds' :).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:11 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Thanks to Michael (i think he is the translator who posted it) for the transcript,
I want however to post a possibly accurate and as literal as I can translation of the same bit:


No..I wish. That was thoughtful with the translations :)

_________________
"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 Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:25 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I put there just a shport comment. About why there is some harsh and highly polarized debate.
One reason maybe, could be that the debate is polarized because it's ideological.
On the surface, it is about the truth and about the guilt of innocence of single people. In fact, just beyond consciousness there could be an ideologic clash. The debate might be about what justice should be, who it should seeked. How the "truth" and "guilt" should be recognized and pursued. I think it is also - in this case - about who is the one whe shall choose to identify with, who's personal "feeling" and thurst for justice is more important. Who is worth to be trusted.
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 1:28 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Truthseeker wrote: Kevin wrote:

Quote:
However, on the various blogs most people who post believe in either the innocence or guilt of these people with almost religious zeal?. Many of the posts contain contain comments with real venom in them, even when they are making perfectly good points. It just distracts from the point being made.


Kevin, that is so true. I'm trying to theorize about why it is that this case has produced such venomous reactions from people. With the O.J. case (sorry about all the O.J. references I make, but it's the other "really big" case that made a lot of media splash, so I often think of it), it was easy to see the divisions along racial lines and fairly easy to see the how the extreme opinions developed. But in this case I don't quite understand it. Maybe that's just human nature? It kind of reminds me of U.S. presidential campaigns, when things get so completely polarized for a while. Or maybe it goes back to the whole ill-advised PR effort of the FOA group and the attempts to counter that?


My husband made a very astute observation last night. He said that had the blogosphere been what it is today when the OJ case was at the forefront, things would have really been passionate, polarized and over the top. So we should consider ourselves lucky.

I don't know the answer to the question, but I suspect that this case also divides people along racial lines to some extent. I will never forget some of the horrific comments on the PI blogs when Patrick Lumumba was arrested. Look no further, said many. The black guy obviously did it. Beyond the race issue, we also have a mini United Nations and, as everyone knows, things aren't always happy-happy lovey-dovey there. I also think that when the American girl next door is facing a trial in a foreign country with different legal traditions, cultural traditions, linguistic traditions, etc., you have ample opportunity for misunderstanding and disagreement.

Finally, the lunatic fringes on either extreme are people with free-floating anger that has latched on to this story and won't let go. For many of them, this has become about winning and losing, rather than about truth and justice. They think if they shout loud and long enough, they will carry the day.

I'm sure it is lots more complicated as well, but these are certainly factors.


Excellent points as usual, Skep. And yes, I had the very same thought about the O.J. case -- the blogosphere would have spontaneously combusted with the craziness of that case.

_________________
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: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:29 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Shirley wrote:
From audio #4 (thanks Thoughtful!)

“Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith's room, a black
lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith's room, at the foot of
the bed, was it yours?

I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.

So the lamp was yours.

I suppose it was.

Was it missing from your room?

You know, I didn't look.

Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?

I don't know.”

Then from audio #5
“Now, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele
tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that
sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now,
I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn't by any chance try to break
down the door to get back the lamp we talk about?

[Amanda, in a perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn't know the lamp was in there.

You didn't know that your lamp was in there?

In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn't even
noticed it was missing. I tried--

You didn't see that it was missing?

No, I didn't see that it was missing. We tried to break down the door because
I was so worried after having seen the broken window. I basically panicked.
I was thinking, Good Lord, what's going on here? I ran downstairs to see
if anyone down there had heard anything, then I tried to see if she was inside.
She locked her door when she needed "privacy" [English]. So if she wasn't
in there but the door was locked, it seemed strange to me. Also the fact
that the window was broken worried me. Someone could have taken something.”



The lamp is damning.



I wonder where the lamp normally was in AK's room and where it was in Meredith's room. I suppose I could see not noticing a missing lamp if AK's room were in a state of complete upheaval, but I can't imagine not noticing a missing lamp otherwise. AK saying she didn't "look" is silly, unless she kept her lamp in a drawer or something. The eye scans the room, and the subconscious brain makes an inventory of everyday items and if something is missing or is out of place. I just don't believe AK wouldn't have noticed the lamp missing from her own room. Come on...and she didn't know if Meredith had the same or similar lamp. Come on...people notice these kinds of things, if someone has the same lamp as one does, two lamps of the same kind in the same house.

Also, AK's answer is a bit weird when asked if it was to retrieve the lamp that she and RS attempted to break down the door. I would have been taken aback by such a question. A better answer would have been: No, we didn't break down the door to get a lamp. We were worried about Meredith. Instead, she says: We didn't know the lamp was there. That's like asking: Did you intend to steal the money in Mrs. Brown's purse? Answer: No, we didn't know there was money in her purse. Kind of begs the question really.


Last edited by mrsdarcy on Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:30 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
...Now she is the one who is less concerned and less anxious. It is in fat a change of role (she was the one who attempet to brake the door) a change of the of emotional state or feeling about the situation.
Does it mean anything?
It means, they were making a chaos that morning. Amanda's behavior is of a person worried but inconsistent in her evaluation of reality, floating in the clouds.


Or it demonstrates that the reason she gives for the attempt by her and Raffaele to break down the door is a lie.

That they didn't attempt to break down the door because of worry for Meredith, they tried because the lamp was inside and they wanted to retrieve it.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:33 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
Michael wrote:

Quote:
I agree fully with the astute point Maresca is making here. But the problem 'I' am having, is if Amanda and Raffaele really attempted to break down Meredith's door, whether it was for noble reasons....or criminal, why did they 'not' complete the task they started and actually break down the door? If the intent was to actually break down the door...why didn't they?


Actually, the Judge (not Maresca) says:
You wanted to tell Filomena was exaggerating and that you were not so alarmed by the fact the door was locked.
But If you were nos to alarmed, why did you actually try to knock down the door?

Ak's answer sounds like: Yes I was alarmed, I just wanted to tell Filomena - and others - that I was not alarmed so much by the locked door, my concern was coming rather from other elements.


Which makes their attempt to break down the door an abnormal act. The concern is elsewhere in the cottage, due to the disarray...why then attack a point of normalcy (or at least, not abnormalcy as far as Amanda was concerned)...Meredith's door?

It seems Amanda is saying, essentially, the simple fact Meredith's door is locked...that's okay, that's normal. But suddenly, because something is wrong 'elsewhere' in the cottage, that makes breaking down meredith's door important simply because it is locked. And this, even though there are no other signs of a problem in Meredith's room (no calls for help, moans or disturbing sounds from within...or anything running under the door).

So, the question of 'why not simply assume Meredith has gone out, is not there'...very much applies.

_________________
"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 kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:35 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Truth Seeker,

Yes, the polarization is incredible, on the one side, sympathy for Meredith and her family rises to an almost lynch mob type mentality, on the other ..... well , a kind of desperate clinging to anything would prove that a pretty normal, but seemly mixed up, American kid could not possibly be involved ?.
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 1:36 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
I put there just a shport comment. About why there is some harsh and highly polarized debate.
One reason maybe, could be that the debate is polarized because it's ideological.
On the surface, it is about the truth and about the guilt of innocence of single people. In fact, just beyond consciousness there could be an ideologic clash. The debate might be about what justice should be, who it should seeked. How the "truth" and "guilt" should be recognized and pursued. I think it is also - in this case - about who is the one whe shall choose to identify with, who's personal "feeling" and thurst for justice is more important. Who is worth to be trusted.


Yes, there's most definitely the Italian-justice versus American-justice debate (which I find interesting but sometimes frustrating, because the truth of the matter is that BOTH systems are flawed --- no justice system can be perfect, unless it employs judges/jurors who are omniscient and can read minds, and even then there would be problems in trying to mete out "fair" punishment), and then there's the whole faction of people who "identify" with Amanda and think she's being railroaded and needs their support.

BTW, I'm curious about your opinion: Do you think it's pretty much likely that AK and RS will be convicted of the murder charges?

_________________
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 Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:38 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Question by mrsdarcy - I wonder where the lamp normally was and where it was in Meredith's room.





The lamp was normally on Amanda's bedside table.

It was found on the floor just inside Meredith's door. From pics we have seen it's possible the flex went under the door and the plug was in fact outside while the lamp was inside with the door locked preventing it's retrieval. However, while the position of the plug when the police opened the door is uncertain the position of the lamp on the floor just inside is a known fact.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:50 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
Yummi wrote:
Does it mean anything?
It means, they were making a chaos that morning. Amanda's behavior is of a person worried but inconsistent in her evaluation of reality, floating in the clouds.


But as we've seen Yummi, Amanda's defense in this is that she is a natural 'floater in the clouds' :).



Well...floaters come into the case, but not in that poetic manner.

_________________
"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 mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:51 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Question by mrsdarcy - I wonder where the lamp normally was and where it was in Meredith's room.





The lamp was normally on Amanda's bedside table.

It was found on the floor just inside Meredith's door. From pics we have seen it's possible the flex went under the door and the plug was in fact outside while the lamp was inside with the door locked preventing it's retrieval. However, while the position of the plug when the police opened the door is uncertain the position of the lamp on the floor just inside is a known fact.


Thank you, Brian, and now for another stupid question on my part, which I am certain you know the answer to. What kind of lock was on MK's door. Could it be locked from the inside manually and from the outside with a key? I don't quite get the whole locked door scenario because it seems odd AK and RS would have closed the door and locked it with the cord underneath and the lamp just inside the door unless they were interrupted in some way and had to get the door closed fast and locked to show they had not yet discovered Meredith's body.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:54 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin wrote:
Nicki,

You are wrong !!

That is why he said the unnecessary 'let's ... call them' ... finanzati. An attempt to be ironic, which would have got peoples backs up.

Michael,

I agree that is what the prosecution must try to prove.



Not 'prove'...all that is required is that they can demonstrate it to be quite plausible. In contrast of course, the defence are attempting to argue that it's an 'outlandish' idea. We'll be hearing much of that in the next few weeks.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:58 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Question by mrsdarcy - I wonder where the lamp normally was and where it was in Meredith's room.





The lamp was normally on Amanda's bedside table.

It was found on the floor just inside Meredith's door. From pics we have seen it's possible the flex went under the door and the plug was in fact outside while the lamp was inside with the door locked preventing it's retrieval. However, while the position of the plug when the police opened the door is uncertain the position of the lamp on the floor just inside is a known fact.


Thank you, Brian, and now for another stupid question on my part, which I am certain you know the answer to. What kind of lock was on MK's door. Could it be locked from the inside manually and from the outside with a key? I don't quite get the whole locked door scenario because it seems odd AK and RS would have closed the door and locked it with the cord underneath and the lamp just inside the door unless they were interrupted in some way and had to get the door closed fast and locked to show they had not yet discovered Meredith's body.


It could be locked from both inside or outside, but a key was required in both cases. There are pics of the lock in the PMF photo album.

_________________
"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 mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:02 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

kevin wrote:
Truth Seeker,

Yes, the polarization is incredible, on the one side, sympathy for Meredith and her family rises to an almost lynch mob type mentality, on the other ..... well , a kind of desperate clinging to anything would prove that a pretty normal, but seemly mixed up, American kid could not possibly be involved ?.


I have great sympathy for Meredith and her family and much less sympathy for AK, even if she were found to be innocent of any involvement (though I am somewhat sympathetic to her family, especially her sister) because she has acted like such a selfish dimwit throughout. Fingering an innocent man, even if one is innocent oneself, is an act of callous and self-centered disdain for the humanity of others; and absent some kind of physical torture, completely unforgiveable. She is just a stupid, very stupid girl and stupid people should know their own limitations and not try to pretend they are cosmopolitan and worldly...The Nazi comment, for example..."My people killed your people..." That's the sort of comment that just mystifies me. It shows such disregard for the enormity of some events; and while I hate political correctness, there are just some things that aren't funny, like the mass extermination of human beings...

I just don't like sociopaths, not even ones who don't commit murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jodyodyo


User avatar


Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:02 am

Posts: 257

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:03 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I wonder if the door to Meredith's room had been broken the night before? Perhaps she ran into her room to get away from the killers, to get her phone? They broke the door and got into her room. Then the next morning after cleaning they closed the door again. Later, oh-oh, they spot the cord in the hallway for AK's lamp and then try to get into the room again, but cannot. I don't know. How does this jive with the police supposedly finding Meredith's keys (and the boys keys from downstairs) in AK's room?
It is a mystery.
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:05 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Just for you mrsdarcy :D


A pic of Meredith's door lock:



It won't enlarge as it says it will because of the link I've used, but you could enlarge it in your browser.

It could only be locked and unlocked with a key.
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:08 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Brian S. wrote:
Question by mrsdarcy - I wonder where the lamp normally was and where it was in Meredith's room.





The lamp was normally on Amanda's bedside table.

It was found on the floor just inside Meredith's door. From pics we have seen it's possible the flex went under the door and the plug was in fact outside while the lamp was inside with the door locked preventing it's retrieval. However, while the position of the plug when the police opened the door is uncertain the position of the lamp on the floor just inside is a known fact.


Thank you, Brian, and now for another stupid question on my part, which I am certain you know the answer to. What kind of lock was on MK's door. Could it be locked from the inside manually and from the outside with a key? I don't quite get the whole locked door scenario because it seems odd AK and RS would have closed the door and locked it with the cord underneath and the lamp just inside the door unless they were interrupted in some way and had to get the door closed fast and locked to show they had not yet discovered Meredith's body.


It could be locked from both inside or outside, but a key was required in both cases. There are pics of the lock in the PMF photo album.



I am sure this point has been gone over ad nauseum elsewhere, so I'm sorry, and if you can direct me to the facts I would really appreciate it. Who had a key to Meredith's door besides Meredith? The locking of the door seems almost the oddest part of this whole thing, since RG (the lone killer, in AK's version) would have no reason to do so. It had to have been done by someone who was buying time...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:12 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Polarization   

Truth Seeker, Yummi,

As I said the other day, I think the an 'Anglosaxon' puritan mentality has a lot to do it. Once a position has been taken, one way or another, that is defended to the death. Anyone who doesn't go along with what a person believes to the 'politically correct' view is a heretic. The venom spouted at every opportunity, one way or the other, really says more about the 'spouter' ? . It certainly doesn't get us closer to finding out exactly what happened.

The great thing about this trial is it looks like the investigative system will get us there without to much 'Punch and Judy' style debate. The jurors are far better qualified than those in the OJ trial and on the whole the Italian mentality is incompatable with inflexible preconcieved judgements. Savonarola didn't last long did he?
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:17 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian S. wrote:
Just for you mrsdarcy :D


A pic of Meredith's door lock:



It won't enlarge as it says it will because of the link I've used, but you could enlarge it in your browser.

It could only be locked and unlocked with a key.



You make me feel so special. k-((
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:20 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
I wonder if the door to Meredith's room had been broken the night before? Perhaps she ran into her room to get away from the killers, to get her phone? They broke the door and got into her room. Then the next morning after cleaning they closed the door again. Later, oh-oh, they spot the cord in the hallway for AK's lamp and then try to get into the room again, but cannot. I don't know. How does this jive with the police supposedly finding Meredith's keys (and the boys keys from downstairs) in AK's room?
It is a mystery.


Hm, I never thought about that. Interesting. This case is starting to have more twists than Dial M for Murder.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:22 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Time to get my bits out ;)


LAMPS







Amanda's lamp, on her bedside table in her room, where it should be.





Meredith's lamp, in meredith's room, removed from her bedside table and placed on the floor next to it. This is how it was found.





The plug and cord of 'Amanda's' lamp which is in Meredith's room, coming out beneath Meredith's door.

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


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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:30 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Brian said:

"When Luca went to break down the door they could see the split which indicated someone had already tried to open the door."


I have always wondered if there weren't some possibility that the door was previously "split" with some other intention. Something that happened during the whole violent act or following through on some idea that the busted door might further connect Meredith's death to the "break in?" (Although I've mostly assumed the motive being to retrieve the lamp--AK not wanting to establish any train of thought about why her lamp is involved in the murder scene.)

dd
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:38 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Lamp   

When Knox was questioned about the lamp, I couldn't understand why she was not asked had she not seen the flex coming out from under the door and thought it strange?. Was the flex coming out from under the door at the time it was broken down?
Top Profile 

Offline Brian S.


Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:53 pm

Posts: 1115

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:51 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

jodyodyo wrote:
I wonder if the door to Meredith's room had been broken the night before? Perhaps she ran into her room to get away from the killers, to get her phone? They broke the door and got into her room. Then the next morning after cleaning they closed the door again. Later, oh-oh, they spot the cord in the hallway for AK's lamp and then try to get into the room again, but cannot. I don't know. How does this jive with the police supposedly finding Meredith's keys (and the boys keys from downstairs) in AK's room?
It is a mystery.


Carefull Jodyodyo,

Even if we believe Frank (which in this instance, I think I do, his early reporting was quite good and he did seem to have a bit of an inside line before he alienated his contacts with his change of perspective), he didn't say Meredith's keys were found in Amanda's room.

He said that the keys to the guy's flat downstairs (which Giacomo had given to Meredith) were found in Amanda's room. Maybe Meredith's keys were disposed of at the same time as her phones. Maybe there was just no way back into Meredith's room except to attempt to break down the door.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:57 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:07 am   Post subject: Michael's Picture of the HALLWAY...   

Michael,

Thanks for posting those pictures.

The hallway picture gives me chills when I zoom in on it. I don't know whether it's the odd hue to the tiles; beige with "pink" splotchy parts, is that what color they are?, or the clothes rack which Knox made reference to in her testimony this past weekend.

If I remember correctly, she said Meredith put some clothes on the clothes rack and then Amanda herself put some clothes on (or grabbed some off). In any event, it was a very busy clothes rack.

Will the old story about Raffaele possibly touching Meredith's bra while on the clothes rack resurface soon?

Knox certainly "remembers" the oddest kinds of details. sh-)))

And what happened to the clothes?

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:17 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Not that I've ever commented on Amanda's potential sociapathic condition one way or other, but perhaps it would be more politically correct to comment her on sociopathic behaviour rather then sociopathic condition :)

As for comparing the situation with Mignini? There is no comparisson. Comments on Knox have been made in regard to her quoted statements and her universally publicly observed behaviour. The supposed 'raving lunacy' of Mignini, to quote Ciolino, has never been evidenced in any way with any examples of behaviour quoted statements. In contrast to those of Knox, those statements about Mignini have simply been arbitrary statements without any attempt to support them with any kind of evidence. Apples and oranges here.

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:24 am   Post subject: Re: Michael's Picture of the HALLWAY...   

Tara wrote:
Michael,

Thanks for posting those pictures.

The hallway picture gives me chills when I zoom in on it. I don't know whether it's the odd hue to the tiles; beige with "pink" splotchy parts, is that what color they are?, or the clothes rack which Knox made reference to in her testimony this past weekend.

If I remember correctly, she said Meredith put some clothes on the clothes rack and then Amanda herself put some clothes on (or grabbed some off). In any event, it was a very busy clothes rack.

Will the old story about Raffaele possibly touching Meredith's bra while on the clothes rack resurface soon?

Knox certainly "remembers" the oddest kinds of details. sh-)))

And what happened to the clothes?


Indeed, I've actually been wondering 'what' happened to the clothes that 'were' on it at some point. If you zoom in, you can see a couple of bits of small stuff on it....not nearly enough to justify even a fraction of a washing machine load...what happened to the rest? If some bits were grabbed off of it...it was more then 'some', it was most of it. And if take 'most'...why leave the rest? It wasn't the police...were it them, they wouldn't have taken just a selection, but 'all' the clothes off of the dryer. I don't know...just that very tiny few look rather out of place to me. It looks 'odd'.

_________________
"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 Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:30 am   Post subject: Clothes Rack   

Here is the reference to the clothes rack shown in the hallway/Amandas cord & plug picture that Michael posted above.

From Thoughtful's audio translation posted June 14, 2009 at 1:29am:

"On Nov 1. That morning was the morning after Halloween. That night I was
at Raffaele's place. I went back to the house to change, get some stuff to
study. So I went to my place first, and I didn't see anyone, but for example
I saw Meredith door closed and I assumed she was sleeping. I changed, and put
some clothes that I had on the drying rack
. Also during that period of time I
started to study, and while I was doing that, I saw that Filomena came back
with her boyfriend. They asked about Meredith and I said she was still
sleeping. I help them put together a pack (parcel) for a party they were going
to that afternoon. Then they left, and that's when Meredith got up and came
out of her room. She got up, and we said "Ciao, ciao, how was Halloween? What
did you do? She still had that stuff on her face, and she said she
had been a vampire and she couldn't wash the stuff off. She asked me what I
had done. Then I started to -- ah -- Raffaele arrived then.

Lawyers' voices: can you tell us the precise time?

Let's see, it must have been around midday when she came out of her room, but
I don't look at the clock much. Anyway early afternoon. Then she went to
went to take care of some things she also had hanging on the clothes rack, and
also some things in the washing machine."

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:33 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:36 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Hi Tara. I think the hallway pic gives such chills because there is such a clash of the norm, the mundane, the banal (the household fittings...drying rack with bits of clothing...a normal scene in many a home...and everything is 'tidy') with the extreme suggested horror of the number markers...all in a completely deserted corridor, which makes for a very creepy mix. I'm sure murder squad police must often see those kind of scenes and therefore feel those chills all the time. Not a job I'd like to have very much. Of course as well, we are aware of the true horror lying behind the door.

It's when I look at these crime scene pictures that I feel the strongest need to do all I can in helping the truth come out, whatever that may be. They have quite an effect on me. Strong doses of reality are inclined to do that.

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


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

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
Time to get my bits out ;)


LAMPS







Amanda's lamp, on her bedside table in her room, where it should be.

Well, I guess the lamps do look similar. Who knows? It's really odd...I read somewhere there was an account, with drawings, of what might have transpired that evening. Does anyone know where or what this is?--because it's all pretty bewildering.




Meredith's lamp, in meredith's room, removed from her bedside table and placed on the floor next to it. This is how it was found.





The plug and cord of 'Amanda's' lamp which is in Meredith's room, coming out beneath Meredith's door.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:41 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Lamp   

kevin wrote:
When Knox was questioned about the lamp, I couldn't understand why she was not asked had she not seen the flex coming out from under the door and thought it strange?. Was the flex coming out from under the door at the time it was broken down?


Why ask that question? It would only have achieved an answer of a) yes I saw it (b) no I didn't see it

What would either of those answers have added to the solution of the Giallo?

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


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

Offline Greggy


User avatar


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Posts: 208

Location: Southern USA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:09 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ak47 – up dizzyingly close

Wasn’t she amazing? You have to admit you were impressed by her testimony.
She is so much more formidable than any of us believed behind our pipe smoke.
And so much more dangerous

I once wrote that our charming murderess couldn’t walk by a polygraph machine without it exploding. I was wrong. She would have already slept with the polygraph, before ever walking past it. Ak47 would perhaps view the associated belts and wires useful for erotic asphyxiation (sorry, DC).

Her measured testimony this last week explains so much. I thought her an amateur that ran through the rye field and off the cliff. I was wrong. Our Cynara, in her fashion, is as calculating and cunning as they come. The shifting between English and Italian to confuse the questioning was masterful. Goethe once wrote that in extremes such as good and evil, women are superior to men. He may have been right. I am beginning to think that this was not a crime of passion at all, but a well-thought out painting in shades of red (MK) and brown (RG). The problem for Ak47 is that the police have x-rayed her painting and have seen much of its under-drawing. In his closing statements, Mignini will open a window in the courtroom and the perfume of Ak47’s testimony will quickly dissipate, flowing out of the room and down a street in Perugia. Maybe the tramp, Antonio, will twitch his nose and recognize the scent while sitting on his park bench.
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:35 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Greggy wrote:

Quote:
Ak47 – up dizzyingly close

Wasn’t she amazing? You have to admit you were impressed by her testimony.
She is so much more formidable than any of us believed behind our pipe smoke.
And so much more dangerous

I once wrote that our charming murderess couldn’t walk by a polygraph machine without it exploding. I was wrong. She would have already slept with the polygraph, before ever walking past it. Ak47 would perhaps view the associated belts and wires useful for erotic asphyxiation (sorry, DC).

Her measured testimony this last week explains so much. I thought her an amateur that ran through the rye field and off the cliff. I was wrong. Our Cynara, in her fashion, is as calculating and cunning as they come. The shifting between English and Italian to confuse the questioning was masterful. Goethe once wrote that in extremes such as good and evil, women are superior to men. He may have been right. I am beginning to think that this was not a crime of passion at all, but a well-thought out painting in shades of red (MK) and brown (RG). The problem for Ak47 is that the police have x-rayed her painting and have seen much of its under-drawing. In his closing statements, Mignini will open a window in the courtroom and the perfume of Ak47’s testimony will quickly dissipate, flowing out of the room and down a street in Perugia. Maybe the tramp, Antonio, will twitch his nose and recognize the scent while sitting on his park bench.


Hi Greggy. I always enjoy your musings - so poetic! I said it last week: AK was expected to deliver a performance (just ask Curt) and she delivered. When you read it on paper, that's where it starts to come apart at the seams and you see how Oz was able to work the magic. Maybe it will just take a little "Toto" ("and Toto too?") to cut through the fog and veils.

I have heard through the grapevine, however, that AK seemed to enjoy being in the spotlight for her performance. What "actrice" would not?

_________________
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: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:37 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

MikeMCSG wrote:
jfk1191 wrote:
Principessa Etrusca wrote:
MikeMCSG wrote:
Yeah that's my impression too. I'm not sure he actually believes she's innocent (his unwillingness to have a translator in court is telling ) but can't bring himself to cut her loose. I would love to know what Mrs Knox thinks about him putting her and their daughters' futures on the line like this; she must have great faith in his judgement.


Curt is certainly a loyal parent to Amanda for being in the courtroom for her and not cutting her loose in this situation. However, I don't think his support should depend on Amanda's innocence or on his belief in her innocence, I would respect him even more if I thought he had his doubts, but was still in the courtroom for Amanda and made no comments to the media.

Is he a loyal and responsible parent to his younger children? As the things are now, he has gambled away all their future school fees.


IMO,
Its the prosecutors job to find guilt and create doubt, not the parent.

I can't imagine being in his shoes, or any parent with their child in this situation claiming their 100% innocent. And to decide between this child and that child. If you watch the film of her sisters they would want it no other way, they are 100% behind AK too. Have you watched that video? Maybe you should, and it will add your knowledge.

Shouldn't the parent go 100%, 110% behind your child to the end?

And lets not forget AK has this life long record of never having anything even remotely associated to this crime.
Actually her past shows the completely clean record; she worked, went to college, loved by her sisters..etc..etc..AK has 21 yrs of a spotless criminal record.

This is why the prosecution is digging up the "party ticket" thats paraded in the news, to dirty her image.
and thats the prosecutions job, to create doubt in the jurors mind to prove her guilty.

I disagree, I guess. I think its the Judges to be doubtful and neutral. I would think less of the parent if they doubted their own kid, especially one with a spotless background.


Hi Jfk - neither of us were strongly criticising him, you're right he's in an awful situation but he does appear to be turning a blind eye to the evidence.

With respect to the stepsisters they are a little young to be making an informed judgement on their own behalf and that gives Curt another reason to shrink from the truth. How do you explain what she's done to her sisters ?

In some ways this takes me back to the Soham case. I don't believe Ian Huntley ever told Maxine Carr he'd killed the girls- he didn't have to so why would he ? The question is did it occur to her in that fortnight before they were arrested. I think she must have had suspicions but while the bodies were undiscovered she talked herself out of doing anything while the possibility they'd turn up alive remained. I think Curt too is waiting for a last minute miracle.


I agree completely, you said it better....he's waiting for a miracle. exactly.
I commend him for believing in his daughter until the end. The ramifications are great, no doubt.

again she's had 21 years of a clean record. why shouldn't he believe in his daughter? eh?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:40 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:41 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mrs Darcy wrote:

Quote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?


I may be wrong, of course, but I don't think Mrs Darcy was making a clinical diagnosis anyway. Her considered OPINION, clarified above, seems okay to me. But what do I know? :)

_________________
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: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:46 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

mrsdarcy wrote:
jodyodyo wrote:
I wonder if the door to Meredith's room had been broken the night before? Perhaps she ran into her room to get away from the killers, to get her phone? They broke the door and got into her room. Then the next morning after cleaning they closed the door again. Later, oh-oh, they spot the cord in the hallway for AK's lamp and then try to get into the room again, but cannot. I don't know. How does this jive with the police supposedly finding Meredith's keys (and the boys keys from downstairs) in AK's room?
It is a mystery.


Hm, I never thought about that. Interesting. This case is starting to have more twists than Dial M for Murder.


thats an understatement....from the internet posters to the Judges! ..a constant mix of reconstructions.
going backwards to the earliest Nov 1 and on ...there was so many changing stories. The knife size changed, the amount of people changed, the time of death changed, and don't even get started on the stories changing!!

good point on the door being from the night before, these are thoughts that could be true.
Speaking of the door, the door handle was bloody, and I never heard any DNA was mentioned showing up from the door handle? How could this be?

I need to go read up on the forensic section..
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline jfk1191


Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:46 am

Posts: 286

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:02 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:
It's when I look at these crime scene pictures that I feel the strongest need to do all I can in helping the truth come out, whatever that may be. They have quite an effect on me. Strong doses of reality are inclined to do that.


When I start going to one side(guilty) or the other side (innocent), I try to stop and focus on Mereidth and then start all over with my train of thought. unbiased.

It always starts over with the autopsy.

If the autopsy didn't accuse 2 or 3 people, it would be another case.

I imagine the defense are obsessively focused on the autopsy.
If they could even sway to a 2 person murder, the entire case would be conflicting to all the previous stories.

They're out to state it was one person, Rudy, as I understand it.
So the defense case hinges greatly on the autopsy.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:39 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael,

The questioning was about whether or not finding Meredith's door locked was strange enough to merit alarm?. I would have thought that finding the door locked, and a flex coming out from under the door (not sure if it was plugged in) would have been even stranger? .. but she was never asked about it.
Top Profile 

Offline kevin


Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:43 pm

Posts: 139

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:04 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Sociopath   

Ferret, Mrsdarcy, Michael

OK, so Knox can't possibly be a sociopath ? Immediately after the murder she got 70 phone calls and sms messages from people who wanted to know if she was OK. After the trial, and assuming that she is found guilty, presumably a report on her mental condition will be ordered before sentencing?.

I think it is best not to call either Mignini or Knox mentally ill until we know it for a fact?. Otherwise we may as well just post comments on Perugia Shock trading insults?
Top Profile 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:09 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.



Well, sociopaths do appear to bond with people all the time; in fact, they often speak passionately of their love for others. But is this borne out by their actions? Their bonds with people are in some manner often a form of manipulation, and they have learned flattery is the way to some people's hearts. They exaggerate their affection for others as a way of winning others over and accruing fans and loyal supporters. Empathizing with oneself, rather than others, is a hallmark of the sociopath.

I have known sociopaths with criminal records, and sociopaths who are in every way able to avoid contact with the law, or charm their way out of criminal charges. It just depends. Not all sociopaths are carbon copies of other sociopaths...

I have known sociopaths who admire and idolize their friends until those friends are believed to have betrayed them in some way; and then they turn...it's scary how fast they turn.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:17 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Sociopath   

kevin wrote:
Ferret, Mrsdarcy, Michael

OK, so Knox can't possibly be a sociopath ? Immediately after the murder she got 70 phone calls and sms messages from people who wanted to know if she was OK. After the trial, and assuming that she is found guilty, presumably a report on her mental condition will be ordered before sentencing?.

I think it is best not to call either Mignini or Knox mentally ill until we know it for a fact?. Otherwise we may as well just post comments on Perugia Shock trading insults?


How is discussing AK's mental status out of bounds or inflammatory? She has been accused of the worst kind of crime and has been caught lying and attempting to frame an innocent person for the crime...If you are offended by discussions of her possible mental or personality disorders, you must be positively appalled by all of the discussion of her involvement in this astonishingly vile and brutal murder.

Do you think a person without some kind of mental pathology would behave the way AK has?

I don't know why you keep bringing up Mignini. Is he an accused murderer? Has his behavior been in any way similar to Amanda's behavior?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:30 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.



Well, sociopaths do appear to bond with people all the time; in fact, they often speak passionately of their love for others. But is this borne out by their actions? Their bonds with people are in some manner often a form of manipulation, and they have learned flattery is the way to some people's hearts. They exaggerate their affection for others as a way of winning others over and accruing fans and loyal supporters. Empathizing with oneself, rather than others, is a hallmark of the sociopath.

I have known sociopaths with criminal records, and sociopaths who are in every way able to avoid contact with the law, or charm their way out of criminal charges. It just depends. Not all sociopaths are carbon copies of other sociopaths...

I have known sociopaths who admire and idolize their friends until those friends are believed to have betrayed them in some way; and then they turn...it's scary how fast they turn.



I suggest reading what an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) entails. Sociopaths have a very difficult time maintaining friendships and relationships. They may hide under a "Mask of Sanity" but what they learn is emulation. The characteristics of an Anti Social Personality Disorder have been replicated because they have been behavorial science tested, ie they are carbon copies. For example sociopaths are big collectors of their pathologies. Serial Killers are renown for collecting mementos from each of their crimes

Not all sociopaths/psychopaths are criminals. Some sociopaths do well in the corporate world, because have some of the skills to climb and backstab up the corporate ladder. The writer, Jerzy Kosinski who pretty much plagiarized his way in the literary world was most likely a sociopath.

As I wrote before, Female sociopath/psychopaths are an incredibly rare breed. They are out there, but if a women is accused of a horrific crime, it is highly unlikely they have an Anti Social Personality Disorder. I do think Amanda Knox has a personality disorder, but she doesn't show signs of a ASPD.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:40 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.



Well, sociopaths do appear to bond with people all the time; in fact, they often speak passionately of their love for others. But is this borne out by their actions? Their bonds with people are in some manner often a form of manipulation, and they have learned flattery is the way to some people's hearts. They exaggerate their affection for others as a way of winning others over and accruing fans and loyal supporters. Empathizing with oneself, rather than others, is a hallmark of the sociopath.

I have known sociopaths with criminal records, and sociopaths who are in every way able to avoid contact with the law, or charm their way out of criminal charges. It just depends. Not all sociopaths are carbon copies of other sociopaths...

I have known sociopaths who admire and idolize their friends until those friends are believed to have betrayed them in some way; and then they turn...it's scary how fast they turn.



I suggest reading what an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) entails. Sociopaths have a very difficult time maintaining friendships and relationships. They may hide under a "Mask of Sanity" but what they learn is emulation. The characteristics of an Anti Social Personality Disorder have been replicated because they have been behavorial science tested, ie they are carbon copies. For example sociopaths are big collectors of their pathologies. Serial Killers are renown for collecting mementos from each of their crimes

Not all sociopaths/psychopaths are criminals. Some sociopaths do well in the corporate world, because have some of the skills to climb and backstab up the corporate ladder. The writer, Jerzy Kosinski who pretty much plagiarized his way in the literary world was most likely a sociopath.

As I wrote before, Female sociopath/psychopaths are an incredibly rare breed. They are out there, but if a women is accused of a horrific crime, it is highly unlikely they have an Anti Social Personality Disorder. I do think Amanda Knox has a personality disorder, but she doesn't show signs of a ASPD.



No signs of ASPD? Hm...I'm not sure we know much about her personality before she was accused of this crime, and maybe you think her behavior in its aftermath is not a good indicator. I would have to respectfully disagree...she has many of the characteristics of a sociopath...such as tendency to get bored and therefore seek new or unusual situations, constant pleasure seeking, inability to keep friends (Meredith) and or hold jobs for very long, tendency to lie when in trouble, no empathy for the pain she causes others (PL), tendency to feel victimized and to excuse her bad behavior on the grounds that other people made her do it (interrogators), inability to experience normal grief when confronted with catastrophic events (behavior in lingerie store, cartwheels in police station)...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:44 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Sociopath   

kevin wrote:
Ferret, Mrsdarcy, Michael

OK, so Knox can't possibly be a sociopath ? Immediately after the murder she got 70 phone calls and sms messages from people who wanted to know if she was OK. After the trial, and assuming that she is found guilty, presumably a report on her mental condition will be ordered before sentencing?.

I think it is best not to call either Mignini or Knox mentally ill until we know it for a fact?. Otherwise we may as well just post comments on Perugia Shock trading insults?


Having a serious behavorial problem like sociopathy doesn't mean the person has a mental illness. Sociopaths know right from wrong, and are very conscious of their actions if they are criminal in nature. I am not trying do diss cats or cat lovers, but housecats and felines are sociopaths by nature. Yes, yes, purring is one of the frauds done by the animal world, up there with crocodile tears.

Most insanity defenses fail miserably for sociopaths, because they showed they were quite aware of their criminal acts, (besides savoring them) Josef Fritzl was probably the sanest person in the courtroom during his sentencing.

For criminal sociopaths/psychopaths, there is really not much to do with them besides throw them in a room and study them. I know some psychiatrists who think there is treatment, but criminal sociopaths are just too dangerous, and they don't mind not having a conscious.

Amanda may be mentally ill, I don't know, because she needs to have a couple sessions with a psychiatrist to get a diagnosis, but it is pretty obvious she doesn't have an ASPD. I still think she does have a histrionic personality disorder or a narcissistic personality disorder.


Last edited by Ferret on Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline mrsdarcy


Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:49 pm

Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:45 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.



Well, sociopaths do appear to bond with people all the time; in fact, they often speak passionately of their love for others. But is this borne out by their actions? Their bonds with people are in some manner often a form of manipulation, and they have learned flattery is the way to some people's hearts. They exaggerate their affection for others as a way of winning others over and accruing fans and loyal supporters. Empathizing with oneself, rather than others, is a hallmark of the sociopath.

I have known sociopaths with criminal records, and sociopaths who are in every way able to avoid contact with the law, or charm their way out of criminal charges. It just depends. Not all sociopaths are carbon copies of other sociopaths...

I have known sociopaths who admire and idolize their friends until those friends are believed to have betrayed them in some way; and then they turn...it's scary how fast they turn.



I suggest reading what an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) entails. Sociopaths have a very difficult time maintaining friendships and relationships. They may hide under a "Mask of Sanity" but what they learn is emulation. The characteristics of an Anti Social Personality Disorder have been replicated because they have been behavorial science tested, ie they are carbon copies. For example sociopaths are big collectors of their pathologies. Serial Killers are renown for collecting mementos from each of their crimes

Not all sociopaths/psychopaths are criminals. Some sociopaths do well in the corporate world, because have some of the skills to climb and backstab up the corporate ladder. The writer, Jerzy Kosinski who pretty much plagiarized his way in the literary world was most likely a sociopath.

As I wrote before, Female sociopath/psychopaths are an incredibly rare breed. They are out there, but if a women is accused of a horrific crime, it is highly unlikely they have an Anti Social Personality Disorder. I do think Amanda Knox has a personality disorder, but she doesn't show signs of a ASPD.


What personality disorder or mental disorder do you think AK suffers from, by the way? I am always open to other people's ideas...
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:04 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

to the lamp question:

Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:22 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.



Well, sociopaths do appear to bond with people all the time; in fact, they often speak passionately of their love for others. But is this borne out by their actions? Their bonds with people are in some manner often a form of manipulation, and they have learned flattery is the way to some people's hearts. They exaggerate their affection for others as a way of winning others over and accruing fans and loyal supporters. Empathizing with oneself, rather than others, is a hallmark of the sociopath.

I have known sociopaths with criminal records, and sociopaths who are in every way able to avoid contact with the law, or charm their way out of criminal charges. It just depends. Not all sociopaths are carbon copies of other sociopaths...

I have known sociopaths who admire and idolize their friends until those friends are believed to have betrayed them in some way; and then they turn...it's scary how fast they turn.



I suggest reading what an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) entails. Sociopaths have a very difficult time maintaining friendships and relationships. They may hide under a "Mask of Sanity" but what they learn is emulation. The characteristics of an Anti Social Personality Disorder have been replicated because they have been behavorial science tested, ie they are carbon copies. For example sociopaths are big collectors of their pathologies. Serial Killers are renown for collecting mementos from each of their crimes

Not all sociopaths/psychopaths are criminals. Some sociopaths do well in the corporate world, because have some of the skills to climb and backstab up the corporate ladder. The writer, Jerzy Kosinski who pretty much plagiarized his way in the literary world was most likely a sociopath.

As I wrote before, Female sociopath/psychopaths are an incredibly rare breed. They are out there, but if a women is accused of a horrific crime, it is highly unlikely they have an Anti Social Personality Disorder. I do think Amanda Knox has a personality disorder, but she doesn't show signs of a ASPD.



No signs of ASPD? Hm...I'm not sure we know much about her personality before she was accused of this crime, and maybe you think her behavior in its aftermath is not a good indicator. I would have to respectfully disagree...she has many of the characteristics of a sociopath...such as tendency to get bored and therefore seek new or unusual situations, constant pleasure seeking, inability to keep friends (Meredith) and or hold jobs for very long, tendency to lie when in trouble, no empathy for the pain she causes others (PL), tendency to feel victimized and to excuse her bad behavior on the grounds that other people made her do it (interrogators), inability to experience normal grief when confronted with catastrophic events (behavior in lingerie store, cartwheels in police station)...



As I wrote, female sociopaths are incredibly rare. It doesn't mean women cannot committ horrendous crimes, but sociopathy and psychopathy are thrown around way too much or used immediately to label a suspect. You have to look at the entire person's history to see if the person has the characteristics of an ASPD. Huge identity issues and learning identity issues during adolescence like Paul Bernardo, who found out who his real father was for example. Sexual identity issues, like Jeffrey Dahlmer or Dennis Nilsen. Gender identity issues like Skylar Deleon or Ed Gein.

Getting bored can be interpreted in many ways, it doesn't mean one can judge a person a sociopath. The big clue if the person has shown signs of an ASPD that they can't or don't know how to empathize. They have a history of petty crimes. Torturing animals like the Cat Killer in Florida is a big sign. They don't show any moral scruples, like ripping off their grandmother, by changing title of her property to the sociopath and taking out a second mortage, etc. ec.

Meredith was a housemate, not really a friend to Amanda. Whether Amanda was inconsiderate or not about housekeeping, doesn't mean she had an ASPD, given I had a few housemates in college where good housekeeping was a very low priority, then again male College students aren't known for mopping and vacuuming.

I think Amanda felt grief, but it was when she was arrested. Grief is an emotion that is probably the most difficult emotion to emulate, and why it trips up suspect all the time, like Scott Peterson. Grief cannot be turned on like an on/off switch, it comes in huge uncontrollable waves. I think Amanda didn't feel grief after Meredith was murdered, because she had more pressing priorities, like hiding her own culpability in killing Meredith.

Lying is part of any human's make up. It doesn't mean lying in a serious situation is okay as Amanda did to the Carabinieri, nor am I condining lying, but Amanda was practicing more skills of self survival and hiding guilt than ASPD. Sociopaths don't feel guilt, in many ways they are proud of their crimes and how incredibly smart they are, and how they outwitted everyone. Hence the need to collect mementos. As I stated in previous posts, I think Amanda's quixotic behavior with the Carabinieri before she was arrested, was more to relieve anxiety and tension, then it was to antipathy to authority. It doesn't mean I condone it, but I think what Amanda wanted more than anything was to go back before Nov. 1st, 2007. Amanda putting the blanket over Meredith after she bled to death is a big sign of a guilty conscience.

Look, Amanda is on trial, she is going to do anything and everything to get out of tight situation she is in. She is going to lie, try to appear sympathetic, do whatever to avoid a guilty sentence. That is more of a sign of feeling desperate than the sign of an ASPD. She is going to be convicted, whatever she behavioral or mental illness she is diagnosis with.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline lane99


Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:05 pm

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:11 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Michael wrote:

Amanda hardly knew him...how and why would she get together with him and commit such a brutal murder with someone she hardly knew, how would they get together in the first place?'

...the strongest argument the defence have and that on which their whole case rests is that basic question above...that is where there is the most room for doubt....

...He has demonstrated that the 'how' Amanda and Rudy may have found themselves together in the cottage...The rest takes care of itself...an escelation from their presence together combined with some spark, some event....culminating in Meredith's brutal murder.


I think the reasoning here only holds true for those who's *starting* premise is "the evidence has ALREADY proven her guilty". But I don't think it provides a framework for anyone skeptical of her guilt because they have tremendous difficulty formulating a scenario, recognizable even to their wildest imagination, in which these three particular individuals would have acted in concert to commit this particular atrocity.

I surely don't agree it follows that because it's not particularly difficult to A) conceive of how three people possibly could get together, that it's, therefore, no *more* difficult to accept that B) any such get together could end up so malignantly.

It is "B", not "A" which is nearly impossible for many people to reconcile. And for good reason. If it DID happen like that, it will have been an abberation of immense proportion.

So it is some basis for explaining B, not A, that a motive-centric decider would rightfully require in order to be convinced.

Sometimes I do, but happily this time I'm not forgetting to say: IMO.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline daisysteiner


Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:59 pm

Posts: 490

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:38 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Curt Knox is on Radio 5 Live this morning for those in the UK. www.bbc.co.uk then follow the links to Victoria Derbyshire's page. It will be on listen again for the next couple of weeks. Those outside the UK can listen if you can find a UK based proxy to hide behind (so I understand!)
Top Profile 

Offline Principessa Etrusca


User avatar


Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:15 am

Posts: 33

Location: London

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:46 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Ferret wrote:
I think Amanda felt grief, but it was when she was arrested. Grief is an emotion that is probably the most difficult emotion to emulate, and why it trips up suspect all the time, like Scott Peterson. Grief cannot be turned on like an on/off switch, it comes in huge uncontrollable waves. I think Amanda didn't feel grief after Meredith was murdered, because she had more pressing priorities, like hiding her own culpability in killing Meredith.


I don't know about Amanda's feelings of grief. What she herself managed was to talk of her shock at Meredith's murder ("I was shocked" was her answer to a specific question about grief), but shock and grief are very different and it is obvious to most people.

An out-of-control car may miss us by inches and kill another random pedestrian, we certainly would be shocked, but we would not be grieving.

Yet, when somebody we actually know dies, we experience different degrees of grief, depending on how close we are with that person.

Following Meredith's tragic death, we have not seen Amanda behaving in any way which would suggest that she was feeling grief, i.e. she was boasting about having found the body, she was writing about being hungry and cold (the e-mail), she was parroting words "my friend" and "beautiful, clever and funny" about Meredith and that was the extent in which she ever mentioned Meredith, she was talking of "hot sex", she was doing cartwheels (which are appropriate for open spaces and convey feelings of freedom, accomplishment and happiness), she was using phrases like "my remaining room-mates" etc. She has her creative writing ambitions and has written letters, a diary and short stories. Yet nothing she has written suggests any feeling of grief.

This obvious lack of such feelings alone indicates to me that either she is a sociopath or she is the killer or she is both.
Top Profile 

Offline FinnMacCool


User avatar


Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:42 am

Posts: 299

Location: Cionn tSáile, Poblacht na hÉireann

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:47 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
My personal thought is that Amanda was just talking too much that morning. The police just wanted an information about whether it was normal that the door was locked.
It was obviously not normal, since Amanda and Raffaele already had made an attempt to knock down the door - so it was obvious that to them, to believe their report, the situation was not normal.
But anyway Amanda wants to correct Filomena when she recalls that the door was "never" locked, an says that no, it is not "never", it looks she says this to mean: don't panick, don't be exaggerated. Now she is the one who is less concerned and less anxious. It is in fat a change of role (she was the one who attempet to brake the door) a change of the of emotional state or feeling about the situation.
Does it mean anything?
It means, they were making a chaos that morning. Amanda's behavior is of a person worried but inconsistent in her evaluation of reality, floating in the clouds.


I would like to add the detail of the phone call to Edda Mellas into the mix of that analysis.

If we look at Amanda's email, she runs up from downstairs, and she finds Raffaele trying to break down the door. He fails. They then make the decision to call the police (starting with Vanessa).

If we look at what she says in the witness stand, she says something similar, but sounding like she's describing a calmer, less panicked scene, and actually doesn't mention the breaking down of the door. This is the part that is picked up by the judge in the passage that Yummi has helpfully selected and translated.

If we look at Raffaele's first witness deposition, he says something similar to Amanda's email, except that he doesn't make much mention of Amanda herself. He says he tried to break down the door, and then he himself decided to call his sister, to ask her advice.

Whichever scenario we choose to accept (and maybe we might decide we don't like any of the ones I just outlined), we have no choice but to fit into the scenario a decision by Amanda to call her mother in Seattle at 12:47:23, a call which lasts for 1 minute and 28 seconds. That's what the cellphone records show, and they show that a minute and a half after that call ends, Raffaele calls Vanessa.

We also need to explain why Amanda claims to have completely forgotten making that call. As I understand her defense, it is to say that she was stressed, and a lot of things were happening at that moment.

But actually, there aren't many things happening at that moment. She and Raffaele are standing outside Meredith's door, and he has just tried and failed to break it down. She herself is thinking, "Well, Meredith doesn't always leave her door unlocked, so maybe we've been a bit premature in trying to break it down." (Here I'm paraphrasing the line of thought she seems to explain to Filomena about twenty minutes later.)

So we don't have a lot of things happening. We have two people in an empty house, and a question mark about a door that one of them has unsuccessfully tried to break down. In this situation, Amanda calls her mother in Seattle and says (let's guess at Edda's testimony): "The first thing I want you to know is that I'm okay, but there are some strange things in the house. There's a broken window. There's some blood in the bathroom. Meredith's bedroom door is locked, and we can't get a hold of her."

And Edda says, "Hang up and call the police."

A minute and a half later, the pair of them start calling the police.

So how can Amanda forget making that call? How can she forget Edda's advice, that she herself appears to have taken? There is nothing too stressful about the scene at that point.

Okay, let's take another scenario. The police arrive. Amanda and Raffaele start to explain about the break-in, and so on. Raffaele wants to distance himself from all this, so he takes the opportunity to top up the credit on his phone. Amanda gets another call from Filomena. Raffaele gets a call from his dad. Then Filomena's boyfriend arrives, with his friend Luca. The two boys start talking to the police.

Already this situation is more stressful. There are many things happening. Let's imagine that at this point, Amanda and Raffaele go to her bedroom. Amanda decides to call her mother - maybe just for comfort or for advice. More cynical people than me might think it's because she wants another witness to her having innocently stumbled upon the crime scene.

And Edda tells her to call the police. But the police are already there. This is a cause for a small amount of panic. She has a hurried conversation with Raffaele. They have a problem - how can we call the police if they're already here? "Okay, I'll call my sister," says Raffaele. But Vanessa gives the same advice that Edda did - "Call 112 now." It's good advice, but not so much if the police are already there. So they Raffaele tries to sound calm as possible, and calls 112.

This scenario sounds very stressful. It lands them with an immediate problem, which is the timing of the 112 calls. They solve this problem by insisting that the police arrived AFTER they'd made this call. They also create another problem, a few minutes later, when they claim that Raffaele had already tried to break down the door (although this conflicts with what Amanda is saying about the locked door not being a big deal). So they solve this problem by saying that they decided to call the police after the attempt to break down the door. (The second problem, Amanda solves by saying she was just trying to be more precise about how Meredith locked her door.)

But this leaves them with another problem, which is where does the 1247 call to Edda Mellas fit into their story. And Amanda solves THIS problem by saying, "Did I make that call? I don't remember." And Edda herself (in the prison conversation) suggests that maybe Amanda was so stressed, everything was happening at once.

But everything WASN'T happening at once - at least, not in Amanda's and Raffaele's version. There were just two people in an empty house, standing outside a locked bedroom without knowing whether the occupant was in or out. And Amanda decided to call her mother.

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

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:11 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

"And Amanda solves THIS problem by saying, "Did I make that call? I don't remember." "

And if the prosecutor insists: "OK, have it your way! Lumumba called her and I covered my ears." :D
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

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

Dear Yummi,
The thing I find most difficult in doing the audio translations is figuring out who is speaking when several voices intervene. Thank you for identifying the different speakers in the passage you quoted! I cannot tell when it is the judge intervening or one of Amanda's lawyers. I have made guesses with question marks but they may well be wrong. I wonder...later, when everything is done and posted, could there be some way in which some people could go in and make additions and corrections on the text? (Michael?) That would really be great.

This said, Italian is not my first language, but English is, and I am really surprised by your remark
Quote:
"Per carità" means "you 're welcome" or "that's ok" or "no problem", rather than "for God's sake".

rather than "for goodness' sake" as I translated it. I won't swear to it, maybe I'm missing a nuance here, but it seems wrong to me. I checked in two dictionaries: one Italian-English translates it as "God forbid!" which is a stronger expression of annoyance than the mild
"for goodness' sake" and the other, Italian-French, has it as "par pitié", also an if anything slightly stronger expression of annoyance.
I definitely took it that "Per carità" did not mean "Yes, excuse me, thank you" but "could you please get on and answer this question which I have repeated three times?"

I would be grateful here if other Italian speakers could decide this one way or the other. Perhaps this is a use of "per carità" that is special and unfamiliar to me?

Also, Yummi wrote:
Quote:
I misstyped omitting one word. In this question:
"
JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"

It has to be read so:

JUDGE "Okay, okay, but this point remains: you were NOT alarmed by this fact, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito allegedly had already tried to break down the door. So?"


But that's what I had written. I wrote "Okay, okay, but it sounds like the locked door didn't alarm you, whereas in fact
Raffaele Sollecito had already tried to break down the door. So?"

Oh, I get it, now! You were not correcting a positive to a negative in my translation, you were adding the words I missed "this point remains". I understand now. In that case I'd better take this opportunity to mention that my translation is speedy and colloquial, not accurate and literal. There must be many places where little bits like that have gotten dropped. I don't think I have ever actually translated anything that has a different meaning than what was said, though. I am not saying this to defend my translation--in fact I have an ambitious plan for it to be subjected to a joint project of additions and corrections at some later stage (!!)--but just to reassure those who read Yummi's corrected version that he wasn't correcting any substantial problems of meaning. One of the main ways of improving my version would be to add in the identities of the people speaking.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:45 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Oh, and one other tiny remark on the translation. I noticed you (Yummi) translated "Ms. Romanelli" where I translated "Romanelli".
The Italian ("la Romanelli") use of the definite article in front of names is very cute and untranslatable ("How is the Nicki doing today?")
I just translated "Romanelli" because he could very well have said "signorina Romanelli" for Miss or Ms. Romanelli, and he didn't.
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:56 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Ack! I posted straight after reading Yummi's corrections and now looking back I see that Skeptical and justlooking and probably everyone else thinks that I was the one who missed out the word "NOT"! Obviously that's an important word!!!

I didn't do it! It wasn't me! posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=148#

(Cf. my post above where I thought the same thing as you, that Yummi was correcting my error, till I went back and checked my version.)

I don't want everyone to go thinking they've been reading the opposite of what was written. My unprofessional pride is wounded. Is there a meek emoticon?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:57 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

grrr--that weird red "posting" thing was supposed to my first ever emoticon -- the wailing one. Obviously my emoticon technique needs work. I just dragged it. What is one supposed to do?
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

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

OK, now everyone will get annoyed with me -- "per carità!" for posting too much, so one more remark (I'm still only in the wee hours as far as reading all the new posts) and I'll just turn off my computer.

Kevin, Nicki, you are both somehow right in your discussion about "fidanzati". Nicki is right that the word, which used to mean "fiance" of course, got progressively lowered to boyfriend and "short-term boyfriend" and any boy-girl relationship at all (I've seen Raffaele
and Amanda termed "fidanzati" and also the cute "fidanzatini" in newspaper articles). Kevin is right, though, that Maresca had a rather particular tone when he asked this question. This is one question I couldn't really translate, because he uses both words. "Let's talk about your fidanzati, your "boyfriends" as you would call them" (more or less, just from memory). And there is a kind of very, very slightly contemptuous hesitation before the word "fidanzati" as if to say "if you can even call them that". This is a fairly personal interpretation yet I think most people would agree that with his voice, he was projecting a slightly negative attitude about the boyfriends.

OK I'm getting off the board now! Sorry everyone! I've got Audio #6 done and will post it this afternoon as soon as I get a moment.
(My twins are celebrating their seventh birthday today!!! Busy afternoon for me...)
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:51 am   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
I would be grateful here if other Italian speakers could decide this one way or the other. Perhaps this is a use of "per carità" that is special and unfamiliar to me?


Literaly, "per carità" means "for sake" as the nearest meaning (carità being the "virtue" of compassion" but in general "heaven"). But its meaning depends entirely from the context. Just like other multi-role words or sayings you find in languages like "prego" or the French "truc" and so on.
Prego could mean ie. "could you repeat?" or "you're welcome", or "come on".
Per carità could sometimes mean "no, don't think of it" but in this case it mean "no problem" or "for sure": "per carità, what you say (is ok) but I was asking about that.." .. "for sure what you say (it's ok), I just was asking..." .. "no problem with that, but .."
Top Profile 

Offline Yummi


User avatar


Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:29 pm

Posts: 975

Location: Bunga-Bunga Republic

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

I was the one who made the mistake in omitting the "NOT" word.
Sorry, it was a typing error by me! Thoughtful's original was correct.

Other details: la Romanelli, well I put "Ms" just because in English there is no use of the definite article with surnames, so there would be no way to know if he/she is a male or female, I thought an english Mignini would have said to render the femininum it but that's obviously an irrelevant detail. My "correction" was about the voices of speakers (Judge) and some other expressions related to meaning.
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

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

thoughtful wrote:
Ack! I posted straight after reading Yummi's corrections and now looking back I see that Skeptical and justlooking and probably everyone else thinks that I was the one who missed out the word "NOT"! Obviously that's an important word!!!

I didn't do it! It wasn't me! posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=148#

(Cf. my post above where I thought the same thing as you, that Yummi was correcting my error, till I went back and checked my version.)

I don't want everyone to go thinking they've been reading the opposite of what was written. My unprofessional pride is wounded. Is there a meek emoticon?


Actually, thoughtful I was referring to Yummi missing out the word 'NOT' when he/she first posted and then corrected himself. You're being too hard on yourself :).

[edit] and wouldn't you know it - Yummi has just posted the clarification while I was writing this :).

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:19 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Kevin wrote:
Quote:
I've seen above that Thoughtful seems to be having trouble, really getting across HOW things were said?. The script reads like a computer program, but hearing it gives it a whole new dimension (TV would be even better). Thoughtful, do you agree?


Yes! There's SO MUCH going on in the tones that I can't really communicate. I try every now and then, just a tiny comment about Amanda's tone, say. But I really can't fill the text with this kind of commentary, and it would also be very subjective. Yet Kevin is so right about a great deal being conveyed by the different tones and voices.

For example, the way Ghirga begins his questioning on Friday. I wrote down his words "can I call her Amanda" and so forth. But his whole tone is warm and vibrating, strongly conveying something I could (subjectively) express like this: "I've known Amanda for a long time, she's such a darling, she's like my niece or something, I'm going to help you all see what a wonderful girl she is. If you knew her the way I do, you'd see right away that she could never be a murderess." If this could make sense, I'd say his voice is putting his arm around her shoulders out there in public. This lawyer is earning his salary, for sure! (By the way, is he named and paid by the state or receiving money from FOA?)

Maresca's voice is something completely different. He keeps it very even, slow, never sounding mean or aggressive, ever. But he uses this very technique against her in two ways. One is to switch topic totally from one question to another, without any warning whatsoever given by his tone. This could be very destabilizing, but Amanda is unfazed by it. The other technique is that his very slowness allows him to make little hesitations in front of certain words (like the famous "your...boyfriends") which convey a particular impression (of contempt, say, or disbelief) which is never transmitted through the words.

It's all fascinating. By the way, I have only seen the 20 minutes Corriere della Sera video of audio segment #1, but some people on here seem to be referring to having seen other parts? Are there other videos? I'd be very interested to see them all!
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:23 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
grrr--that weird red "posting" thing was supposed to my first ever emoticon -- the wailing one. Obviously my emoticon technique needs work. I just dragged it. What is one supposed to do?


Thoughtful, pick the emoticon you want to use and just left click on it....no dragging required :)

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:30 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Yummi wrote:
thoughtful wrote:

Quote:
I would be grateful here if other Italian speakers could decide this one way or the other. Perhaps this is a use of "per carità" that is special and unfamiliar to me?


Literaly, "per carità" means "for sake" as the nearest meaning (carità being the "virtue" of compassion" but in general "heaven"). But its meaning depends entirely from the context. Just like other multi-role words or sayings you find in languages like "prego" or the French "truc" and so on.
Prego could mean ie. "could you repeat?" or "you're welcome", or "come on".
Per carità could sometimes mean "no, don't think of it" but in this case it mean "no problem" or "for sure": "per carità, what you say (is ok) but I was asking about that.." .. "for sure what you say (it's ok), I just was asking..." .. "no problem with that, but .."


A bit like the English term 'excuse me' Yummi? Where 'excuse me' can be a question, an apology, a rebuke, a request etc, all depending on the tone or context in which it's used.

_________________
"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 bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:33 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
(From the Kate Mansey interview of Nov 3 afternoon:)
"Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots."



Interesting, here also Raffaele tells the natural reaction.
Top Profile 

Offline Catnip


User avatar


Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:08 am

Posts: 2997

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

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:45 pm   Post subject: Teaching the parrot   

Patrick and Filomena are on the same wavelength about Amanda, I think.


Patrick:
Quote:

“I spent ages telling the investigators that Amanda was lying, she’s an actress, but it’s taken over half a year before they would believe me. Today she’s faced them, and she’s still lying.”

“Justice is what is needed,” emphasised the Congolese outside the court room of the Perugia Court of Assizes. “You shouldn’t play around like this. I have faith in everyone who has come to court, the detectives and forensics. You can’t insinuate doubt just because she wants to play at actressing”.

Lumumba quotes a Bantu proverb: “If you teach a parrot to talk, it could insult you”.

His lawyer Pacelli, needless to say, is a bit more technical: “Amanda’s slander against Patrick has been amply evidenced”. According to him, in the declarations put on record by the lovely <Foxie>, “there are items, dates and facts that only someone who was in via della Pergola could have known. Like Meredith’s scream, which the police only came to know about many weeks after the homicide. How could Amanda have come to know that Mez had screamed?”

[Giornale] 14 June 2009
[AGI] 13 June 2009
[ADN Kronos] 13 June 2009




Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:58 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Quote:
If the rock was thrown, she must atone.


Splendid -- but wrong! If the rock was thrown (from the outside, at least) then Rudy was the lone wolf burglar:

"If the rock was thrown, he did it alone."

But we find that hard to believe.

"They put the rock, that's why they're in the dock."

Still, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"If that is shown, they must atone."

wa-))
Top Profile 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Oh gosh, with all that frivolity, I forgot the real subject of my post: towels. I wonder why no one has asked Amanda these questions that were troubling me: Did she habitually keep her towel in her room and have to remember to bring it to the bathroom each time she took a shower? If so, since she is obviously a very forgetful person, didn't she regularly forget it? Didn't that mean she had to traipse back to her room naked, even when there were other people in the house? Isn't it more likely that she just kept her towel in the bathroom in general? But in that case, does the absence of towels having anything to do with Rudy taking them to Meredith's room?
Top Profile 

Offline Hungarian


Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:40 am

Posts: 155

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:02 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

bolint wrote:
Quote:
(From the Kate Mansey interview of Nov 3 afternoon:)
"Raffaele said: "When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

"But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That's when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn't want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots."



Interesting, here also Raffaele tells the natural reaction.


Without any shower.
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 1:20 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Quote:
If the rock was thrown, she must atone.


Splendid -- but wrong! If the rock was thrown (from the outside, at least) then Rudy was the lone wolf burglar:

"If the rock was thrown, he did it alone."

But we find that hard to believe.

"They put the rock, that's why they're in the dock."

Still, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"If that is shown, they must atone."

wa-))


lol. I see you've improved your emoticon skills there Thoughtful! That "wailing" emoticon cracks. me. up. Here is another that never fails to make me laugh: c-))

_________________
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 1:31 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Principessa Etrusca wrote:
Ferret wrote:
I think Amanda felt grief, but it was when she was arrested. Grief is an emotion that is probably the most difficult emotion to emulate, and why it trips up suspect all the time, like Scott Peterson. Grief cannot be turned on like an on/off switch, it comes in huge uncontrollable waves. I think Amanda didn't feel grief after Meredith was murdered, because she had more pressing priorities, like hiding her own culpability in killing Meredith.


I don't know about Amanda's feelings of grief. What she herself managed was to talk of her shock at Meredith's murder ("I was shocked" was her answer to a specific question about grief), but shock and grief are very different and it is obvious to most people.

An out-of-control car may miss us by inches and kill another random pedestrian, we certainly would be shocked, but we would not be grieving.

Yet, when somebody we actually know dies, we experience different degrees of grief, depending on how close we are with that person.

Following Meredith's tragic death, we have not seen Amanda behaving in any way which would suggest that she was feeling grief, i.e. she was boasting about having found the body, she was writing about being hungry and cold (the e-mail), she was parroting words "my friend" and "beautiful, clever and funny" about Meredith and that was the extent in which she ever mentioned Meredith, she was talking of "hot sex", she was doing cartwheels (which are appropriate for open spaces and convey feelings of freedom, accomplishment and happiness), she was using phrases like "my remaining room-mates" etc. She has her creative writing ambitions and has written letters, a diary and short stories. Yet nothing she has written suggests any feeling of grief.

This obvious lack of such feelings alone indicates to me that either she is a sociopath or she is the killer or she is both.


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 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 kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:39 pm   Post subject: Bush derangement Syndrome   

Someone on this site posted on another site that the Europeans stopped liking the U.S. in 2004 because the U.S. elected GWB. George Bush has nothing to do with this case. Neither does O'bama. Do the European's like the U.S. now? It does not matter with this case. All that matters are the facts. I bvelieve the accused are guilty. It has nothing to do with who I voted for in 2004. I just look at the facts. You people with Bush Derangement Syndrome must get a life. Imagine brining George Bush into this case. P.S., thank God that Ketchup guy did not get elected President, LOL.
Top Profile 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

lane99 wrote:
Michael wrote:

Amanda hardly knew him...how and why would she get together with him and commit such a brutal murder with someone she hardly knew, how would they get together in the first place?'

...the strongest argument the defence have and that on which their whole case rests is that basic question above...that is where there is the most room for doubt....

...He has demonstrated that the 'how' Amanda and Rudy may have found themselves together in the cottage...The rest takes care of itself...an escelation from their presence together combined with some spark, some event....culminating in Meredith's brutal murder.


I think the reasoning here only holds true for those who's *starting* premise is "the evidence has ALREADY proven her guilty". But I don't think it provides a framework for anyone skeptical of her guilt because they have tremendous difficulty formulating a scenario, recognizable even to their wildest imagination, in which these three particular individuals would have acted in concert to commit this particular atrocity.

I surely don't agree it follows that because it's not particularly difficult to A) conceive of how three people possibly could get together, that it's, therefore, no *more* difficult to accept that B) any such get together could end up so malignantly.

It is "B", not "A" which is nearly impossible for many people to reconcile. And for good reason. If it DID happen like that, it will have been an abberation of immense proportion.

So it is some basis for explaining B, not A, that a motive-centric decider would rightfully require in order to be convinced.

Sometimes I do, but happily this time I'm not forgetting to say: IMO.



Well, the reasoning IS coming from the prosecution and those that sympathise wth their postion (Maresca), so of course that's their premise, the requirement in fact...Raffaele and Amanda wouldn't be on trial were it not. And, their position is actually born of the 'eveidence'.

'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'. 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...where a group of people who once together can do an extreme thing they never would do as lone individuals, is a well documented mechanism. 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.

_________________
"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 gungadin


Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:11 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:45 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I really hope this does not get turned into a book for the sake of Meridith's poor family.
This has polarised people indeed.. I for one have never been so interested in a case or the outcome... really hoping and wishing that the truth comes out and justice is served.
I really think all three are guilty. I am not sure why Guede has not, or does not just come out and say what happenned. He's in the slammer anyway.. why would he keep quiet for the other two?

What happenned to the Albanian wittness who saw the three of them from behind the dumpster he bumped into?

HOw is there not more dna evidence.. marks from AK and Potter. If the cleaned it up with bleach or whatever... why was there no sign of that at the scene.. surely they would be able to detect that?

What day's of the week does the trial run?

Sorry if q's already been addressed.

Cheers.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Curt Knox told the BBC Italian police had coerced statements from daughter Amanda, 21, during interrogation.

But Mr Knox said he was also concerned about the impact of prejudicial media coverage on the judge and jury. - BBC

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


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

Offline Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:00 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

gungadin wrote:
I really hope this does not get turned into a book for the sake of Meridith's poor family.
This has polarised people indeed.. I for one have never been so interested in a case or the outcome... really hoping and wishing that the truth comes out and justice is served.
I really think all three are guilty. I am not sure why Guede has not, or does not just come out and say what happenned. He's in the slammer anyway.. why would he keep quiet for the other two?

What happenned to the Albanian wittness who saw the three of them from behind the dumpster he bumped into?

HOw is there not more dna evidence.. marks from AK and Potter. If the cleaned it up with bleach or whatever... why was there no sign of that at the scene.. surely they would be able to detect that?

What day's of the week does the trial run?

Sorry if q's already been addressed.

Cheers.


Hi Gungadin,

Well, The Albanian has already given his testimony in the trial. As for Guede...it's a strategy to keep quiet at the moment. he has his appeal trial to come, which will be after AK's and RS's trial has been completed. I think the idea is, that he and his defence team forsee their conviction. If that happenes, in his appeal, he can simply say...'look, it was them...they did it while I was in the bathroom.' His goal is to try and get off completely, not simply reduce his sentence or even set the record straight.

As for the bleach....that would have been shown up by the luminol. The problem is, applying luminol can damage other forensic evidence, so luminol is on of the last forensic acts. The Italians have a crime scene for a lot longer then we would in the US or UK say (the cottage was sealed for well over a year) so they didn't need to rush in putting down the luminol...it was actually applied weeks after the first forensic sweep, being laid down in the second. Bleach dissipates after a few days/several weeks (depending on concentration, amount applied etc,), so the bleach would have been gone by the time the luminol was applied.

_________________
"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 Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:10 pm   Post subject: Curt Knox on the Matrix Program   

Jools wrote:
Papa Knox was doing Italian TV show Matrix this week.
Here Video Link to Matrix:
http://www.video.mediaset.it/mplayer.ht ... rom=matrix

I think in total there are 7 video links, you can see them a bit further down the page. They are the ones dated June 15
http://tinyurl.com/nhzled


Jools! th-)

I just finished watching all of this video. I HIGHLY recommend watching this, even if you don't understand Italian. The looks that Curt Knox gives the other guests are quite remarkable - brings to mind the saying "if looks could kill".

Also, Candace Dempsey gets a chance to promote her book in a very quick street interview. I noticed that when Candace described the courtroom scene on her blog, she stated this:

"In any case, you probably know as much as the reporters now as the sound quality was bad and sometimes it was hard for us to catch her words, even though she spoke slowly and clearly. "

I may be mistaken, but isn't that Candace Dempsey sitting just 3 rows behind Mignini in the courtroom video shown where Comodi is asking Knox about her phone calls to her mother? How could Candace not hear what's being said? nnn-))

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline bolint


Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:04 pm

Posts: 1251

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:14 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Amanda's father has recently told that the legal costs are nearing the 7 digit range.
Assume conservatively $750.000. That means at least 40.000 dollars per month during these 18 months.

On the other hand he says that there is no evidence, the prosecution has no case.
Then why is he giving this huge sum to the lawyers and experts?
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:36 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

OT)))))) Kredsox wrote:

Quote:
Someone on this site posted on another site that the Europeans stopped liking the U.S. in 2004 because the U.S. elected GWB. George Bush has nothing to do with this case. Neither does O'bama. Do the European's like the U.S. now? It does not matter with this case. All that matters are the facts. I bvelieve the accused are guilty. It has nothing to do with who I voted for in 2004. I just look at the facts. You people with Bush Derangement Syndrome must get a life. Imagine brining George Bush into this case. P.S., thank God that Ketchup guy did not get elected President, LOL.


Why don't you send me a PM, Kredsox, and we can discuss what I actually wrote and not your version of it here? This is not the subject of our board. I was living in Europe in 2004 and had been living there for nearly 20 years when Bush was re-elected. It came as a huge shock to many Europeans, in France and elsewhere. Nobody had forgotten the contested election in 2000 and it was by then evident that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a failure on many levels, politically unpopular in Europe, and based on the false premise (or lie, take your pick) that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction.

In Paris, Harry's Bar does a straw pole for each US Presidential election. Amazingly, the result is nearly always right. It has been wrong on two occasions, or something like that. In 2004, it was wrong. That's how convinced Americans in Paris were of Bush's repudiation by the American people. In 2001, after 9/11, sympathy for America and even for Bush was high. In the words of Nicole Bacharin, which were used as a headline in Le Monde, Nous sommes tous américains aujourd'hui (we are all Americans today). As an observer working in political and financial spheres, I can tell you that this immense goodwill was totally frittered away in a relatively short period of time.

This is what I was alluding to in my post, made on another website. If you take issue with it, I would be happy to discuss the matter with you privately. But not on this board. The subject here is the murder of Meredith Kercher and the current trial taking place in Perugia. It remains true that, on a very general level, sentiment in Europe turned increasingly against the US during the period I referred to. My impression after the 2004 election was that Europeans did not understand how Bush got elected and, as a result, shrugged their shoulders as if to say "decidedly, we just don't understand Americans". These are generalizations, naturally. Individual opinions may vary. I am sorry if I have offended your political sensibilities or anyone else's. I am only expressing my personal views, but I stand by them.

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

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:39 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Bolint wrote:

Quote:
Amanda's father has recently told that the legal costs are nearing the 7 digit range.
Assume conservatively $750.000. That means at least 40.000 dollars per month during these 18 months.

On the other hand he says that there is no evidence, the prosecution has no case.
Then why is he giving this huge sum to the lawyers and experts?


A recent article that appeared briefly in The Daily Mail (to confirm) before getting pulled put the figure at close to a million dollars. That's a big chunk of change, for sure.

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

Offline disinterested


User avatar


Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm

Posts: 236

Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:40 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I know Amanda is doing very well in her fluent Italian, but I for one am sick of hearing her say "Mamma Mia" every time she wants to express her dismay at how much she's been misinterpreted or something's been just too bleargh for her sensitive soul. Unless she's Meryl Streep or ABBA or someone theatrical, it just sounds a little cheesy to me. Do modern day Italians go around saying Mamma Mia! all the time. Maybe Nicki would know. (I guess it does help her cut back on the bad girl expletives...) I'm sure she also says woo-HOO though, when she feels more cheery. Or Hop la!!

Sorry to complain. Just makes me irritable. sh-)))
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:55 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Principessa Etrusca wrote:
Ferret wrote:
I think Amanda felt grief, but it was when she was arrested. Grief is an emotion that is probably the most difficult emotion to emulate, and why it trips up suspect all the time, like Scott Peterson. Grief cannot be turned on like an on/off switch, it comes in huge uncontrollable waves. I think Amanda didn't feel grief after Meredith was murdered, because she had more pressing priorities, like hiding her own culpability in killing Meredith.


I don't know about Amanda's feelings of grief. What she herself managed was to talk of her shock at Meredith's murder ("I was shocked" was her answer to a specific question about grief), but shock and grief are very different and it is obvious to most people.

An out-of-control car may miss us by inches and kill another random pedestrian, we certainly would be shocked, but we would not be grieving.

Yet, when somebody we actually know dies, we experience different degrees of grief, depending on how close we are with that person.


Following Meredith's tragic death, we have not seen Amanda behaving in any way which would suggest that she was feeling grief, i.e. she was boasting about having found the body, she was writing about being hungry and cold (the e-mail), she was parroting words "my friend" and "beautiful, clever and funny" about Meredith and that was the extent in which she ever mentioned Meredith, she was talking of "hot sex", she was doing cartwheels (which are appropriate for open spaces and convey feelings of freedom, accomplishment and happiness), she was using phrases like "my remaining room-mates" etc. She has her creative writing ambitions and has written letters, a diary and short stories. Yet nothing she has written suggests any feeling of grief.

This obvious lack of such feelings alone indicates to me that either she is a sociopath or she is the killer or she is both.



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.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:04 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

mrsdarcy wrote:
Ferret wrote:
mrsdarcy wrote:
kevin wrote:
Mrsdarcy,

Has Knox been seen by a doctor and been pronounced a Sociopath ?. If she has, then I've not seen it. If she hasn't, then don't you think that calling her one is just as bad as saying Mignini is mentally unstable?


Well, I think I have seen enough of life to recognize some of the hallmarks of socipathy. Not that I couldn't be wrong, of course, and not knowing AK personally is a real disadvantage. I have personally known a few sociopaths, although they were never diagnosed as such by a psychiatrist. It's difficult to officially diagnose mental disorders of unknown congenital origin and which are not scientifically verifiable...not like diagnosing strep throat or a heart condition. There is plenty of artistry involved in the field of psychiatry, but I think some of AK's characteristics and behaviors are straight out of the book, as it were, when it comes to sociopathic behavior.


I have seen no evidence (of the accurate kind, anyway) to suggest Mignini is mentally unstable...have you?



Female sociopaths/psychopaths are incredibly rare. They are like the 1% of the 1% of population in a country that is estimated to have an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Most women who are looked upon to be psychopaths, like Karla Homolka or Myra Hindley suffer from hybristophilia. They are very few and far between. One sociopath who did committed murder on 12th Ave Norteast in Seattle, If I remember correctly was Ted Bundy, when he murdered a UW student who lived in a lower floor apartment complex. around NE 43rd St, but I have to look it up..

Amanda Knox is not a sociopath. Sociopath can only emulate emotion, they can't really feel empathy. An inanimate object or person registered the same feeling. She most likely stabbed Meredith in the throat out of panic, to keep her quiet rather than deliberate act to murder her.. Even though she may have wacky bonds with people, she could bond with people, and she could empathize. Even though the person it seems she empathize the most was herself.

The Cat killer in Florida, is a prime candidate of being a sociopath. Ditto with the Craiglist killer in Boston. Why sociopaths killers are so difficult to catch, they don't show any emotion or trauma after their killing, and can go back to their daily routine without much of a worry.

Female criminal sociopaths will show themselves, because they can't hide some of their pathologies. A woman who is most likely a sociopath is Sante Kimes, who killed a couple people with the help of her son in the late 1990s. She has rap sheet that can fill a couple volume that has been going on since the 1950s.

Amanda may be many things, a likely convicted murderer, reckless, selfish, but she doesn't have an ASPD ie she isn't a psychopath/sociopath.



Well, sociopaths do appear to bond with people all the time; in fact, they often speak passionately of their love for others. But is this borne out by their actions? Their bonds with people are in some manner often a form of manipulation, and they have learned flattery is the way to some people's hearts. They exaggerate their affection for others as a way of winning others over and accruing fans and loyal supporters. Empathizing with oneself, rather than others, is a hallmark of the sociopath.

I have known sociopaths with criminal records, and sociopaths who are in every way able to avoid contact with the law, or charm their way out of criminal charges. It just depends. Not all sociopaths are carbon copies of other sociopaths...

I have known sociopaths who admire and idolize their friends until those friends are believed to have betrayed them in some way; and then they turn...it's scary how fast they turn.


FURTHERMORE...
It may seem like a miniscule number (only 1% of the population)
BUT- In the U.S.,
Female sociopaths are thought to make up 65 percent of the populace in women's prisons.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:04 pm   Post subject: Blearch   

disinterested wrote:
I know Amanda is doing very well in her fluent Italian, but I for one am sick of hearing her say "Mamma Mia" every time she wants to express her dismay at how much she's been misinterpreted or something's been just too bleargh for her sensitive soul. Unless she's Meryl Streep or ABBA or someone theatrical, it just sounds a little cheesy to me. Do modern day Italians go around saying Mamma Mia! all the time. Maybe Nicki would know. (I guess it does help her cut back on the bad girl expletives...) I'm sure she also says woo-HOO though, when she feels more cheery. Or Hop la!!

Sorry to complain. Just makes me irritable. sh-)))


I agree wholeheartedly. In the Matrix program that Jools linked to, the courtroom video was shown of Knox describing Meredith's death where she used the "bleargh" word.

Watching her say this, combined with the body language and facial expressions associated with her lack of true horror and grief over the situation was revolting to me.

What was she thinking? Absolutely unbelievable and shocking. tu-))

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:24 pm   Post subject: Audio #3   

Thoughtful's video translation:

"Yes. I was worried that somehow she was inside and had hurt herself, because
there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what
to think. But at the same time, she could have been inside or not, but
I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if
someone was in there, or if she went out because there was something in there
,
I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked together with the broken
window had me very worried, I didn't know what to think, but I was worried.
So I wanted to knock the door down to see if there was something in there.
I didn't know what. But at the same time it worried me. And when I said
to Filomena "It's not true that it's never locked," I only wanted to explain
the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's
never locked," and that wasn't true. I wanted to explain that."

Finn MacCool's video translation of the same from IW's posted on June 17, 2009 at 6:02am:

"Amanda:
Yes. Well, I was worried that somehow she might be inside and had hurt herself, because there were so many strange things in the house, and so I didn't know what to think. But at the same time, whether or not she was inside, I wanted to be sure, because if she had hurt herself in some way, or if someone else was in there, or if she had gone out because there was somebody in there, I didn't know. And the fact that the door was locked, combined with the broken window made me very worried. I didn't know what to think, but I was worried. So I wanted to break down the door to see if there was something in there. I didn't know what it could be. But at the same time I was worried. And when I said to Filomena "It's not true that the door is never locked," I was only trying to explain the truth of the situation. Because someone was saying "No, no, it's NEVER locked," and that wasn't true. I was just trying to explain that fact."



Does anyone else find it odd that not once does Knox use Meredith's name? It's almost as if she just can't say "Meredith"!

Additionally, what is the "something", "somebody", "it", or "someone" that Knox thinks could be behind the locked door?

I can't wrap my thoughts around this explanation. h-))

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~


Last edited by Tara on Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Ferret


User avatar


Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:21 am

Posts: 101

Location: Hidden Hills, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

The 411 wrote:

FURTHERMORE...
It may seem like a miniscule number (only 1% of the population)
BUT- In the U.S.,
Female sociopaths are thought to make up 65 percent of the populace in women's prisons.


Cite?
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline observer


Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Posts: 178

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:37 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Ferret wrote:
As I repeatedly stated, female sociopaths are a very rare find.


Ferret, was going to ask you to cite for this statement. Also, what does "very rare" translate to?
Top Profile 

Offline The 411


User avatar


Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:49 pm

Posts: 1386

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:48 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 - Knox a sociopath ?   

Ferret wrote:
The 411 wrote:

FURTHERMORE...
It may seem like a miniscule number (only 1% of the population)
BUT- In the U.S.,
Female sociopaths are thought to make up 65 percent of the populace in women's prisons.


Cite?


For you, I am happy to ferret out that info.

"Antisocial personality disorder appears in 3.6 percent of the adult US population, or approximately 7.6 million people. The condition appears to be more common in men than women, although this may be because the male sociopath is more likely to receive a diagnosis.Sociopaths and psychopaths make up a high percentage of inmates in US prisons. An estimated eighty percent of male inmates have antisocial personality disorder. Female sociopaths are thought to make up 65 percent of the populace in women's prisons."
READ MORE HERE...
http://www.psychiatric-disorders.com/ar ... social.php
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:58 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Bolint wrote:

Quote:
Amanda's father has recently told that the legal costs are nearing the 7 digit range.
Assume conservatively $750.000. That means at least 40.000 dollars per month during these 18 months.

On the other hand he says that there is no evidence, the prosecution has no case.
Then why is he giving this huge sum to the lawyers and experts?


A recent article that appeared briefly in The Daily Mail (to confirm) before getting pulled put the figure at close to a million dollars. That's a big chunk of change, for sure.



How much is legal costs and how much is leeched off by the PR gurus and media propagandists. Legal and travel costs I can have sympathy for but the Knox-Mellas clan reached straight for the pr campaign which has been so insulting to the police, prosecutors, the family of Meredith Kercher, all of Italy and anybody with the temerity to question the innocence of the saint. If the costs are mounting, ditch the pr. It's been a disaster anyhow. But they wont. They seem to view it as an essential weapon. To me that says something about their view of where a trial without undue influence will end up.
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:02 pm   Post subject: Re: Curt Knox on the Matrix Program   

Tara wrote:
Jools wrote:
Papa Knox was doing Italian TV show Matrix this week.
Here Video Link to Matrix:
http://www.video.mediaset.it/mplayer.ht ... rom=matrix

I think in total there are 7 video links, you can see them a bit further down the page. They are the ones dated June 15
http://tinyurl.com/nhzled


Jools! th-)

I just finished watching all of this video. I HIGHLY recommend watching this, even if you don't understand Italian. The looks that Curt Knox gives the other guests are quite remarkable - brings to mind the saying "if looks could kill".

Also, Candace Dempsey gets a chance to promote her book in a very quick street interview. I noticed that when Candace described the courtroom scene on her blog, she stated this:

"In any case, you probably know as much as the reporters now as the sound quality was bad and sometimes it was hard for us to catch her words, even though she spoke slowly and clearly. "

I may be mistaken, but isn't that Candace Dempsey sitting just 3 rows behind Mignini in the courtroom video shown where Comodi is asking Knox about her phone calls to her mother? How could Candace not hear what's being said? nnn-))




I forgot to note in my original post that Curt Knox states that Amanda IS still enrolled at the University of Washington in an Italian language course and a German language course. I was under the impression she was no longer enrolled.

Also, he says that Chris Mellas has played a big role in being there in Italy for Amanda. I wrongly assumed that Curt Knox would NOT approve of Chris Mellas' behavior. This proves that theory as being wrong! I guess I wanted to give Curt Knox the benefit of the doubt...

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline Skeptical Bystander


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:36 pm

Posts: 7006

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:07 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mutley wrote:

Quote:
Skeptical Bystander wrote:
Bolint wrote:


Quote:
Amanda's father has recently told that the legal costs are nearing the 7 digit range.
Assume conservatively $750.000. That means at least 40.000 dollars per month during these 18 months.

On the other hand he says that there is no evidence, the prosecution has no case.
Then why is he giving this huge sum to the lawyers and experts?


A recent article that appeared briefly in The Daily Mail (to confirm) before getting pulled put the figure at close to a million dollars. That's a big chunk of change, for sure.



How much is legal costs and how much is leeched off by the PR gurus and media propagandists. Legal and travel costs I can have sympathy for but the Knox-Mellas clan reached straight for the pr campaign which has been so insulting to the police, prosecutors, the family of Meredith Kercher, all of Italy and anybody with the temerity to question the innocence of the saint. If the costs are mounting, ditch the pr. It's been a disaster anyhow. But they wont. They seem to view it as an essential weapon. To me that says something about their view of where a trial without undue influence will end up.


Good point, Mutley. In fact, I believe the PR costs alone total 1 million USD, so that figure given by Curt Knox would be in addition. This needs to be confirmed, of course.

I think they are operating from the American assumption that spin is just one of the necessary costs of doing business. It is truly a shame, especially when viewed in relation to the result achieved. I doubt even the most powerful libel lawyer could ever show what percentage of the negative image and publicity are due to the early reports of the tabloids and what percentage is due to the aggressive and yet overly obvious attempts by Marriott to control the message. A big part of the negative image and publicity is a reaction to this effort.

_________________
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: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:08 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Tara wrote:
"Also, Candace Dempsey gets a chance to promote her book in a very quick street interview."

Time to add a subtitle to her planned book, something like: "Second-guessing defense strategy"
Top Profile 

Offline pentredwr


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:29 pm

Posts: 66

Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:24 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

I googled psychopathy and found this list.

Dr. Robert D. Hare is a researcher renowned in the field of criminal psychology.

Robert Hare's Checklist and other mental disorders

Factor1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Conning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Factor2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle"

Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Promiscuous sexual behavior
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release
Traits not correlated with either factor

Many short-term marital relationships
Criminal versatility

_________________
"Commit a crime, and the Earth is made of glass" Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Top Profile E-mail 

Offline thoughtful


User avatar


Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm

Posts: 1225

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:35 pm   Post subject: Mamma mia!   

Hi Disinterested!
I have to say that although Amanda's repetitions of "Mamma mia" sound a bit fake and a bit coached, on the other hand Italian is a foreign language for her and it's easily noticeable that she has quite a limited vocabulary, and limited means for expressing any strong feelings. She therefore uses the few expressions that she has repeatedly, too repeatedly, but I think that's the reason. She adds the strong "issimo" ending to words very frequently, for example, there were "tantissimi" (terribly many) police officers in the room at her interrogation, or at such-and-such a moment she was "scioccatissima" (terribly shocked). She does this too often and you can feel that she is pushing at the limits of her knowledge of the language, having continual recourse to a limited number of expressions. The lawyers are sometimes a bit annoyed with this. "Tantissimi poliziotti." "Yes, but how many? How many? What does that word mean to you? Three? Five? Ten? What do you mean?"

Perhaps she would have expressed herself differently in English, but from the video, it seems she felt the flow was being interrupted by the necessity for translation, which was destabilizing her a bit. It looked that way.
Top Profile 

Offline kredsox


Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:57 pm   Post subject: media in U.S. does not speak for everyone   

The Media in the U.S. does not speak for everyone. I am appalled at the coverage of this case by the U.S. media. They obviously are biased for some reason, against the prosecution and for the defense. I must confess I am the opposite. I believe the accused are guilty based on all the evidence and their behavior. Making up lies did them in for me. Also changing their story several times. Reasonable people would agree. However, we are 300,000,000 million people strong in the U.S. and a few bought off journalists don't speak for all of us. These Europeans who are following the case should realize that Americans do not march in lock step with each other over everything. In fact, we are very diverse. We have many varying opinions. Please do not think that these so called reporters speak for me. As far as I am concerned, the accused are guilty as charged. You would have to be really blind not to see this. I would say at times, our criminal justice system in the U.S. sometimes loses it's reasonableness. For instance, is it really reasonable to believe an innocent person would falsely accuse another innocent person? Get real. Innocent people have no lies to tell. They only have the truth.
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:05 pm   Post subject: Re: Curt Knox on the Matrix Program   

Tara wrote:
Jools wrote:
Papa Knox was doing Italian TV show Matrix this week.
Here Video Link to Matrix:
http://www.video.mediaset.it/mplayer.ht ... rom=matrix

I think in total there are 7 video links, you can see them a bit further down the page. They are the ones dated June 15
http://tinyurl.com/nhzled


Jools! th-)

I just finished watching all of this video. I HIGHLY recommend watching this, even if you don't understand Italian. The looks that Curt Knox gives the other guests are quite remarkable - brings to mind the saying "if looks could kill".

Also, Candace Dempsey gets a chance to promote her book in a very quick street interview. I noticed that when Candace described the courtroom scene on her blog, she stated this:

"In any case, you probably know as much as the reporters now as the sound quality was bad and sometimes it was hard for us to catch her words, even though she spoke slowly and clearly. "

I may be mistaken, but isn't that Candace Dempsey sitting just 3 rows behind Mignini in the courtroom video shown where Comodi is asking Knox about her phone calls to her mother? How could Candace not hear what's being said? nnn-))



I watched the interview with Kurt Knox, and you could clearly see the stress and strain he is under. I found his explanation for the use of a PR company a bit odd though. Basically he says that they needed to hire a PR company in order to keep the press away from his door. If that's the case then I think it's been a bit of a disaster. I suspect that without the publicity generated by this PR company (and appearing on programs like this) they would be under a lot less scrutiny than he Amanda and FOA are facing now. He would probably be a lot less out of pocket too.

It's also a bit unwise (in my opinion) complaining about the 'character assassination' from the media. Unless the Italian legal system selects those they convict via a phone in a 'Britain (or US) Got Talent' format then all he needs to concern himself about is how the judges and jury find her and the evidence. Blaming the media (and I suppose 'the blogosphere' like here) is simply deflecting attention from the real questions.

As for his reactions to the other speakers - I can't say I blame him! Sitting there while a number of people pull apart the character of your daughter can't have been nice. Maybe another example of how the PR campaign is getting in the way of whatever positive message they are trying to promote...

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline justlooking


User avatar


Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:45 pm

Posts: 314

Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:21 pm   Post subject: Re: Audio #3   

Tara wrote:
Does anyone else find it odd that not once does Knox use Meredith's name? It's almost as if she just can't say "Meredith"!

Additionally, what is the "something", "somebody", "it", or "someone" that Knox thinks could be behind the locked door?

I can't wrap my thoughts around this explanation. h-))


Well, if we approach that question assuming a position of guilt on the part of Amanda, then that would appear to be a classic way of disassociating herself from the tragedy. It's much easier to cope if you can dehumanize your victim, in that case by referring to your 'good friend' in the third person singular, or at the time of the murder by covering up Meredith with the duvet. It's been mentioned a number of times how difficult it appears for Amanda to show any empathy to anyone else in this tragedy. Goodness knows there are enough people to show it to - Patrick and the Kercher family, but on every occasion when the opportunity arose she neglected to do that. I'm not getting into an argument about sociopathy as I'm no expert, but certainly a lot of the traits associated with that disorder can be applied to Amanda it seems.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:23 pm   Post subject: Sky News   

Here's a SKY NEWS REPORT by Nick Pisa (who was also a guest on the Matrix program) about the Matrix program.

Curt Knox quoted as saying:

Quote:
He said: ''When this happened, we asked her if she wanted to come home but she said she wanted to stay and help the police catch the person responsible for this terrible crime.


This story of Amanda "wanting to help the police" is hard to believe, we've discussed it many times, yet Mr. Knox still believes it's true. I doubt the police were going to let her go anywhere - as in "don't leave town in case we need to ask you some additional questions" type of thing.

Amanda herself says something to this effect in her email home sent Sunday, November 4, 2007:

Quote:
i then bought some
underwear because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a
while as well as enter my house.

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
Top Profile 

Offline stint7


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:07 pm

Posts: 1582

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:26 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Concerning the discussion of Curt Knox's annoying constant whining about his "near 7 figure" expenditure for Amanda's defense so far, these points come to my mind:

(1) Mr Knox made the personal choice to spend this amount by engaging PR Marriot, PI Ciolino, as well as other image makers, investigators, frequent travel, accommodations, etc,etc,etc, in addition to the Italian Legal Team.
(2) He made this choice on his own free will without confusing imagination with reality, without (his talking point) 14 hour coercion, and without any head slaps resulting in fear induced, irrational revelations.
(3) Possibly he made this choice because he took definite notice when the well connected, affluent, influential Father of Amanda's co-defendant made the immortal but certainly insulting statement about how things work in Italy during his advice to his distraught son....."Money can make water run uphill" (paraphrased, and not verbatim).
Top Profile 

Offline skywatcher


Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:47 pm

Posts: 3

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:02 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Reading all this about the locked door made me wonder: how would Amanda know Meredith locked her door occasionally? She might have seen Meredith use a key, but was Amanda right there every time Meredith left the cottage?

The way you know a closed door is not just closed, but is locked, is by trying the handle and finding it so.

When Meredith was out, did Amanda try to open her door and find it locked?
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 7:11 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

skywatcher wrote:
Reading all this about the locked door made me wonder: how would Amanda know Meredith locked her door occasionally? She might have seen Meredith use a key, but was Amanda right there every time Meredith left the cottage?

The way you know a closed door is not just closed, but is locked, is by trying the handle and finding it so.

When Meredith was out, did Amanda try to open her door and find it locked?


It's a good question. Maybe she saw Mez lock it when she was going out. It's odd that her other roommate took the opposite view though. No doubt it's just one of those odd coincidences whereby the door being locked suited Amanda's version of events.

I was thinking about where the key to Meredith's room had gone. As far as I'm aware it's never been reported as found. A likely scenario is that the door was locked after the cleanup and the key was disposed of along with the mobile phones. Unfortunately, they forgot to remove Amanda's lamp from the room and so tried to force entry to retrieve it. No doubt one of a thousand permutations, but the missing key does puzzle me.

_________________
Paul
Top Profile 

Offline Tara


User avatar


Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 pm

Posts: 1010

Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:17 pm   Post subject: Audio #4 Translation   

Details, details! sh-)))

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?

_________________
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything” ~Mark Twain~
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 7:23 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

thoughtful wrote:
Oh gosh, with all that frivolity, I forgot the real subject of my post: towels. I wonder why no one has asked Amanda these questions that were troubling me: Did she habitually keep her towel in her room and have to remember to bring it to the bathroom each time she took a shower? If so, since she is obviously a very forgetful person, didn't she regularly forget it? Didn't that mean she had to traipse back to her room naked, even when there were other people in the house? Isn't it more likely that she just kept her towel in the bathroom in general? But in that case, does the absence of towels having anything to do with Rudy taking them to Meredith's room?


Ah yes, I remember your towel theories, Thoughtful. Somehow Amanda strikes me as someone who wouldn't mind traipsing back to her room naked, even when there were other people in the house.
:lol:

But anyway, if she's a lazy type of person in general --- someone who tends to let inertia take over --- I can see her habitually forgetting to take her towel back to the bathroom after she returns to her room from a shower, or habitually forgetting to bring the towel with her when she goes to shower. So maybe the absence of her towel in the bathroom was normal. I agree that it would have been an interesting line of questioning, though.

_________________
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 Michael

Site Admin


User avatar


Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:06 pm

Posts: 16732

Location: England

Highscores: 113

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:24 pm   Post subject: Shower   

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.

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


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

Offline nicki

Forensics Moderator


User avatar


Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am

Posts: 847

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

disinterested wrote:
I know Amanda is doing very well in her fluent Italian, but I for one am sick of hearing her say "Mamma Mia" every time she wants to express her dismay at how much she's been misinterpreted or something's been just too bleargh for her sensitive soul. Unless she's Meryl Streep or ABBA or someone theatrical, it just sounds a little cheesy to me. Do modern day Italians go around saying Mamma Mia! all the time. Maybe Nicki would know. (I guess it does help her cut back on the bad girl expletives...) I'm sure she also says woo-HOO though, when she feels more cheery. Or Hop la!!

Sorry to complain. Just makes me irritable. sh-)))

Hi Disinterested,
I share your irritation, Italian don't go around saying "Mamma Mia" every 5 minutes :lol:
Knox has been defined "theatrical" by the Italian press...too many Mamma Mias and talking with her hands perhaps? Mua-)

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


Last edited by nicki on Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Jools


User avatar


Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 pm

Posts: 2241

Location: Spain

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:42 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

justlooking wrote:
skywatcher wrote:
Reading all this about the locked door made me wonder: how would Amanda know Meredith locked her door occasionally? She might have seen Meredith use a key, but was Amanda right there every time Meredith left the cottage?

The way you know a closed door is not just closed, but is locked, is by trying the handle and finding it so.

When Meredith was out, did Amanda try to open her door and find it locked?


It's a good question. Maybe she saw Mez lock it when she was going out. It's odd that her other roommate took the opposite view though. No doubt it's just one of those odd coincidences whereby the door being locked suited Amanda's version of events.

I was thinking about where the key to Meredith's room had gone. As far as I'm aware it's never been reported as found. A likely scenario is that the door was locked after the cleanup and the key was disposed of along with the mobile phones. Unfortunately, they forgot to remove Amanda's lamp from the room and so tried to force entry to retrieve it. No doubt one of a thousand permutations, but the missing key does puzzle me.


Indeed also odd is why try to knock the door down, why not try to use the handle which they never did as they were no prints found there.
Top Profile 

Offline Mutley


User avatar


Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:38 pm

Posts: 71

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:56 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

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


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. wa-)) wa-)) wa-))

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. c-)) 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. p-))
Top Profile 

Offline petafly


Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:08 pm

Posts: 278

Location: Switzerland/Germany

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:05 pm   Post subject: Re: Audio #4 Translation   

Tara wrote:
Details, details! sh-)))

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?

Hi Tara,
very good point. Not only did she lie here, she also played the fool. The poor little Amanda who didn't understand the italian boys. "I had no idea, they talked sooooo fast, Mamma mia!" Mio Padre Pio!

Her knowledge of the empty house and the possibilities/opportunities of this fact is absolutely critical in this case. This murder could not have happen on another date. I'm sure Girgha told her, if they ask you something about this, play the dumb, little girl and gesticulate like a juggler...


Last edited by petafly on Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top Profile 

Offline Truth Seeker


User avatar


Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:26 am

Posts: 405

Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:15 pm   Post subject: Re: IX. MAIN DISCUSSION, May 22 -   

Mutley wrote:
Truth Seeker wrote:
nicki wrote:
Hi Michael,
very subtle indeed...you should be a lawyer
oop-) meant as a compliment of course :lol:


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. wa-)) wa-)) wa-))

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. c-)) 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. p-))


Mutley: :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 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 11 of 12 [ 2985 posts ]
Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next


Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

  

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


28,914,470 Views